This could be the base-point for a definition. But I think it could be useful, also, to give it a context by expressly locating it, for example, in American Cultural Marxism, and then -- are not you happy and bouncy? -- you could integrate Baudrillardian ironies into your definition of CM!Diebert wrote:Cultural Marxism is used to describe the political-identity infused struggle against ingrained, first world "social constructs" which are held responsible for suppression or discrimination of minorities or otherwise vulnerable groups. The reason the term "Marxism" is used has a lot to do with a perceived link between class or gender relations and social conflicts or suppression, the general liberation movements of the political Left, the emphasis on "social transformation" within that framework and the implicit link with Communism like the suggested break-down of social classes and money or the various power dynamics created by wealth accumulation.
I think you also are not putting proper emphasis on Cultural Marxism and the degree that it has been adopted, courted, entertained, or incorporated into the corporate culture of America, and hence into a governmental praxis or philosophy. Whereas Marxism would have remained fiercely critical of capital and its machinations, Cultural Marxism is far more plastic and adaptable. Cultural Marxism also seems to operate in concert with emotions and *social hysteria*.
If one were to accept, for example, E Michael Jones' foundational definition (one that circulates in Cyberspace), it is thatJupi wrote:Like calling Marxism/leftism evil, connecting it with Jews and blaming it for creating all the problems by ruining traditional and/or natural identity? That is essentially what Cultural Marxism means.
- The Jews rejected Jesus as savior and Messiah right there at the foot of the cross, and as a result 'rejected Logos' in a grand metaphysical sense; and in 'rejecting Logos' became, by necessity, revolutionaries and subversives.
Jews were always oppressed by these European structures, but antisemitism came into focus especially in the Emancipation. Then, Jews began to cease to be shtetl Jews and began to develop an incorporated identity. From thence all the issues, questions and problems of Jewish power. The *JQ* therefore, has come back on the scene as that echo. It is very peculiar. At the base level it is virulent, and mindless, antisemitism. It is a demonology. But at the upper levels it really has to do with ideas. And a demonology at another level . . .
The so-called Frankfurt School, migrating to the US for a time, became so enmeshed with and also responsible for setting in motion different levels and octaves of critical theory that their influence cannot be underestimated. Fromm for example. And all the work on The Authoritarian Personality. If one wants to be fair one wants to avoid irrational Judenhass. But one must hold in the mind that the Jews suffered extraordinarily in Europe and during a time that allowed for maximum consciousness and processing of the event. Cultural Marxism, then, must also be linked with a profound ressentiment and a desire to avenge oneself. It can't do this openly though and must use other means . . .
Cultural Marxism is then a different and more complex animal. It is a being, an entity, involved in self-devouring. It is critique that destroys all the boundaries and leaps into radical action.
Consider this.