http://lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan209.html
I've come across this term more and more lately and wanted to understand it better. This is what Pat Buchanan has to say about it:
>I use the phrase Cultural Marxism to describe what Antonio Gramsci had in mind for the West, after he went to Russia. He saw Lenin's Soviet Union as a failure, in that, while the regime had total power and the obedience of its citizens, the people were terrified of it and gave it no loyalty, allegiance or love. And eventually the Soviet Union would and did collapse, as did Mao's China. Gramsci believed in the cultural approach. He believed that, through a long march through the institutions of the West, Marxists could overturn Christianity, the heat shield of the West that made people automatically reject Marxism. If you could extirpate Christian culture from the heart of Western man, with the "acids of modernity," destroy this heat shield, people would embrace Marxist ideas and you could advance your ideology, and the people would be more receptive to it. I was perplexed at first by what he meant by the "Christian" heat shield- although it is now obvious that the family is the smallest unit capable of rearing children. Churches and mutual aid, often Christian based, made socialism redundant as a safety net.
Has there been a march through the institutions? Is this a concern for libertarians? Is culture important to libertarianism? Have any libertarian thinkers addressed critical theory?
Antonio Gramsci was a bit mistaken. He simply assumed that Christianity was the biggest threat to Marxism, when it really wasn't, it was the economic implications of Marxism which posed the most serious threat.
I'm not sure if it's directly related, but I tend to notice a growing number of people holding this attitude about what others do indirectly affecting them. You can't do dangerous things because my insurance goes up. You can't homeschool your kid because we have to shoulder the burden when they move out. You can't refuse to vaccinate because we all might catch it. It tends to lead to ignorance and rejection of deeper thought about any of it. There's one cause, and then one effect. As any of it pertains to Christianity is beyond me, but even in my short time, I can remember when my business was mine. That's not so much the case anymore.
It's simply part of the neurosis of modern day life. It'll day away at some point, when it is turned on the very people who advocate it.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
The bolded section is utterly false. There are many more factors more preventing the spread of Marxism than just Christianity, especially in Europe where the faith is subsiding in popularity... And what of China and North Korea where loyalty to the state is massive?
As for the subject of cultural Marxism, I'm under the impression that it is the forwarding of Marxist belief in classes to normal society, expressing "bourgeois" and "proletarian" values. I'm also pretty sure it's further associated with various Leftist beliefs like feminism. although I have to say that I don't know much about it.
>Christianity, especially in Europe where the faith is subsiding in popularity... And what of China and North Korea where loyalty to the state is massive?
Yes but Europeans still carry on Christian ethics. The whole bearded man in the sky thing is just exterior fluff. Christianity continues to persist in many ways.
China and NK- I think that supports his point, no? Christianity or anything like it has ever existed there.
You don't have to believe in a deity to have a "religous" world view.
True-
Tangentally related:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6qYVnLYgSs
The first country to become Marxist was Russia which was quite a devout nation, but anyway if you're blaming Christianity on the fact that socialism has thusfar not worked and been popular then NK and China disprove that theory entirely. There's also the whole thing that Christianity CAN BE INTERPRETED (not gonna open the can of worms as to whether or not it actually is) in an extremely socialist manner that is endearing to communism so long as the socialist state does not terminate Christianity with its conception
Cultural marxism replaces "worker" marxism, i.e. instead of the workers revolting against the land-/factory owners etc, it`s the non-western world/-people/-cultures revolting against the western world(colonialism/imperialism etc)/culture/people(the white man) etc.
To my mind, "cultural Marxism" refers to all of the efforts to destroy the traditional culture in order to advance the cause of socialism. In some cases, the target is an idea or practice or institution that specifically obstructs the progress of socialism (e.g. the family). But in many other cases, the goal is simply to cause chaos and create crises, for which of course the socialists have ready-made "solutions."
Cultural Marxism simply, in my opinion, refers to the mass attack on freedom of thought by Marxists in order to wipe out culture that would be contradictory to the Marxist totalitarian beliefs. It's cleaning house, and Mao did it quite effectively with his "Cultural Revolution."
Good thing we don't have to be too worried about Marxists now. The only Marxists that are still around are idiots like Maoist Rebel News, and nobody ever takes Maoists seriously, so it's k.
Do we need to worry about collectivism?
American socialism is about coddling you, making sure you're safe and comfy and taken care of cradle to grave.
It's different from the hardcore communisms of the east that primarily wanted rigid obedience on pain of death, where they used fear and intimidation and violence. They knew what they were doing was wrong and evil and destructive of their ultimate ends, they could only lie to themselves for so long. The result was an inevitable internal crisis of confidence that led first to the abandonment of the Soviet Union and then China's abandonment of economic socialism.
American socialism is worse, because here they can utterly control you for your own good and with the approval of their own conscience. It will take a much greater crisis for American socialism to fail.
That's cultural socialism to me, simply turn Bismarckian politics into a fine art. As long as your intentions are good, they think, nothing else matters. They use this rationale to justify -any- use of government coercion in the pursuit of their ends--which is a lesson they took from Marx.
The key to power in a democracy is to make people dependent on you. Every policy they craft here in America is aimed towards this. Why do you think 47% of the country doesn't pay a dime of taxes? Net tax consumers are always going to vote in favor of more largess to them and the party(ies) that offer them more plums.
If and when both parties devolve into chasing this dependent class, it's over for American democracy. America will experience millionaire and capital flight, just as France is going through now.
Will we have a libertarian haven up and ready for them to move to? Will we? I think we have to think about how to make that happen.
That's Cultural Marxism -a repackaging and remarketing of past culture in order to find support for marxist anti-culture. Let me just say that such marxism is sickening to imagine since millenia of human culture -unique human habits -have to be effectively rewritten and thus, destroyed in order for some half-baked "johnny come lately" like marxism to take over. I mean, imagine the megalomania of such people and yet we expect them to look after the poor and downtrodden?
@ Anenome
That's the question that I want the answer to, but unfortunately is not answered by many people on here. Just talking about a libertarian society is tiresome - let's do something about it. We need to first realize that the non-aggression axiom has already been broken by the state, and that it's time to become militant.
No a violent revolution is foolish in my opinion, and never the solution. Take a look at the occupy wall street goons if you disagree.
It is better for individuals such as yourselves to start a new society, elsewhere. People need to chill out and just try to live peacefully here.
Well I wasn't necessarily talking about a violent revolution. Really I was just talking about mass protesting or something, but you're right. I like Anenome's plan of seasteading as a peaceful way to achieve a free society.
Attempting to match force with force against a massively stronger opponent is extremely foolish and counterproductive. Not only does the state have brute force on its side, it has the ideological and moral support of the vast majority of people, who will see your fight against the state as a fight against them.
I never should have used the word militant, as everyone automatically thinks of Foco tactics. I was talking about something like mass protests, but unlike the Occutards, we will actually know what we are talking about.
I include that in what I was talking about. Don't right-wing statists hate the Occupy brats? Don't left-wing statists hate the TEA party? The media was easily able to turn people against those movements.
So what can we do? I've heard seasteading, but I'd like to know what we can do right now. Agorism, perhaps?