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.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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