Karl Marx and Cultural Marxism

The curse of cultural Marxism masquerading as progressivism is picking up speed around the globe

On May 5, 2018, the Marxists, sponsored by the World Workers Party, will be gearing up in New York to celebrate 200 years since the birth of their communist guru, Karl Marx, the one man whose philosophy had enabled the killing of more innocents than many global wars combined.

The theme is Marx @ 200, the Class Struggle in the Age of Trump. I am not sure what class struggle they are talking about unless it is the constant hateful rhetoric coming from the left and their Democrat Party’s divisive and anti-American platform because Donald Trump won the election and they have not gotten over the devastating loss.

No, because the theory of taking from the rich (eating the rich) goes back to the dawn of time. Before Marx was La Frainch Rayvolution.

"Gentlemen, ladies, bring out your valuables please. Come along sir, come along. Come along, madam, come along. Oh, is that all you've got ... well, he's got much more than you ... so you'd better have some of his ... (transfers money from one passenger to another, dropping some)... sorry... pick them up in a moment... there's about oh, what, nine down there... so you must have about... oh, he's still got lots... oh you've got what? ... you've got more than he started with... so if I give you some of those (transferring more coins) ... well now, look ... have you got a bit of jewelry? If I give you that one and you have some of his coins (the credits start, superimposed) ... is that another box? Were you trying to hide it? Well, that's nice! Right! Now. I've got a tiara ... you've got one... you've got one of the boxes... you've got one... anyone else got a tiara? Take your hat off! (passenger does so to reveal a tiara)... Oh, honestly, it's absolutely pointless trying to do this if you're going to cheat. It really is awful of you."

The theme is Marx @ 200, the Class Struggle in the Age of Trump.

A candid look at that theme would be particularly uncomfortable for Marxists everywhere. It was, in fact, the industrial proletariat (a horribly antique phrase for the working class) who helped put Trump in office, and it wasn't out of false class consciousness, either, as the party line goes, it was out of a clear appreciation of the fact that Trump represented their interests and the Left did not.

One now-classic example of this is Hillary blurting proudly that she was glad the coal miners were out of work and would do her best to keep it that way. Never was there a clearer case of The Bosses trying to keep the working man down, yet from the Left there was only silence, or Bernie promising bigger handouts instead of work. So they voted for their interest, the guy who said he was going to put them back to work, and he did so.

The reason this consistently fails to percolate through the turgid flow of Marxian dialectic is that its adherents are not working class nor ever have been; they're largely academic theorists who figure that the leadership cadre of The Party is themselves, which in every Communist revolution so far has resulted in a vast wealth transfer not to the proletariat, but to the cadre. In short, nice work if you can get it.

Cultural Marxism was created by Marxist to set in motion the seeds of self destruction in the West. It advances every form of moral, ethical and legal dryrot there is and spawns degeneracy and madness as it advances.

I think C.S.Lewis’ The Pilgrim’s Regress is useful to try to speak about where Cultural Marxism leads to and how that is distinct from the Marxism that spawned it.

Lewis wrote of giant called the Spirit of the Age whose one ability and function, aside from seeming titanic and therefore non-opposable, is to tear away and to discredit anything to do with reasoning or beauty or faith as if these were all hopes for unrealistic wish fulfillment.

But let us be clear about what is being stripped away: as was pointed out to me not too long ago by a forumite hereabouts the very idea of “culture” is in the origins of the word related to something held in reverence.

I would suggest that inherent in the idea of culture is the desire to pass it along, that it in fact is to after some fashion endure.

Right here we meet a distinction between the genuine Marxist and the Cultural Marxist as the former hopes his society, his Marxist culture, will in fact endure whereas the latter is a creature designed only to tear down, who could no more resist trying to tear down a Soviet society in the name of its varied madnesses than it can the West.

So we should NOT be surprised to find that the Soviets who created Cultural Marxism to be a cancer elsewhere never tolerated that sort of nonsense in their midst.

To get a sense for this I want to turn to art.

Now, no one would deny that the “art” one might associate with Lewis’ red haired (communist) or black-haired (fascist) dwarves serving Mr.Savage would be (and is in the real world) iconographic, conventional and formulaistic ... but THAT alone is not really the bad thing for all “art” that seeks to uphold and revere something — a culture, history or a faith — is going to develop and sustain these things after some fashion. The art is part of the culture that is be a culture that can endure. The difference is in what is reverenced? What is upheld?

Still, what “art” can there be from creatures who have been twisted towards self-destructive ends?

Well, here Lewis hits the nail right on the head with his Cleavers, whose “artistic” tropes the book’s protagonist couldn’t distinguish from porn.

“True Art Is Incomprehensible” (or at least can only be understood by the right sorts of people) is a saying that embodies all that is degenerate about the “art” of people who revere nothing.

I would even go so far to say that the reason we find AntiFa and other leftwing nitwits wearing the likeness of Che, despite the fact he was in a very real sense NOT their sort (he would be like those who made them) is precisely because the “art” of the Cultural Marxists CANNOT produce iconography its equal. That the degenerate “art” of the Cultural Marxist is decidedly and objectively inferior to actual Soviet art even though everything that sort of Marxist art reveres (the Soviet State) is evil and/or oppressive.

Small wonder that Cultural Marxism rejects judgments like better and worse unless they are wrapped up in “white” or “straight” or “Christian” ... in which case those are presumed to either be worse or, if they begrudgingly assign them value because they happen to merely like them, that they were stolen at some point.

Cultural Marxism, and other forms of post-modernism, ultimately comes down to an antithesis of having or even wanting a real culture. Even the “art” of the modern Left is about tearing down. So when these idiots pipe up and say things like “white people don’t have a culture” we can understand that THEY (if they are white) don’t have anything they revere as a culture — even though it is all around them — and that they can’t accept white people who disagree with them have any culture as well.

Which brings me to another snippet from Lewis, from The Abolition of Man. What Lewis calls “trousered apes” is very close to what Cultural Marxist are, though mere trousered apes who have been denied the depths of their cultural and national heritage are still better than those who seek to deny and undermine these existing at all.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.