The Strange Death of Marxism

The American Conservative ^ | William S. Lind

[TheClintons-STILLAnti-American]

"Gottfried argues that the “soft despotism” of cultural Marxism, the spirit of Huxley’s Brave New World, is a political religion. That is a fair description of ideology in general; all ideologies are anti-Christ, false Christianity promising heaven on earth through man’s own efforts. "

This is an insightful reviewer.

[Huber]

"As Marxism became PC and multiculturalism, did it turn into cultural, as distinguished from economic, Marxism, or did it, as Gottfried contends, move so far beyond Marx as to constitute post-Marxism?"

Ping!

[nathanbedford]

A perceptive reply.

It occurs that this book which apparently undertakes to detail the hatching of the Frankfurt School, its Diaspora from Germany after Hitler, and its virus like spread through academia and the media outlets in America, might indeed prove to be a very important book in the battle against cultural Marxism.

Mr. Gottfried first will have to break through the resistance of the media which will attempt to ignore his book to death and the enmity of academia who will try to insult him to death.

I have already ordered my copy of this book because I think it indispensable for a proper understanding of cultural Marxism to be fully acquainted with the Frankfurt School. Meanwhile, I urge all FReepers to read this article by Gerald L. Atkinson titled,

What is the Frankfurt School http://www.newtotalitarians.com/FrankfurtSchool.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1494681/posts?page=13

[Terpfen]

Far from being a bastion of church-going cultural conservatism, the United States has become the world leader of the culturally Marxist revolution, to the point of attempting to impose secular democracy and women’s rights on the Islamic world by force of arms.

Human rights and freedom are Marxist, eh?

[.cnI redruM]

He seems to have totally forgotten modern environmentalism as a vehicle and a proxy for anti-capitalist sentiment.

[America First Libertarian]

It is is a Trotskyist tenet. Exporting the revolution. The constitution doesn't grant teh government the right to extort citixens to fund foreign governments. Private citizens however should be free to pick up a gun and go to said nation on their own. If the action is just, there would be no problem finding volunteers.

[Terpfen]

The constitution doesn't grant teh government the right to extort citixens to fund foreign governments.

The Constitution does give the federal government the right to defend the country, which is what the war on terror is.

If the action is just, there would be no problem finding volunteers.

This is why re-enlistment rates in our all-volunteer armed forces have skyrocketed: the action is justified.

[America First Libertarian]

The Constitution does give the federal government the right to defend the country, which is what the war on terror is. Really? Then why is Bush mentioning freedom and liberation, and you just mentioned it yourself. I don't believe we turned germany into rubble to liberate them, or to spread freedom. I don't believe we nuked two japanese cities, to spread freedom. and human rights. We are nation building, which is not endorsed by the constitution.

[Terpfen]

Try this: Germany and Japan were crushed in self-defense. They were neutralized as enemies by freedom. Japan is not going to bomb Pearl Harbor anytime soon. Germany ain't invading Poland or sinking our shipping.

Just because you don't appreciate the effects of freedom don't mean that they don't occur.

[rdb3]

Those who are secure in their pure intentions also understand the pervasive evil of their Euro-American or German identity. It is something that must be devalued and eventually removed from human relations, in the transition to a global society that will ‘enrich’ the Western world by replacing it.

Nor is this goal confined to the European Left:

Prominent American neoconservative journalist and author Stephen Schwartz has argued in the National Review that those who are fighting for global democracy should view Leon Trotsky as a worthy forerunner.

In the end, Gottfried ends up proving the opposite of the thesis in his book’s title. Uncle Karl may be buried, but he’s far from dead

I knew it! You didn't fail, AFL! I knew it. It all had to lead back to something like that.

Validated one tenent of the Right, that's for certain. Although it's not the one you're probably thinking.

If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

[America First Libertarian]

What effects of Freedom? I personally value Americans lives a little to much to sacrifice them to an ideology. I fully support defense, not neoconservative utopian ideals. Then again I suppose the Us Constitution really isn't that important.

[Terpfen]

What effects of Freedom?

The ones that allow you to spout off as you just did. It's all the Jews'Neocons' fault, right?

No wonder the Libertarians can't win elections.

[NCSteve]

I'm reposting your link, nathanbedford, but in "clickable" format. Well worth the read, Huber.

http://www.newtotalitarians.com/FrankfurtSchool.html

[Christopher Lincoln]

Marxism may be dead, but Marx's basic idea is very much alive. Before Marx, socialists emphasized the solidarity of man, calling on men to work for the common good. They pretty much got nowhere; it was soon recognized, notably by Adam Smith, that it is the free market, not socialism, that promotes the common good. This was confirmed by the miserable results when socialism was actually practiced, as in the Jamestown and Plymouth settlements in their earliest days.

Marx made socialism popular by reversing its premise: he divided society into We, the proletariat, and They, the bourgeoisie, and linked socialism to the age-old dream according to which We get rich by robbing Them. Of course the actual results were, if anything, worse than ever; but the dream is hard to renounce, and new variants of socialism sprang up, and are still springing up, based on new definitions of We and They.

[Tax-chick]

Interesting. In my opinion, the key element of Marxism is not its economic specifics, but consolidation of power in the hands of its adherents by any means. Our American leftists clearly have the same goal, and the same absolute lack of scruples as to means. (However, I doubt most of them are sufficiently educated even to describe the historical Marxist economic model :-).

[America First Libertarian]

Libertarians hold over 600 offices, without cloaking an agenda. And please don't result to the old race/religion card.

[Terpfen]

600 local offices does not a national party make, and you won't be winning any important elections anytime soon.

[America First Libertarian]

You just said LIbertarians can't win elections, now 600 isn't enough. I guess if they aren't imporant elections, you support the abolition of those offices? Which would of course bring us back to a centralized state, which of course brings us right back to leftists and rightists sharing something else in common.

[Terpfen]

I don't care one way or the other about the abolition of the elected position of "dog catcher," no.