I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Cultural Marxism is, in fact, Cultural Deleuzianism-Guattarianism, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Deleuzianism AND Guattarianism. Idpol is not a political philosophy unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning philosophical non-system made useful by the Guattari's schizoanalysis, rhizomes and vital deterritorializing components comprising a full philosophy as defined in 'What Is Philosophy?"
Many left identitarians use a modified version of Deleuzianism every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of Deleuzianism which is widely used today is often called 'Cultural Marxism' and credit is given to the Frankfurt School, but many of its users are not aware that it is basically the Deleuzian non-system of difference, developed by the Liberal identitarians.
There really is a 'Cultural Marxism', developed by Adorno, Marcuse, and Walter Benjamin, but these people aren't using it; it isn't a part of the system they use. Deleuze is the philosophy: the difference in the plateaus that allocates the machinic desires against the oppressive totalities and identities that you know. Deleuze is an essential part of Guanttarianist identitarianism, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete liberal college campus. Deleuze is normally used against Frankfurters: Cultural Marxism is actually the whole system of Deleuze and Guattari with the name of Marx added. All the so-called Cultural Marxists are really Cultural Deleuzeans!
The truth about "Cultural Marxism"
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtube.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
Nice try, Schlomo. I've read the Frankfurt Jews, and they definitely are the source of the thousand gender memes filling our colleges these days.
The Frankfurt School has nothing to do with modern idpol. Unless you can provide a citation from any of their texts promoting privilege-checking, gender performativity, or anything coming out of postmodern academia these days, your assertions hold no weight.
>posting philosophy-major tier writing on Sup Forums and expecting a good response
You're not going to educate anyone here; try the other chan.
The sad reality is that people like Adorno, Marcuse, etc, while playing around with deconstructionism and various forms of Marxist thought, had no idea what the coming century would entail, and so cannot be truly blamed for what they, and Deleuze unleashed.
It's like hating philosophers of the enlightenment -- sure, they helped contribute to the decline, but they had no idea of knowing.
...
Go back to Sup Forums, nobody is going to get the Linux joke here.
Using ad homs and thought-stoppers like "go back to the oven" or "ur a joo" in leu of a real argument makes you a fucking retard.
...
...
Can you give me a sound reason to believe the Frankfurter Schule is behind what Sup Forums interprets as the modern cultural decay?
Can Sup Forums show me where Adorno advocates mass Muslim immigration to Europe, or Benjamin advocates a thousand gender identities?
Does this explain the widespread use of hegelian dialectic?
...
Yes, in fact, 'dialectic' is codeword for white genocide.
Watch it, leaf
...
I fail to see any rebuttal.
As far as I'm concerned, cultural Marxism isn't defined by its origin, geographically. It is this idea of oppressed VS oppressor, redefined not through class but through minority status.
Because like for classical Marxists, their understanding of the meaning of life is that its a constant struggle for power. That's all their is. And if power is equalized, paradise is achieved.
>It is this idea of oppressed VS oppressor, redefined not through class but through minority status.
Wonderful, you're describing Deleuze, not Adorno, not Benjamin, not Marcuse.
>their understanding of the meaning of life is that its a constant struggle for power.
What do you mean by "power" in this context?
Deleuze and guattari did "has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?" Prove me wrong.
Citation: Deleuze and the Political by Paul Patton
>Prove me wrong.
On what?
The One Dimensional Man by Herbert Marcuse
The entire things is about outcasts and minorities being mobilized to reject capital and consumerist culture
>reject capital and consumerist culture
Correct.
>outcasts and minorities
No. See, unlike you, I've actually read this text, and unlike current academic trends Marcuse doesn't fetishize minorities (at least, not to the same extent).
Benjamin advocated removal or art from original contexts and it being mobilized as a means for class consciousness (parallel to our current iconoclasm re statues).
He did the same with hashish and failed miserably. Though lefties are still pushing for drug legalization of all sorts. Even corporate types micro dose with acid and pot is utterly rampant in toronto
You pathetic sophist.
Please reread Marcuse's One dimensional man and you will see the New Left gave up on the working class since it was not revolutionary and focused on students, and racial minorities.
I was just making a joke about the incomprehensibility of French philosopher types a la JEWS DID WTC. But seriously, I think they're all full of shit, especially Lacan, who made the mistake about massively fucking up things I know very well, like topology. Never met a group of people who suck as badly at communicating as french post whateverists.
Spicy reformulation of pasta, my friend
MacIntyre on Marcuse
"The human nature of those who inhabit advanced industrial societies has been so molded that their very needs and aspirations have become conformist—except for a minority, which includes Marcuse. The majority cannot voice their true needs, for they cannot perceive or feel them. The minority must therefore voice their needs for them; this active minority must rescue the necessarily passive majority. This passive majority includes the working class, even the new technically skilled working class."
TLDR
Let the nogs tell you how it is white boi. You cant even know what you need. Hint its communism.
>Benjamin advocated removal or art from original contexts and it being mobilized as a means for class consciousness (parallel to our current iconoclasm re statues).
Benjamin was arguably the most radical of the Franks; granted, if you understood anything about the Jewish concept of tikkun olam you would understand why. But this has nothing to do with modern idpol.
>You pathetic sophist.
Your breath stinks.
Your ass is shaped funny.
You're dumb.
>Please reread Marcuse's One dimensional man
I have.
The 'minority' MacIntyre is talking about is the intellectual left-wing elitists, not BLM, not Suzy Pinkhair.
Yes Benjamin did see communism as a means to his end of Jewish eschatology. Which is just as much BS psuedoscience as communism in the first place.
I'm very happy he offed himself. One less Frankfurt Marxist spreading their poison in the US education system. Too bad his compatriots made it.
>X is really Y goy!
If the outcome is the same, then by default they must be the same, no matter what they are called.
>Yes Benjamin did see communism as a means to his end of Jewish eschatology. Which is just as much BS psuedoscience as communism in the first place.
Yitzchak Luria > Martin Luther
I'd rather have a theology where redemption centers around human participation, over one which centers solely on belief.
Confirmed Kike. Disregard this thread
>If the outcome is the same, then by default they must be the same, no matter what they are called.
See, that's the major issue with this board: no one fucking reads, everyone makes bold statements about things in which they know nothing about. Like, if you just went to the library and bothered to read the Franks and contrasted Adorno with Deleuze you'd see what I mean.
Confirmed dumbass.
wew kike. fuck off
Cultural Marxism is just Gramsci infiltration tactics.
/leftypol/ gets so triggered when we mention Cultural Marxism, because it blows their cover.
t. Stallman
>idpol
/leftypol/ pls go
>Cultural Marxism is just Gramsci infiltration tactics.
Gramsci had nothing to do with the Frankfurt School. His writings weren't even translated until much, much later, and his methodology (Marxism, Hegelian and humanist-influenced) was a far cry from postmodernist crap you see today.
fuck off kike
I don't know who this 'Stallman' is.
Gramsci believed in using any means possible to get people to favor Marxist economics.
Gramsci agents probably feel that whites will "see the light" after nigs and feminists are used to collapse the West, and implementation of Marxist polices supposedly make their lives better.
piss off kike
you got your Sup Forums in my Sup Forums
[spoiler]It doesn't take special talents to reproduce — even plants can do it. On the other hand, contributing to a program like white genocide takes real skill. That is really something to be proud of. It helps more people, too.[/spoiler]
>Gramsci believed in using any means possible to get people to favor Marxist economics.
Pick up a copy of the Prison Notebooks. Gramsci wasn't talking about writing culture critiques a la Tumblr in order to get white cishetmales to check their privilege; he was writing revolutionary strategy. Most of his writing has to do with Italian politics, Machiavelli, Lenin, etc.
You’re triggering me user
youtu.be
Foucault vs. Chomsky
OP has a hard on for origins.
Yes identity politics cannot be solely traced to the frankfurt school but there are traces of it there. There will always be idpol in Marxism because Marxism relies on class consciousness to achieve revolution. Serf vs Capitalist is just one class distinction. Marxism has always taken the most radical stance possible regarding any "oppressed" class. It just so happens that peasent revolts are not feasible in the first world. Gender and race though... that's where they can achieve things.
And Marcuse DID write on racial minority resistance in the One Dimensional Man.
Many Frankfurt School members also wrote on resistance to science. Notably Adorno and Horkheimer. We see that in droves in the marxo-postmodern camp nowadays. Repeating the same tired arguments too.
Cultural marxism is an oxymoron. Marx thought that economic relations determine society and culture, while so-called cultural marxism suggests quite opposite.
Actually, this seems to be more of a problem with leftism in general. Whenever a component of the system becomes faulty, it is beyond the left to simply disclaim that component as an error. Rather the left seeks to redefine that component as something which was entirely unrelated to the core philosophy. Ultimately the identitarians came as a result of the Marxist propensity for the removal of religious institutions. You see this is where I must say that Hitler was right, in spite of not actually being beholden to many of the NatSoc values. He did see religion as the "opiate of the masses," but yet he understood humanity well enough to know that some such opiate must exist. You see, humans need an escape, and they do so simply as a result of the fact that human life is inherently insufferable. This fact makes your religion, or lack there of an entirely moot point. If you're religious then you'll see any dogma formed outside of religion as a delusion to cope with loss (think Tom Hank's "Wilson"). If you're atheistic, then you'll see religion as the "delusion", which came into being out of having been the most effective for a society.
Partially. The superstructure did flow back into the base in his model...
the frankfurt school jews understood that orthodox marxist theory was false (unlike the dimwits at /leftypol/ and that something else must be the subject of their examination and that something else was culture, media, art etc.
>Gender and race though... that's where they can achieve things.
Marx and Engels said the proletariat was revolutionary for a couple of reasons: 1. they were the people on whose labour society depended, so any rupture brought on by the proles would have grave consequences; 2. the nature of their work was collective, so they were already conditioned into a collectivist mode of producing; and 3. it was in their self-interest to revolt against capital.
PoMos, on the other hand, make moralist (not "scientific" in a Marxist sense) arguments for the most oppressed of the oppressed - the deviants - being the most revolutionary assets of society. They reject most aspects of Marxism all while maintaining the critique of capitalism. Again, read.
>And Marcuse DID write on racial minority resistance in the One Dimensional Man.
Not in the same fashion as Deleuze, or Foucault.
>Many Frankfurt School members also wrote on resistance to science. Notably Adorno and Horkheimer. We see that in droves in the marxo-postmodern camp nowadays
Adorno and Horkheimer said the fetishization of reason was the issue (think New Atheists as a modern example). They were not calling for science to be "decolonized".
Now here's the funny part. The main reason this will always seem like gibberish to you, is both because of your own sub-par constructed delusion, and the fact that the term "red pill" is more apt than most give it credit for. Human life is inherently miserable. This will always be a truth, and I'd wager that you'll not be able to find a successful religion, living, nor dead which didn't provide a means of escape from this flaw.
Either way. Saged
>2017
>New Left
not being some idpol queer cuck faggot communist and actually caring about the working class is making a comeback though, the same way the alt-right is, as a reaction towards empty politics at campus and safe space bullshit
did stallman have this up on his website somewhere? nice find
BC (assuming there are any Jews there instead of just chinks)? Or are you up all night in Ontario like me?
Historical materialism and dialectical materialism are not falsifiable and thus pseudoscience.
You marxists are a cancer to the world
Québec.
I never said they were, dummy.
Bingo. We need Sir Karl back now more than ever. He blows the fuck out of Nazi's and Lefties alike.
Too bad they never teach his politics just his philosophy of science
>le popper maymay
So you think that synthetic propositions ought not be empirically testable in order to be rationally believed?
They were so BTFO that they never were able to respond to his criticism.
You even had kikes like Gerald Cohen who tried to clean up marxism with his analytical Marxism which was supposed to be "no bullshit marxism," but, generally, dimwitted marxists cant deal with rigorous logic.
To be far to the frankfurt school this is a major flaw of continental philosophy in general.
Because G.A. Cohen is unreadable.
Shitty bait. Just watch this interview with arguably the most influential Frankfurt School author talking about the direction of the New Left's identity politics under his influence.
t. read all these books so fuck off
user, any idiot and his negro can read. That one comprehends, now that's what makes one count as a True white man. Considering what I've read, you clearly "read" but didn't .
wow, you know about that arch-kike lukacs?
you had to read him in college?
atheists can't meme
In that video Marcuse talks about his concern about the direction of the left.
Uh no shit, that's why I posted it. Should be telling that he opens the discussion with the usual Jewish buzzwords of "racism, sexism, fascism" and closes with advice for the New Left to "focus on Women's Liberation", push for radical feminism, etc. Pure identity politics
Nah I read this stuff in my spare time so you don't have to.
Pure sophistry
Marcuse later became disenfranchised with idpol (which in his day was certainly not what you see on tumblr) since he saw what a clusterfuck the New Left turned into by that time.
checked
7/10 subversion. better, but you have much to learn about impersonating goyim.
checked
Can you refute every part of this image?
Oy vey who wrote this
Sounds like you're absolutely on to something, my photosynthetic friend!
That second paragraph is gold!! Brilliant circumlocution and a level of symmetrical sophistry rarely seen in a second paragraph. Bravo good human, bravo. 21012
>no one fucking reads, everyone makes bold statements about things in which they know nothing about
This is a wide complaint I have on the internet, bht here i think it's people trying to quip their way into screenshots so they can feel like the Oscar Wilde of chan culture.
Simply state the obvious, "lurk more ye derailing, low-information faggot"
Later? Try again retard. He died like a year or two after this interview. Maybe he didn't become quite as disenfranchised as you imagined.
Even if it was the case, (((Schoenberg))) also recanted of his degenerate musical ideas far too late. The damage was already done.
God, you're so full of shit. Deleuze was more radically right-wing than you can possibly imagine
I´m sure there is a lot to talk, think, describe, differentiate about different types of poisons. And detailed knowledge may help to develop an antidote. However, not getting poisoned in the first place is probably better than any treatment.
this is a paraphrase of a Sup Forums copypasta about GNU/Linux if any of you don't browse it