Replies

Could be a little over-analysis going on here but we can roll with it.

If you see Marxist described as "Marxian," by the way, you know you're dealing with a Marxist.

Or someone who speaks enough English to know that "Marxist" is a noun and "Marxian" is an adjective or an adverb. Not a good start, but not critical.

It was Marcuse who dropped the Marxist notion (and perhaps it was always a pose, after all) of an inevitable dialectic grounded in economic movements.

Close. Marx's notion was that economics, and only economics, described the class structure that was preeminent in politics, and it wasn't a pose, he defended it furiously because he knew what would happen to his theory if one adopted other class descriptors, such as race, sex, etc, etc. The theory takes a dive, and the reason it does so is that under classic Marxism any deviation from economic class solidarity may be ascribed to false class consciousness. Adding other descriptors means one has to account for behavior of a person who is a member of multiple classes, and whose behavior may no longer be ascribed to false class consciousness. Which class interests does a white proletarian heterosexual pursue, and how do they differ from those of a black proletarian heterosexual? Where race is the descriptor they're different; where economic class and sexual preference are descriptors, they're the same. The Frankfurt School killed Marxian class theory.

What it does bring to the table, however, is the multiplication of senses of resentment which are used to destabilize the status quo. It is why a white wealthy homosexual may consider himself oppressed when the "white wealthy" part suggests privilege. Everybody gets to be a victim, everybody has a grievance, everybody is owed.

Cheap and manipulative, yes, but extremely powerful, and that is why what has become known as "cultural" Marxism is so very seductive. It's also why we have this weird hierarchy of grievance wherein sexual preference takes precedence over race which takes preference over sex. You simply can't run a coherent social theory under those conditions, but it doesn't have to be coherent to work.

The article is a nicely woven piece on the philosophy of our present sociology. However, bottom line, I have little use of Kid Rock except as an entertaining performance artist. I do not take him seriously in any way as a potential senator or anything else at this time. He stays in that same Beavis-Butthead character from appearance to appearance. He wears his “costume”. It’s a very good marketing technique for now. This should help him sell quite a lot of ‘music’, based on notoriety and the novelty of it all.

Again, it is very entertaining to watch and listen as he insults obstructionists, liar and sheeple. But that seems to be as far as he is able to go. I’ve not seen him deliver what may constitute a policy statement before. It’s difficult for him to make a statement without being profane. His intent may be genuine, but he doesn’t seem anywhere near ready for a serious campaign. K. Rock could always surprise me.
Donald Trump did, and continues to do so.

Dialectic is a political polarizing method of knowing secretly you are a scumbag, so you paint the opposite party as another scumbag type, and you posit yourself as the only reasonable person amongst two sumbag parties fighting each other.

Painting the current country as progressists vs white supremacists goes in that vein, denying any existence of reasonable everyday people who would have an argument against the suicidalist fascist submitting people.

A pimp will never go into the argument if he is or is not a pimp, even tacitly not denying it, he will only argue the father or husband of the woman is the real exploiter and profit maker.

Thus God is a sinner, Jesus is gay, the Virin Mary is a slut in denial, and anyone arguing the opposit is a subconscious natural racist.

Dialectic is the false narrative and made up conflict resulting from the cynicism.

Kid Rock is the “middle finger” to political correctness, white guilt, victimology, institutional racism, and all of the other ways in which the Frankfurt School advocates of Critical Theory have used Alinsky’s principle of “rub the sore raw” in order to create social unrest and resentment in America. Leftists want people to be angry and dissatisfied so that they will welcome the “fundamental transformations” that Obama and the other Leftists want to bring to American society. Leftists succeed by creating racial and gender divisions and other anger, so that Leftists can then pose as their savior and gain more political power. It is diabolical and it works, especially with a supportive press.

I remember listeing to a British author a few years back who made the point that most of today’s leftists are so poorly educated that they would not be able to follow actual Marxist “dialectical materialist” arguments, which although they are based on false premises do require thought. So today’s leftists adopt what he called “Marxism lite” which simply uses emotionalism to push the same agenda. Since it’s all based on emotion, it can’t be argued with.

Kid Rock is truly brilliant. Not many realize this.

"And he keeps on smashing New Left social divisions. For the New Left, gun ownership should be associated with white males, tools for their continuing oppression against women and minorities. But the first gun you see in "Po-Dunk" is being cleaned by a black man, and a good part of the video dwells on women (in bikinis, no less) blasting away at watermelons. Trash another manufactured dialectical conflict."

"All of this isn't about one Senate seat from Michigan, and what that might mean in terms of political calculations. It's about a movement in society. At bottom, it is guilt that is the fuel that the New Left relies on for its weaponized dialectics. And it is guilt that Kid Rock vehemently rejects, even the guilt of a straight white man."

It's really great to see someone who GETS him and his brilliance. I love him the MOST.

The Hegelian dialectic in another way of thinking is perpetual “conflict resolution”. And, the newest conflict will always be the most important, possibly better stated as the most seductive. Hence, sex equity and race are...let’s say...”maintained” as issues, but take a back seat to gay marriage, which was quickly supplanted now by trans issues.

=> When your goal in conflict resolution...for it’s own sake...you quickly find your arguing about minutia.

That’s how you end up spending the last two years of the Obama administration with a media focused on who goes in what bathroom.