Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, November 01, 2020

You may have heard the terms "Cultural Marxism," "Critical Theory" or "Frankfurt School" bandied about. And while you might have an intuitive approximation of what these terms mean for America in the 21st century, there's a good chance that you don't know much about the deep theory, where the ideology comes from and what it has planned for America " and the world.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The underlying theory here is a variant of Marxism, pioneered by early-20th-century Italian Marxist politician and linguist Antonio Gramsci. Gramscian Marxism is a radical departure from Classical Marxism. One does not need to endorse the Classical Marxism of Marx, Engels and others to appreciate the significant differences between the two. He is easily the most influential thinker that you have never heard of.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Snowflake.

#1 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-11-01 09:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Imagine the typical 21st century "conservative " reading this article out loud

Having a group of yokels read a paragraph each we make for great comedy

#2 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2020-11-01 09:07 AM | Reply

POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

I'll consider that the Left has a variant of Marxism after you concede that Trumpism is a variant of fascism.

#3 | Posted by Zed at 2020-11-01 09:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#3 "Variant?"

#4 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-11-01 09:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#3 ^^^ Critical Theory at Work

#5 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2020-11-01 02:18 PM | Reply

Cultural Marxism is a made up, stupid phrase

#6 | Posted by hamburglar at 2020-11-01 10:16 PM | Reply

#5^^^ Non-Critical Thinking at Work.

#7 | Posted by YAV at 2020-11-01 10:20 PM | Reply

I was wondering WTF is this site?
I love this explanation:

rationalwiki.org

#8 | Posted by YAV at 2020-11-01 10:25 PM | Reply

"You may have heard the terms "Cultural Marxism," "Critical Theory" or "Frankfurt School" bandied about."

Only from Trumpers -- and occasionally obsessed Libertarians.

I never heard of any of these things until kooks here like Andrea, a mattress started offering them up as "explanations" of why Liberals come in two flavors:

Communist Nazis and Nazi Communists.

It's all grist for the Right Wing Trump mill.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-11-01 10:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"All News Pipeline or ANP is a conspiracy theorist news site. It was founded in July 2014 by Stefan Mark Stanford (aka Live Free or Die) and Susan Duclos,[1] two contributors to Before It's News, who thought BIN was too soft on reporting the truth about everything (though they still occasionally post to BIN as well).

Nearly every one of their rants features Alex Jones, and many contain grammatical errors. Its articles are sufficiently wacky that many people cry Poe, but it seems that it is in fact entirely sincere."

Thanks, Yav

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2020-11-01 10:51 PM | Reply

Helium is so right!

I love both Marx and Lennon!!

Groucho Marx and John Lennon.

#11 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-11-02 11:23 AM | Reply

What an interesting article.

I always thought the term "cultural Marxism" was a bit silly. There is no meaningful connective tissue between culture and economics.

But Marx was always more philosopher than economist, so I can see what Gramsci may have been trying to build on. It reminds me of the Norman Mailer quote: "America will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist country without even knowing it happened. But, with socialism having been an abject failure worldwide, the US is more likely to become authoritarian corporatist if anything. Still calling themselves socialists, of course, even if every project they sponsor is underwritten by capitalist activity.

#12 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-02 03:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"but under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist country without even knowing it happened."

When will workers be taking over the means of production? Or does the definition not matter anymore, as long as the conclusion fits your predetermination?

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-11-02 03:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#13 The only time workers take over the means of production are when the are sole proprietors, you know small business people, those are the socialists.

#14 | Posted by bored at 2020-11-03 12:50 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"When will workers be taking over the means of production? Or does the definition not matter anymore, as long as the conclusion fits your predetermination?"

Norman Mailer mad this quote in 1944, during a time period when "Social Democracies" were still being run by men wearing swastika armbands. Back when socialism was a war against the bourgeoise that would enable to end of capitalism. A few years later that war began playing out across much of the world, only ending 47 years later.

I am in violent agreement with you. There are no socialists left. That experiment ended in an abysmal failure. What you have left is people who call themselves socialists, but don't seem to understand that they're 100% funded and supported by capitalists. In other words, stupid people.

#15 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-03 12:58 AM | Reply

"The only time workers take over the means of production are when the are sole proprietors, you know small business people, those are the socialists."

They don't take over the means of production, they create them.

Big distinction.

Socialism was never about "let's build something together," but rather "let's steal what others have already built."

#16 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-03 12:59 AM | Reply

"Back when socialism was a war against the bourgeoise that would enable to end of capitalism."

Well, they certainly lost THAT war.

"Socialism was never about "let's build something together," but rather "let's steal what others have already built.""

Huh??? Which industries have the Socialists suggested stealing? FFS, even "socialized" medicine is still capitalistic; the only change is the paymaster.

"What you have left is people who call themselves socialists"

They can call themselves Martians, so what? That doesn't mean it's suddenly "socialism". Definitions have meanings.

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-11-03 01:12 AM | Reply

Citizens of democratic socialist countries consistently rate themselves as the happiest people on Earth.

Hell, right there were Madbomber is, people work less, earn more, and vacation several weeks a year more than Americans.

The worn out RW meme equating 'socialist' with 'communist' instead of 'democratic socialism' is as dishonest as it gets!

#18 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2020-11-03 02:40 AM | Reply

Hell, right there where Madbomber is (in Germany), people work less, earn more, and vacation several weeks a year more than Americans.

#19 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2020-11-03 02:41 AM | Reply

@ RUssiaRat, I don't think that phrase means what you think it does.

#20 | Posted by a_monson at 2020-11-03 07:58 AM | Reply

"Huh??? Which industries have the Socialists suggested stealing?"

Socialism is characterized by one of two things, either workers owning the means of production themselves, of the government owning the means of production and managing it on their behalf. There is no version of socialism that is funded by capitalism, and capitalism cannot exist (legally) in a socialist society. On the other hand, people could willingly operate an enterprise on socialist principles, where the workers themselves own the business. It's been done a few times, but the model doesn't offer anything to talent or innovation outside the firm. So there are limits to how successful a company like that can be.

"They can call themselves Martians, so what? That doesn't mean it's suddenly "socialism". Definitions have meanings."

100% agree. I'm going to school Americanunity on that fact in just a second.

#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-03 02:21 PM | Reply

"Citizens of democratic socialist countries consistently rate themselves as the happiest people on Earth."

No, citizens of social democracies consistently rate themselves the happiest people on earth. But every economic achievement in those countries is 100% due to capitalism. You can start a business in Germany, or Denmark, or Sweden. They would love it. You wouldn't be able to start a business in a socialist country, at least not one of your own.

"The worn out RW meme equating 'socialist' with 'communist' instead of 'democratic socialism' is as dishonest as it gets!"

The worn out meme is equating social democracy with socialism. Social democracy would be as incompatible with socialism as any other capitalist-driven system. I don't know if you're trying to be contrarian, or just don't know what the ---- you are talking about.

As a side, since I'm providing you with w free education, communism was the bridge Marx proposed between industrialized capitalist societies and socialism. It was intended to enable socialism. Through force, because Marx understood that if there was a democratic element, the most valuable people would opt out, and socialism would fail.

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-03 02:30 PM | Reply

"There is no version of socialism that (isn't) funded by capitalism"

Except, of course, for all the socialistic portions of our capitalistic society.

ps: I hope my edit was correct, and reflects what you meant.

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-11-03 02:34 PM | Reply

"Except, of course, for all the socialistic portions of our capitalistic society."

Such as?

Is there some segment of society where the workers have been handed the means of production by federal or state government? I'm not aware of anything like that.

The closest thing I can point to is the defense industry, which is heavily managed by the federal government. But even then, the defense industry wouldn't exist in socialist society. Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon...all these companies are capitalist. They're owned by shareholders.

But if you have an example of some sort of socialist, state enabled enterprise I'm all ears.

#24 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-03 02:51 PM | Reply

"Such as?"

Well, according to your definition, roads, fire & police protection, and libraries, to name a few; basically, anything the federal, state or local government runs.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-11-03 02:57 PM | Reply

"Well, according to your definition, roads, fire & police protection, and libraries, to name a few; basically, anything the federal, state or local government runs."

According to my definition?

Go ahead and bow out now, princess.

Each and every service or organization you mentioned is brought to the people of the US, 100%, by capitalism.

I'm a military officer. My paycheck comes from the government. They collect money through taxes. Those taxes are pulled from incomes earned as a function of capitalism.

Neither myself or any of the others you mentioned would be receiving a paycheck if it weren't for capitalism. Fact.

#26 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-03 03:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

And you're not an idiot Dan. You know this is true.

Why are you trying hard to be Snoofy?

#27 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-03 03:30 PM | Reply

"Each and every service or organization you mentioned is brought to the people of the US, 100%, by capitalism."

That's why I stated they're socialistic aspects of our capitalistic society.

"I'm a military officer. My paycheck comes from the government. They collect money through taxes. Those taxes are pulled from incomes earned as a function of capitalism."

I've already said as much. But a standing army is a socialistic aspect, in that the government runs it.

Socialism is characterized by one of two things, either workers owning the means of production themselves, of the government owning the means of production and managing it on their behalf.

Wouldn't you state "the government" is managing the military on behalf of the populace?

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-11-03 03:44 PM | Reply

Wouldn't you state "the government" is managing the military on behalf of the populace?

#28 | Posted by Danforth

I'll say it.

The answer is no.

Military Industrial Complex.

See "Eisenhower" for further clarification.

#29 | Posted by billy_boy at 2020-11-03 09:26 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort