Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Cultural Marxism is just Global Homocapitalism

                           probably not what Stalin had in mind

“Cultural Marxism” is a umbrella term with the use of the critical theory of the Frankfurt School  for specific social transformation agendas, utilizing a similar dialectic as Marx with different actors.

Jonathan Chait has noted that the “modern far left has borrowed the Marxist critique of liberalism and substituted race and gender identities for economic ones.”

From the video below :

“Instead of the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat, between the haves and the have-nots, Cultural Marxism views such a conflict as existing between the oppressed and the oppressors; between those with privilege, and those without it.

The working class has been replaced by “minorities”. Majority groups are typically defined as privileged and oppressive, with minority groups accordingly labelled under-privileged and oppressed. Heterosexuals are oppressive. Cis-gender people are oppressive. Whites are oppressive. Especially white men. Christians are oppressive. Those that do not fit into these groups are thus considered “oppressed”.

It stands to reason, therefore, that:

If heterosexuals are oppressors, the solution is to encourage other forms of sexuality.

If whites are oppressors, the solution is racial diversity.

If cis-gender people are oppressors, the solution is to encourage transgenderism.

If Christians are oppressors, the solution is to propagate Islam.”

Ironically, this all serves the Global Capitalist agenda, Charles Upton notes how Cultural Marxism was used against the Revolutionary Liberation movements themselves :

"The Liberal Left has radically departed from the worldview and mores of the “traditional” U.S. Left of the 1980’s. In its elitism, its scorn for the working class, and its near-total suppression of class-based politics in favor a radical and dehumanizing social agenda based on race and gender, it begs for a new name—“Inverted Liberalism” perhaps? 

Nothing in fact is left of Leftist or Marxist ideology in the traditional sense but the mouthings of a strictly academic “Left”, totally alienated from any sort of working-class movement, where the ideologies of race and gender have completely replaced those of class. This development is largely the product of a deliberate co-optation, by the economic and political powers-that be, of the Left as it existed in the 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s. Feminist Gloria Steinham even confessed that Ms. Magazine, the major feminist publication of the 1970’s, received funding from the CIA, who well understood that if the social conflict between the rich and the poor could be re-defined as a conflict between the men and the women, the liberation movements of the second half of the 20th Century could be effectively suppressed—which they were."

Gay Liberation being so prominent among the New Left that these agendas have become so intwined as to inspire a new term: Homocapitalism.

In 1982 the Australian scholar Dennis Altman wrote:

“The real change in the past decade has been a mass political and cultural movement through which gay women and men have defined themselves as a new minority. This development was only possible under modern consumer capitalism, which for all its injustices has created the conditions for greater freedom and diversity than are present in any other society yet known. For those of us who are socialists, this presents an important political dilemma, namely how to guard those qualities of capitalism that allow for individual diversity while jettisoning its inequities, exploitation, waste, and ugliness.”

On the social function of liberating Eros
Zygmunt Bauman has remarked that

The great majority of people ± men as well as women ± are today integrated through seduction rather than policing, advertising rather than indoctrinating, need- creation rather than normative regulation.

Free- floating eroticism is therefore eminently suitable for the task of tending to the kind of identity which, like all other postmodern cultural products, is (in George Steiner's memorable words) calculated for `maximal impact and instant obsolescence'. 
The overall outcome is the rapid emaciation of human relations, stripping them of intimacy and emotionality, and the wilting of the desire to enter them and keep them alive. 
The weakening of bonds is an important condition of successful social production of sensation-gatherers who happen as well to be fully ̄edged, effective consumers." 

Baudrillard, who conceives of feminism as merely the liberation of productive forces, analogous to the movement within capitalism whereby the serf is emancipated as worker in order to be more efficiently exploited. The sexual revolution has been successful in ensuring that misery and alienation migrate into sexuality, and that the emancipated forms of sexuality valorized by many feminists are in fact what capitalism requires of us in the contemporary marketplace.

John Milbank explains,

Liberalism, then, drives the attempt to displace the heterosexual norm – which leads to the (shockingly illiberal) criminalisation of those who do not endorse either gay practice or gay marriage. But liberalism includes capitalism: in the end, liberalism defines people as simply property-owners, narcissistic self-owners, choosers and consumers. Aquinas thought that our natural orientation to something outside ourselves was fundamental to our being. Liberalism, by contrast, denies the importance of relationships. Thereby it encourages the undoing of community, locality and beauty – and also marriage and the family.

And there is, naturally, money to be made out of all this. Husbands, wives, children and adolescents (this last an invention of the market) are more effective and exploitable consumers when they are isolated. Fluctuating identities and fluid preferences, including as to sexual orientation, consume still more, more often and more variously in terms of products and services.”

Scott Schaffer
at the Journal of Mundane Behavior comments on this postmodern liberated subject,

“Hence this obsessive quest for gender (“he makes me feel like a woman”) at both the prosaic end of the everyday and the more rarefied space of radical feminist theory. This endless commutability of signifiers was what capitalism wanted all along, not merely profit or exchange-value.”

No comments:

Post a Comment