Posted on 09/10/2017 10:01:21 AM PDT by Kaslin
Before analyzing Kid Rock as a cultural phenomenon, we first have to spend some time with the Frankfurt School, a group of European academics who rose to prominence in the mid 20th century. No, seriously.
The word "dialectic" gets thrown around enough to warrant some clarification. Now used primarily as a pseudo-intellectual shibboleth to refer to social changes, the philosophical roots of the modern concept of dialectic are surprisingly important. Dialectic describes Hegel's idea that as society moves toward its perfected state, it must resolve internal contradictions – issues that cause social unrest and then lead to social change. According to Hegel, this process was inevitable and outside human control, and this idea, grounded in the economic sphere, would be adopted by Marx and serve as the foundation of Marxist thought.
The actual outcomes of the Marxist revolutions – despotic and impoverished regimes – were of course hardly the paradise predicted by Marxist dialectic. (If you see Marxist described as "Marxian," by the way, you know you're dealing with a Marxist.) Add to this the fact that even Marx himself was likely aware of the special economic conditions in America – a relatively large and fluid middle class – that made socialist revolution unlikely, and Marxist dialectic found itself in serious need of a revision. The supposedly inevitable "scientific" unfolding of "scientific socialism" (Marx's own term for his philosophy) insisted on not unfolding properly. What's a socialist revolutionary supposed to do in the face of a traditional society that stubbornly refuses to collapse? Well, you change the rules. Enter the Frankfurt School, and in particular Herbert Marcuse. After all, why wait for the social tensions to appear? Why not identify and magnify them?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Good article.
Great article
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.
Well, then there are the Democratics.
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.
I suppose Kidrock rankles liberals because he takes the liberal cult submission symbology that “there is nothing wrong with being transgender” and weaponizes himself as a Kidrock cult of antisubmission symbology that “I can be whatever I want, ef you all”
It is the liberal “gimme that” plank vs Kidrock fck u money “I get that, you go on your own way” plank.
Liberals want subsidized transgenders, Kidrock wants the self financed stardom and plastic surgery. This is Manning, the failed caberet carrier f@g using the Army for his freak show subvention, vs. Kid Rock or Jenna Jameson, the real artist or self financed or self-pimped harlotry, so to speak. (Manning has attacked and threatened Jenna several times).
Comey provoked cultural Marxism inside the FBI when he pretended to say that Trump,was attacking as a whole the FBI and its credibility.
This is the deed of manipulative weak little pieces of sht without any leadership or competence, never getting anything done except posturing as a fake hero and fake news artist.
We see it all the time in Europe in the debates about Islam, where you have progressists promoting the nice everyday muslim and showing how racist are the others for not liking them around.
However, here is the thing. Liberals never help the individual muslim, but they do help the jihadi cult as a whole. The opposit is true of a conservative who is willing to help a migrant make it in America as an individual, but nit as a SUBSIDY TO HIS CULT! but for HIMSELF! as a Free Man!
It is the liberal fascists who portray our rejectionmof fascist cult snd support of individuals as racism, when it is in fact the liberal flipping dialectic which is pro-fascit group cult and not about helping the individual be free. The liberal wants the pimping system of elites and designated puppet Opinion Makers over revenue makers to exploit system.
As I said to a migrant, Nigeria had more children born than the whole Europe. I am perfectly willing to help a Nigerian kid make it in Nigeria or in Europe, but I will NOT SUPPORT the DEMOGRAPHIC JIHADISM of Obama’s laws and language of illegal immigration.
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.
Bkmk
Good points and please pardon my nitpick, but I do believe that “Marxist” can be properly used as an adjective or adverb, not just as a noun.
A worthy read
Yep, and it popularly is. I reserve my right to pedantry!
The original definition of economics actually came from the Greek word for home.
Economics, in its original understanding, was the what emanated from the home, the livelihood of the family and how the family interacted with others. Today, when we think of economics, we tend to think of what happens to society and the family is usually considered as a last resort.
Karl Marx purposely bent the term to make it almost unrecognizable.
You seriously underestimate his potential impact and who he would be influencing.
Most people I know who say they listen to Rap,
don’t vote very much, if at all.
They generally have a cynic’s view of the democratic process, no matter who is dominant at that moment.
“Tear it all down, Man!” is a fun and satisfying concept in the short term.
“Restructuring and rebuilding” is more complex and takes a long time.
Maybe K. Rock’s fans are different. I don’t know.
Thanks for that informative, and clearly-written post.
By all means!
But somehow I have managed to miss your point, Mr. Drill. He’s just saying that you can tell you’re dealing with a real Marxist when they use the adjective “Marxian” instead of “Marxist”, since that’s insider lingo used mainly by true believers. IOW he’s letting us in on a tell (although most seasoned Freepers probably knew it already).
You would probably agree with this, so what is your objection, if I may ask?
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.
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.