Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

"Cultural Marxism"

The Right uses “Marxism” to describe everything from LGBTQ rights to corporate diversity measures. It’s a deeply confused definition. But it’s not wrong about one thing: Marxists do indeed want to dismantle all forms of oppression.

The American right’s long tradition of red-baiting has always involved branding any kind of efforts at progressive social change, from the mild liberal variety to the genuinely radical, as socialist or communist. One of the most conspiratorial forms of this idea — with roots in the Nazis’ antisemitic theory of “Judeo-Bolshevism” — goes under the name “cultural Marxism.” That’s the theory that Jewish leftists fleeing Nazi Germany, including Frankfurt School theorists, plotted to subtly indoctrinate Americans in Marxist ideology, which they intentionally and surreptitiously rebranded in less-scary “cultural” forms like feminism and black liberation.

In other words, radical Jewish immigrant professors are behind all the movements for greater civil rights and social equality, which are actually a secret vehicle for the imposition of Soviet-style communism in the United States. There’s no evidence to back up this conspiracy theory, but that hasn’t interfered with its staying power. The cultural Marxist is just too attractive to the Right, tying together many of its favorite bogeymen into a neat story. The theory might not possess the mythology of the QAnon universe, but its utility for right-wing ideologues has kept it in play for the better part of a century.
SW-User Best Comment
What all the right-wingers complaining about "wokeism" won't admit is that they ultimately don't just have a problem with modern performative identity politics, they fundamentally take issue with civil rights on a basic level. They are the people who would've opposed civil rights legislation 60 years ago. The intent is the same: preserve the power structures that ensure that certain people are always at the top and other people know their place. Anyone trying to upset that particular definition of order is by default a chaotic, disruptive agent of Marxism/communism/Judaism, etc. The "cabal" explanation absolves them of having to consider that these impulses might come from the people. They always claim to speak for "the people", the "moral majority". They think the majority of people want total abortion bans, book bans, and trans youth treated like shit. Put this stuff to vote and you get a very different result, even in some conservative areas (see the recent vote on an abortion ban in Kansas). [i]Actually[/i] being "populist" would be a problem. But that's not what it's ever been about.
wonkywinky · 51-55, M
@SW-User Most decent normal people still the majority thankfully definitely do not like all the sudden rush towards the acceptance of sexual deviancy as normal.Thank God.
Gloomy · F
@wonkywinky You make a lot of subjective value judgments especially when calling something "sexual deviancy"
Do you argue under a christian moral framework and how do you know a majority agrees with you? Do you have statistics?
SW-User
@wonkywinky Yeah, well, most of it is a long time coming and far from “sudden”. I fully support the normalization of homosexuality and trans identity. Trans identity will take longer to accept, but homosexuality is treated mostly as a non-issue where I live. So I dare say it’s been successful.

Jackaloftheazuresand · 26-30, M
Just like a marxist to spread the idea that it's just an antisemitic conspiracy. The thing is the lady behind that idea follows a line of guilt by association and conflates too much to be taken seriously.

So of course you'd try to make people think it's not happening because if people are aware of it then it fails. Ain't nobody got to be Jewish to be following Frankfurt logic and to be a cultural marxist, that's the cover you want to put on it to protect yourself.
@Jackaloftheazuresand Alright, so you were lying.

If you mean that someone can lie but accidentally tell the truth, sure. But that's not what happened. The Nazis were objectively wrong about Marxism, the Bolsheviks, and the idea that gender nonconformity turns people into Marxists. Seriously, that last part is so fucking ridiculous, I felt silly just typing it out.
Jackaloftheazuresand · 26-30, M
@BohemianBoo I get to keep watching you enjoy your willful ignorance. I'm sure you can answer yourself anyway and you don't need me to tell you.

Going back to the Nazis to justify binning a different idea. Pathetic
@Jackaloftheazuresand I legit have no idea what you're talking about.

[quote]Going back to the Nazis to justify binning a different idea.[/quote]

I'm especially lost here.
Gloomy · F
@SW-User
Was Karl Marx an anti-Semite?

It is true that Karl Marx uses anti-Jewish stereotypes in his essay published in 1844. However, it is also true that Marx paraphrases these stereotypes from Bruno Bauer's pamphlet 'The Jewish Question' (1843) and turns them against Bauer. Marx's statements therefore belong in a philosophical-historical context. Admittedly, this is not easy to understand.

Dispute between Bauer and Marx - Number One: What is Emancipation?

Bruno Bauer understood the question of the emancipation of the Jews in Christian Prussia as a religious question. Jews would first have to shed their belief in chosenness in order to be recognized as equal citizens. Marx, on the other hand, understood the question of emancipation not in religious but in social-practical terms. Although bourgeois society had replaced the religious society of estates, it had not ended the oppression of the Jews, but merely perfected it. As an example, Marx cites the ban on Sunday work in France. This was no longer a Christian privilege after the July Revolution in 1830, but general law. Bourgeois society enforcing the right of Sunday by suppressing the same right of Sabbath against Judaism is the barrier to emancipation that Marx criticizes. "Would not the Jewish Sabbath have the same right?" (Marx/Engels, The Holy Family, quoted in Brunkhorst, p. 115) Political emancipation must therefore be followed by human emancipation. Marx means by this an abstract utopian ought-state.

Dispute between Bauer and Marx - Number Two: What determines social conflicts?

Marx was not concerned with Judaism in his essay 'Zur Judenfrage'. The central issue was the application of his newly developed critical method of social analysis. Judaism was only an illustrative example for this. Marx criticized Bruno Bauer for wanting to explain social conflicts on the basis of idealistic philosophical opposites. For Bauer, the core of Judaism was its religion. Marx, on the other hand, wanted to explain social conflicts on the basis of social-practical opposites. Marx wanted to trace all social developments back to human practice, including religion: "Man makes religion, religion does not make man" (MEW 1, p. 372). True to this method, Marx tries to prove the Jewish religion as the result of the practical activity of the Jews. Judaism, he argues, is first and foremost a trading people - also because of the anti-Jewish occupational bans. In doing so, he paraphrases without circumstance the stereotypes of Bruno Bauer, according to which Jews stand for money and haggling - and thus reproduces the anti-Jewish stereotypes anew.

Marx did not have an anti-Semitic world view

In his answer to Bruno Bauer, Marx thus reproduced anti-Jewish stereotypes, but he did not represent an anti-Semitic worldview. Neither in the young nor in the old Marx do Jews appear as authors, masterminds, culprits, or conspirators of the economic conditions he criticized. Other features of anti-Semitism are also absent: Personification, conspiracy theory, the division of the world into good and evil, the construction of opposing communities. Where the capitalist mode of production has come to rule, all religions are capitalist as well. It is not Judaism that produces the profit interest of bourgeois society. "Through him [the Jew] and without him" became "money the world power" (Marx, Zur Judenfrage, p. 373). Not the "religious caricature" produces the "world of self-interest", the "world of self-interest" produces the "religious caricature". (Marx, On the Jewish Question, p. 375) Only liberation from the rule of private property would fully emancipate man. One can agree or disagree with this - but it is in no way anti-Semitic.

This also allows Marx's often misunderstood sentence to be understood correctly. "The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Jewry." (Marx, On the Jewish Question, p. 377) Marx wants to liberate both Jews and society as a whole from both the domination of economics and the false notion of Jewishness. Jewishness or anti-Jewish stereotypes played no role in his later writings for his materialist analysis of society. In it, it was no longer the sphere of money and interest that was responsible for exploitation, but the nature of production and the distribution of the productive forces.

Marx was for the emancipation of the Jews and all religious people

In the writings where Marx actually reflected on the social status of the Jews, he advocated their unconditional emancipation. He even regarded it as a criterion for evaluating social progress: "States ... which have not yet been able to emancipate the Jews politically are ... to be shown to be underdeveloped states." (Marx/Engels, The Holy Family, MEW 1, p. 117) Marx also counters Bruno Bauer "The political emancipation of the Jew, of the Christian, in general of religious man, is the emancipation of the state from Judaism, from Christianity, in general from religion. In its form, in the manner peculiar to its essence, as a state, the state emancipates itself from religion by emancipating itself from the state religion, i.e., by the state as a state professing no religion, by the state rather professing itself as a state." (Marx, On the Jewish Question, p. 353) This makes clear: Marx's writing is not about hatred of Jews, but rather about the emancipation of Jews in a secularized state. It must be understood as the emancipation of all religions.
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
@Gloomy @SW-User

Also Marx wrote several thousands of pages of material during a time when antisemitism was common and in fact encouraged. If he was truly antisemitic you think it would be fundamental to his understanding of the world, not a couple of lines you can apply a bad-faith reading to.

@SW-User I can't stress how much it's a bad idea to argue with someone who understands something you've only learned about from the internet. Pay attention to what she is saying you may not be a Marxist, but perhaps you can understand that what you've learned about it is just lazy propaganda.
SW-User
@CountScrofula rofl 😂

Be quiet, simp
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
Yeah this is a tale as old as Marxism. Turn innocuous social progress measures into an antisemitic conspiracy. What they are instead dealing with is basic social progress under liberalism but because they think gay people are icky it has to be some insane conspiracy.

Marxists are in reality rare, pedantic, and spend way too much time in ludicrous conflict with other leftists and particularly the social justice crowd to seed conspiracy.
soberSimplicity · 18-21, T
@CountScrofula I won't disagree that he was a big point of importance in so called infighting, but it was happening before then too.

And theory is a complicated topic for me. On the one hand, a lot of people who care about theory just use it for more aesthetics and false arguments. Though on the other hand, very little of those people have actually read theory I find, they only pretend to.
wonkywinky · 51-55, M
@CountScrofula Why arent gay people "icky"?Its never been explained why their nasty sexual proclivities are thought to be nice.
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
@wonkywinky Sounds like your problem. Sometimes we just have to put up with each other. You either engage in a campaign of persecution and elimination like a Nazi or you accept people are who they are and ensure we have equal protections and opportunity.
soberSimplicity · 18-21, T
Cultural Marxism, like so many other Rightist fantasies, theories, and conspiracies, would almost be cool if it was real. I wish that all the Jews who fled Nazi Germany suddenly became full of revolutionary red fervor and were seeking to chip away at any and all of these old institutions of oppression. That would be amazing, instead, a lot of them were / are supporters of Israel or are unfortunately just quite traumatized, understandable with what they would have gone through.

And unfortunate since a lot of the communists of Germany, Jewish or otherwise, were already dead by the point that the Nazi Party had come to full administrative power in Germany. A lot of them were wiped out in the aftermath of the 1918 Revolution. An event which, at times, makes me feel like we truly must be living in the Doomed Timeline.

Regardless, remarkably good post.
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
You guys are going to need a branding change if you have any hope of getting anywhere.

There is a reason why its referred to as "Cultural Marxism"

It's because the term "Marxism" is synonymous with Communism and the Soviet Union.

It's a loaded word and in America means anti American, anti-Capitalism and anti-way of American life.

It's a dead end in the West.

But I repeat myself...
Elessar · 26-30, M
@SumKindaMunster That there's some secret/untold complex reason that could legitimize Russian invasion of a sovereign land that doesn't want to be "liberated" is purely a conspiracy, unless backed with evidence. "Fog of war, we just don't know yet" isn't evidence, merely speculation, and after one year of conflict this speculation only appears to be more and more unlikely.

Neither far-left tankies nor far-righters who suddenly rediscovered themselves as "pacifists" (and that don't seem to know the difference between peace and surrender) have yet provided a reason to why we (as NATO) shouldn't aid a democracy that is defending itself from an expansionist aggression by an enemy state that has produced only easily-disproven excuses in international forums.

[quote]Is that right? So as a thought experiment, let's say Putin takes over Ukraine, and Xi takes over Taiwan. How does your life change, specifically? [/quote]
Ever heard of international equilibriums? If Ukraine falls to Russia, and/or Taiwan falls to China, the message that passes is that so long as you have nukes with which you can threaten anyone else that may interfere with your expansionist campaigns, you're free to occupy any land that cannot mount a response effective enough to counter you - and trust me you don't really want to live in that world. Ukraine and Taiwan would only be the first of a long series, and ultimately the costs (both in terms of financial costs and human lives) will be much higher.

On top of that, the economy is already all over the place in a very tangible way with a single sector being directly hit (energy, Russia's only significant export), figure what happens if we'll have to inevitably sanction China too. Oh yes, it'll affect my life and your life [b]very [/b]tangibly too, rest assured.

[quote]You volunteering? To go to Ukraine and fight? You seem to feel very strongly about this.[/quote]
This is a weak point, we live in a society built upon specialization and representation; similarly if you feel very strong about politics you're not required to be a politician/candidate prior to voting (or, well, we wouldn't be living in democracies).
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@Elessar [quote] That there's some secret/untold complex reason that could legitimize Russian invasion of a sovereign land that doesn't want to be "liberated" is purely a conspiracy, unless backed with evidence. "Fog of war, we just don't know yet" isn't evidence, merely speculation, and after one year of conflict this speculation only appears to be more and more unlikely.
[/quote]

I don't think you understand the concept:

[quote]The fog of war (German: Nebel des Krieges) is the uncertainty in situational awareness experienced by participants in military operations.[1] The term seeks to capture the uncertainty regarding one's own capability, adversary capability, and adversary intent during an engagement, operation, or campaign. Military forces try to reduce the fog of war through military intelligence and friendly force tracking systems. [/quote]

It merely means that generals sitting in situational rooms looking at troop movements on a table top are missing the incredible amount of unknown things that are unleased the moment you start sending in troops and the military.

It means we have no idea of the implications of what we have set in motion. We have no imbedded journalists there. We are getting our information on this conflict directly from the US Military, disseminated through the MSM.

I'm sure you have seen that Iran is now involved in this conflict. They are sending weapons to Russia and we are retaliating against them for doing so. Think about what would happen if say... Belarus suddenly entered the war and invaded Ukraine from their boarder...that is an example of what I am talking about, the unintended consequences and accepting the risks in going to war.

We aren't seeing that side and that is why I say you are naive on this.

[quote]Ever heard of international equilibriums? If Ukraine falls to Russia, and/or Taiwan falls to China, the message that passes is that so long as you have nukes with which you can threaten anyone else that may interfere with your expansionist campaigns, you're free to occupy any land that cannot mount a response effective enough to counter you - and trust me you don't really want to live in that world. Ukraine and Taiwan would only be the first of a long series, and ultimately the costs (both in terms of financial costs and human lives) will be much higher.
[/quote]

That's a very biased take. Maybe, maybe not. Again you don't know, nor does anybody. Basically you are promoting the domino theory, if we let this happen then we will be unable to stop x, y and z happening...you don't know that, and neither does anyone else.


[quote]You volunteering? To go to Ukraine and fight? You seem to feel very strongly about this.
This is a weak point, we live in a society built upon specialization and representation; similarly if you feel very strong about politics you're not required to be a politician/candidate prior to voting (or, well, we wouldn't be living in democracies).[/quote]

It's in direct response to this comment:

[quote] It's saddening seeing that a sizable amount of Americans and Europeans have completely forgotten about all the blood spilled by their very own parent, grandparents and grand-grandparents to reclaim our land from the control of similar fascist regimes.[/quote]

If you are going to make that point, that we need to recognize the sacrifices of our ancestors in fighting fascism, then I think my questions are perfectly reasonable.
Elessar · 26-30, M
@SumKindaMunster There are unintended consequences also if you allow a hostile wannabe-empire to unilaterally take over a country that signed a memorandum both with their occupant and with you prior disarming itself. For starters, a lot if not the majority of non-NATO countries on this world would likely align with China/Russia as evidently the west isn't bothered helping you upholding the values of democracy and freedom it professes to believe in, unless at most if you're part of a binding agreement.

Belarus is a puppet state to Russia and is governed with the iron fist by a Putin sympathizer that however doesn't really seem to have the support of the population he claims to represent (see also the protests of a few years ago). And I will speculate that's the reason why Belarus hasn't really participated much in the conflict, Lukashenko most probably fears to be sabotaged or even forcefully removed if he sends the troops away. Even if it wasn't, it barely poses a risk, it's just an extension of Russia.

[quote]That's a very biased take. Maybe, maybe not. Again you don't know, nor does anybody.[/quote]
There's literally photographic evidence of maps showing the initial intention to occupy Moldova too, hadn't Ukraine turned out to be much tougher than they expected..

This:
[quote]Putin and Xi only want to dominate the world with the iron fist like they're used to do at home. It's saddening seeing that a sizable amount of Americans and Europeans have completely forgotten about all the blood spilled by their very own parent, grandparents and grand-grandparents to reclaim our land from the control of similar fascist regimes.[/quote]
refers to those who support Putin and Xi at home, or share the respective ideals/beliefs.
SW-User
do people really think that Nazis thought all Jews were cultural Marxists and that this is why we had to be destroyed? That's soo stupid...it was an excuse, and they mostly didn't believe it themselves. Arguing that being against cultural Marxism is somehow antisemitic is a lie because it's based on a lie that is based on another lie 🙄 the truth, however, is that Marxism IS antisemitic because it didn't want Jews to be Jewish and sought our perceived emancipation from the Jewish religion and identity. You should read "on the Jewish question" by Marx...you'll see he was an antisemite
@SW-User [quote]that secrecy wasn't really relevant to the countries these horrible acts were taking place in[/quote]

That's nice, but it's beside the point. The point is that the Holocaust was kept secret from the public because mass murder was seen as wrong at the time.
So while we can excuse the Nazis for the racism that was normal at the time, we can not excuse them for their war crimes.

[quote]You're naive to think the Holocaust was unique.[/quote]

I didn't say the Holocaust was unique. Please respond to me, not things you think I might say.

[quote]Nazis would not have been able to execute so many people without the help of thousands of individuals, who like you say, just held views common to that time. Pograms had been going on for many years, lots of people were antisemitic and had or were prepared to act on it. Many of those who murdered or helped to murder Jews have names that you will never, ever hear simply because they were "ordinary" people, who like Marx, held shitty opinions on Jews.[/quote]

So a few things here. First, racism is a spectrum. There are plenty of people who hold racist views, but would be against things like genocide and imprisonment based on race. It's wrong to equate everyone that had racist ideas on Jews with the people who were directly involved in the Holocaust. Yes, there were thousands of people who participated in the murders, but they were still in the minority when it comes to the belief that these acts were morally acceptable. Again, all of this was kept secret from the general public.
Now that being said, the reason the Nazis gained popularity is because they were publicly saying the kind of racism that was widely acceptable. However, the Nazis never won an election, they never got majority support. It was publicly known that Jews and Gypsies were being put into concentration camps, but by that point, Germany had already become an authoritarian dictatorship, so there wasn't much that the public could do. So it would be unfair to say that the Holocaust happened because of average people who held common racist views.

[quote]It isn't just that he said things that were extremely racist, he advocated a world where Jews no longer had any national or religious identity.[/quote]

He believed that about everyone! He was an Anarchist and anti-religion. If Marx was ONLY against Judaism and the Jews having a country, you could argue that's genocidal talk. But he was against every religion and all nations.

[quote]His views on Jewish people in respect to capitalism are so similar to Hitler's that you can't really separate them.[/quote]

So I agree Marx was wrong for his ideas on Jews, but comparing his views to Nazism is just insane. Marx thought that Capitalism corrupted all people, but because of Jewish culture, it was especially corrupting Jews. Whereas the Nazis thought the Jews were just genetically programmed to be evil. The logical conclusion of Marx's ideas on Jews is really just to fight against Capitalism even harder. The logical conclusion of Nazism is genocide.

[quote]Communism has led to so many deaths in so many places, what do you think of that?[/quote]

Communism is a stateless and classless society. The Soviet Union was not communist. It was an authoritarian dictatorship that used left-wing imagery. Real collectivization requires democracy. What countries like the Soviet Union and East Germany had was State Capitalism.
SW-User
@BohemianBoo are you saying genocide is nice? I know you're being sarcastic and dismissive, but you're talking to someone whose family was murdered in the Holocaust.

To that extent I really don't want to continue this exchange with you, at all. You've missed the point multiple times, you're ignorant, you're a liar, you're an extremist and an authoritarian, and just a general creep and weirdo who should probably be locked in a cage and kept away from people. That you think "real collectivization" could ever have a democratic consensus is testament to how wildly insane and strange you are. A successful communist government will never be implemented, because you will never have a stateless and classless society...not unless you force it and murder lots of people, uh, again 🥴

Stupid, creepy, deranged, sociopathic, pathetic, waste of space, loser is all that you are and will ever be 🖤
@SW-User You didn't address my points because you don't care about reality. You just want to believe in Cultural Marxism.
val70 · 51-55
Wrong statement that. Most of "The Right" doesn't have anything against the alfabet crowd. I know loads of politicans of the right who are indeed gay and married and have kids. Likewise, many a priest or anyone you care to mention of who is with "The Right"
val70 · 51-55
@BohemianBoo Vive De Gaulle!
@val70 Leck mich!
val70 · 51-55
@BohemianBoo Berliner!
Rolexeo · 26-30, M
"LGBT rights" https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1632532054498746368?lang=en
Gloomy · F
@Rolexeo Racism exists in the US as in other countries and is usually structural but white supremacist groups like proud boys or the KKK are still active and racism often mixes with anti immigration rhetoric.

You are ridiculous and a good lil fascist and there is no value in what you are saying.
Rolexeo · 26-30, M
@Gloomy Just ignore what I said cause you know I'm right. Why are leftists harrassing that woman? Why are they mad that she exposed a groomer? Why are they not mad at the groomer?

Where is the KKK? Proud boys have black and latino members. Nobody is against legal immigration.

If white supremacy is sooo prevalent then why do people like Jussie Smolett need to fake these hate crimes?

You are a brainwashed puppet
Gloomy · F
@Rolexeo 🥱 You are a piece of trash

[quote] Proud boys have black and latino members. Nobody is against legal immigration.[/quote]

The same as when an obviously racist person tells you they have a black friend.
When I came home from Amherst College with a few bits of information about the Indian Industrial Schools we always lived right next to my Mom said that the professor's had turned me against Americans and that was Marxism. One month of college and they'd poison education me forever.
My mom was a great, compassionate and giving person who often repeated Nazi propaganda like that.
Nobody is immune to it.
@Roundandroundwego Most people who repeat Nazi propaganda aren't Nazis. The problem is that Nazi ideology has become so ingrained in our culture that it's seen as common sense even among normies. When people like Ted Cruz talk about Cultural Marxism, he's just being a grifter and dog whistling to Nazis. But when Joe Rogan talks about "Marxism," he honestly doesn't realize what he's doing.
ron122 · 41-45, M
🥱BLA BLA BLA.
Gloomy · F
@ron122 Ok as in agreement or indifference?
ron122 · 41-45, M
@Gloomy Whatever makes you happy. It's your life.
SW-User
@ron122 [quote]BLA BLA BLA.[/quote]

exactly lol
helenS · 36-40, F
[quote]Marxists do indeed want to dismantle all forms of oppression.[/quote]
Excuse me but that's simply wrong. Marxist theory states that in capitalism everybody is oppressed, but it's the working class which suffers from that oppression. Things will only change when the working class oppresses those who profit from the structural oppression – an oppression which is established in free market societies.
Gloomy · F
@helenS Inaccurate while the "Dictatorship of the proletariate" will change the fundamental power structure and Capitalists will loose control over the means of production doesn't mean that there will be ongoing oppression of those since they are also just products of the capitalist system.
Also there are countless works and theories build on marxist theory.
THey are scared shitless too, Especially since they're well aware that many of us Americans born American Born in the US are starting to Question the merits of Capitaliism and feel market fundamentalism has a lot in common with religion, the invisible hand just standing in for god which as an Atheist I came to question a long time ago.

There are Socialist among us now. And its pertinent, Growing.
Elessar · 26-30, M
McCarthyism 2.0
[media=https://youtu.be/qlrpSpwxgWw]
gol979 · 41-45, M
Marxism is about centralisation. Marx lovesss central banks.
Gloomy · F
@gol979 A central bank is more or less necessary if you want a planned economy. And a planned economy is necessary to direct economic power towards improving the world rather than short-term private profits. In particular, it's hard to have, say, nationalized industry without having someone to lend that industry money; and for practical purposes it makes sense for that lender to be under democratic control.

However, such a central bank would not be "federal reserve style", any more than the industries it finances would be "capitalist style", because the whole concept doesn't really make sense in a socialist context.

For example home mortgages, would be obsolete. This is because, in any reasonable socialist country having a place to live is just a right. So no one will get a loan to buy a house, any more than people in civilized capitalist countries have to get loans to get educated.

Then we get to controlling inflation and the growth of the economy. In the US today for example, this falls largely on the Fed because it's one of the only controls the government has - almost everything else is left up to the markets. In a planned economy, however, the opposite situation holds: the central bank isn't controlling economic growth, because that's controlled more directly and at a higher level. You wouldn't get the Fed to lower interest rates to encourage banks to lend so that people can take out loans to build more houses; you'd just tell the house-builders to build more, and the central bank would help pay them.

Anyway your comment has little to do with my actual post.
gol979 · 41-45, M
@Gloomy "marx central bank is much better than your central bank"

Im just pointing out the correct way to criticise marxism
Gloomy · F
@gol979 In a way yes because banks operate under the system and the economy.
And a socialist one is way different than a capitalist one obviously
Do as we say or the mob arrives..

Yup.. pretty darn accurate description if you ask me…
SteelHands · 61-69, M
The church of victimhood is strong in this one.
@SteelHands What does this have to do with victimhood?
Really · 80-89, M
WottaPileO' hot air abstraction.
SW-User
this post is total shit
LordShadowfire · 46-50
What's even worse is, it doesn't even have to make sense to a normal, intelligent person in order to make sense to these people. I've watched as someone called Marxism on another user, and laughed as the accused so-called Marxist provided a quote from Karl Marx proving that the accuser's beliefs were closer to actual Marxism. The accuser doubled down on their accusation that the other person was a Marxist, and when they pointed out that they had provided a quote from Karl Marx as evidence, the accuser simply replied that this is what Marxists do.
Human1000 · M
I agree with you. Marxism is experiencing a resurgence in higher education, too. And many more young people are anti-capitalist, and more sympathetic to Marxism.

From my center-left perspective, it's also become unclear from the left what social equality would entail separate from legal equality.
Human1000 · M
@Gloomy I've seen figures where close to 20% of Social Science professors identify as Marxists, but without other figures over time perhaps it was inaccurate to say resurgence.

Anecdotally, I do compare my experience in college and my daughter's where Marxist interpretations are routinely offered in many classes. This was not the case in the late 80s.
Gloomy · F
@Human1000 Maybe universities in the US finally recovered from the first red scare.
Marx is one of the three founding fathers of Sociology so it's not unlikely social science profs label themselves as marxists. It's just not as omnious as right wingers imagine it to be.
Human1000 · M
@Gloomy Indeed. The Cold War was still in full swing; it was a rather radical proposition to identify as Marxist or Communist at the time. And right wingers are the enemy to be sure. Any issues I have with the Left are minor in comparison.

 
Post Comment