I want to learn more about the Frankfurt school, New Left and what pol would call "cultural marxism."

Nobody is ever on the same page on these types of threads

Walter Benjamin was unironically one of the greatest leftist theorists of all time and was likely divinely inspired.

This.

Luria > Hegel

Possibilities > necessities

Rectification > "perfection"/"progress"

G*d tier:

Good tier:

Meh tier:

Ass tier:
Habermas

theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/09/23/modify-the-standards-of-the-in-group-on-jews-and-mass-communications-part-one-of-two/
This is all you really need to read to understand what is being invoked by the term "cultural marxism".

The key part is realizing that the "marxism" in "cultural marxism" is not a comment on anything that Marx said, nor is it claimed or intended to be. Despite this, Zig Forums has a sizable collection of "muh kultural Marx" memes that painfully illustrate that they don't understand the word as used by right wingers. But it's not a big surprise given the general inability of autists to recognize heuristics.

A choice quote from part two of the article:

Attached: hope.jpg (1600x800, 144.28K)

you mean Dialectical Imagination, but yeah, came here you to post this.

Adorno was pretty right-wing. There's a reason why legit conservatives love him.

he was actually reactionary but only because he was anti-consumerism.
conservatives function the other way around because they're brainlets.

*s0cially conservative

No one believes that rightist commentary on 'cultural marxism' is in any way a reflection of the authentic Marx. It is derided because the whole of the idea is derived from such a hopelessly polluted ideation that your 'heuristic' amounts to rhetorical and pragmatic reinforcements of the ideology you already believe in. Don't try to mystify and apotheosize a remarkably simple tactic of dishonest and superficial engagement with the theory of your opponent.

What a batch of drivel.
That is not what was claimed. What was claimed was that the memetic defense mechanism of 'karltural marx' in response to right wingers claiming "cultural marxism" relied on the implication that there was an inference being drawn between "cultural marxism" and Marx himself by right wingers when that was not the case.

What is 'polluted' about the ideation that spurs people to reject diversity propaganda as propaganda and how does that polluted ideation make it so that this heuristic is somehow invalidated? Like, yeah, no shit Sherlock, the use of the heuristic by certain right wing people serves to reinforce their right wing thought and help them project their ideas rhetorically and pragmatically. That's part of the point of using framework specific language regardless of your ideation! The exact same principle applies to any lexicon that can be considered politically specific.

And what exactly are those theories? 'Diversity is our strength'? I'm always dying to understand where I can find the exact scholarly work that seems to unite every modern political stripe, from neo-liberals, progressives and even the shitty socialists on r/socialism. I keep getting told that I won't find the same diversity worship and idpol here, but I keep running into people like you. So I am all ears. Outside of the relentless diversity propaganda, which I believe is the cause, what theory is everyone agreeing on that I managed to miss when it comes to the pro-diversity pro-inclusivity stuff?

Attached: celebratediversitybecausewearealloneracethehumanrace.jpg (600x443, 46.33K)

oh boohoo niggers and whites have sex sometimes. gee it's almost like all of human history is still happening.

Are you even Marxist at this point?

...

Ah, then let me go further and say you still have no point because the suppositions aren't worth the time. Why try to derive and deride a theory that has no substance except essentialist assumption. There're a million more interesting essentialist sophisms that would be more interesting than the tired and empty excuse of a critique that is 'cultural marxism'
Only on the assumption of universality of an idea. Most ideas work on the accession to universality but must deliberately exclude, as from a set, that which exceeds the bounds of its basic assumptions. I am not a native english speaker so I am a little not certain what you are saying here.
I am not entirely sure you know about which you speak. The rejection of the contemporary reactionary line on diversity is not a statement of confidence in the banal racial antithesis of the liberal. Abnegation does not, itself alone, suggest the support of the antipode. 'Diversity is our strength' is not the motto of a communist, as there is nothing essential in diversity that would lead to one end or the other, but by the way of some mediating processes.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand from where you are getting your ideas about this school of thought (Marxist, Frankfurt, or otherwise). It sounds like an eloquent regurgitation of propaganda.

At least he is not including Asser. Also, do you really think this is not a rhetorical question?

Oh, my.

You should really read Lukacs before reading any of the Frankfurts and affiliated thinkers.

Benjamin easily had the best grasp on the nature of commodities. His Marxism is undoubtedly strange and esoteric, but nonetheless deserves serious attention, especially these days.

Mods are brainlets. Where am I being intellectually dishonest?

You can then, kindly, refresh me on where in history the pro-diversity and pro-inclusivity propaganda has been done before and draw the parallel between then and now. Because Flowerman and co thought they were doing some groundbreaking work.

I am asking the person who claims that "cultural marxism" is a "dishonest" and "superficial" engagement with the "theory of [my] opponent" what exactly that theory is. If he believes that calling pro-diversity/pro-inclusivity propaganda "cultural marxism" is dishonest and that there is a theory I can engage with more honestly by, for instance, naming it, I want to know that name.
And just to further help you understand, the context here was related to Zig Forums memetics and how they inaccurately inferred the purpose of the term "cultural marxism". When that person said that engaging in the usage of the term is "dishonest" and that there are theories here to understand pertaining to what "cultural marxism" serves to point out, it's not me making the implication that Zig Forums subscribes to some diversity theory. It's the person I'm interacting with if we assume he was talking about the board.
I even made clear that I recognized that the basic gestalt is to principally reject the racial angle so I enacted effort to mention that there are leftist spaces where such a thing is not done to make even more clear that the claim being made was not there to say that Zig Forums is explicitly subscribing to the diversity train. What a waste of time you are.

I'm losing you here man. What is the essentialist assumption of "cultural marxism"? What do the million other "essentialist sophisms" have to do with the contention being made by right wingers that see what they call "cultural marxism" and get a gut wrenching feeling of 'yuck' in the process? From where do we derive the justification to modify their societies against their will and inject their lives with diversity/inclusivity propaganda? Why would people here, on this platform, take note and ridicule the term when it deals with the real phenomenon of diversity propaganda which is, as claimed by people here, in principal opposition to what you are about? Like, all I'm reading here is just shit flinging against the verbal construct right wingers use to express opposition. Not a justification as to why you oppose it. You seem to be rejecting the platform to even care about it.
I guess we are losing eachother in translation here since I have no grasp on what you are trying to convey. What I was saying was: "Cultural marxism" is no more an invalid heuristic than calling something "counter-revolutionary". Both serve a function and express an idea/emotion.
You reject both the reactionary and liberal line, sure. But I need help in figuring out what the difference is between the liberal line you reject and the "mediating processes". Rejecting the reactionary hypothesis of hereditarianism doesn't free you from creating a contingency against all the claims they make, should they be true.
The person I responded to claimed that "cultural marxism" was a dishonest attack against the "theory of [my] opponent". I ask, what is this theory that is being unfairly maligned by the term? I'm not claiming that I know. I'm not making an insinuation. It's a genuine question. What is this theory? What name? What originators? Because the diversity propaganda has a beginning, like the article I originally linked unearths. So what theory were they operating under that the term "cultural marxism" is maligning which, presumably, everyone else other than the right wingers know of and understand.

Attached: dream.jpg (3176x2117, 4.94M)

do you really want me to turn this into a thread where I spam pictures of roman artwork?

I mean, that would not hurt my theory that this propaganda is bad given how the Romans came out of their multi-ethnic paradise.

...

The exploitation of lesser territories works fine without immigration. Like, where does this idea come from that immigration is a force of nature and not a result of policy?

civilization is a force of nature. find me one that hasn't eventually capitulated to emigration, you can't, because capital relies on a freely flowing job market

Forgive me, I'll try to do my best to explain in a better fashion - I know my writing is awful.
The worst sentiment that I could hope to imbue is that of false consciousness. I believe that the 'gut-wrenching' feeling you describe is wholly organic and experienced spontaneously, no one could fairly claim that they are not authentically reacting to what they see around them; however, there is a particularity of Marxist philosophy and theory that 'appearance of reality' and 'description or veracity of reality' are two irreconcilable issues that are borne out from social and productive relations. This is an aside, obviously, but when describing the social corpus of any particular group (society as a whole, community, individuals, etc.), one must account for values which are socially inculcated and differentiate them from natural processes - the connection to what I said previously being that one must delineate between natural human reaction and the 'experience of a perceived natural reaction' which might just be the product of a pathology. To the rest of your statement, I am in whole agreement - there is a definite lack in the way of substantive discussion outside of occasional theory threads on the prevailing issues of contemporary theory, and this mostly comes from the fact that 'cultural marxism' isn't usually wielded against us as a theory, but as a bludgeon - a way of fundamentally excluding Marxism from a discussion of modern issues. That is the reason you'll see a great host of complaints with little substantive context.
I see now, I think. You're absolutely right, in the sense that symbolic language is used in different communities with wholly different values attached. It kind of connects to what I say above regarding how we're engaged by 'cultural marxism', but the standard justification to it being an invalid heuristic is that it contains antinomies, that it can only function properly within its own ideological community, which is usually contrasted with Marxism - which is contended to be a universal idea.
The mediating processes are just the social process of valuation, how society regulates and assigns positive or negative value to a concept. The liberal and conservatives adapt and orient themselves differently in response to the same phenomena, and produce wildly different results - but results that are both predicated upon a certain way of valuation.
I'm not so sure. This would imply that we must necessarily create and orient ourselves opposite to our opponent. We are not honor-bound to be contrarians. If they were correct, their ideas would stand to scrutiny and analysis - we're all kind of at this stage, perpetually arguing.
I'd be inclined to say critical theory, at least the continental/structuralist tendencies. These are usually the archetypical "bad guys" of the 'cultural marxism' line. I'm not all too certain what the other user was getting at, but he might just mean the concept of modernity et al. but im not sure

Be very careful in making equivalencies between the affaires of contemporary capital with the previous formations of the state. It is readily apparent, I think at least, that the contemporary state is fundamentally intertwined with provisions for the maintenance of capital and its reproduction - in the way of property protection, in such a manner that civilization, as it stands, will not be readily susceptible to crisis, as it is founded upon the assumption of crisis

Never read Adorno or Horkheimer but I read quite a few essays by Walter Benjamin. He wasn't a very "orthodox" Marxist but he was a good writer, brought interesting insights and at least explicitly supported actually existing socialism in the USSR (as opposed to most of the later Frankfurt School guys who outright denounced it). Definitely give it a shot, but read with an open mind and don't expect to understand everything either.
His well known essay "The Work of Art in the Age of its Mechanical Reproduction" is a good starting point. If you don't fully grasp the points he is making, I'd recommend you to watch the first episode of TV series "Ways of Seeing" by John Berger which basically makes Benjamin's ideas from this essay accessible. Another text that I liked from Benjamin is his last big essay "Theses on the Philosophy of History", but since it's pretty cryptic at times, read it alongside this helpful article if you want to get the most out of it: ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/walter-benjamin-messianism-revolution-theses-history/
Just dropping some PDFs that could be interesting too. Hope this helps!

Attached: adorno jazz.jpg (553x2048, 168.09K)

youtu.be/-G_eLMkJkNw

Not only is "cultural marxism" distinct from the original ideas of Marx, its existence is simply a schizophrenic conspiracy theory in the first place and something only believed by people without any actual knowledge of either Marx or the Frankfurt School philosophers. This is the reason it's being mocked with "memetic defense mechanisms".
Talking about "diversity worship" is idpol itself you idiot. Wanting to take action against the mixing of "races" (read: random couples having sex except they happen to have a different skin color so now it's literally genocide) is the most identitarian policy you could advocate for.

E

youtu.be/-G_eLMkJkNw

...

I see your contention, but I can't see where you would differentiate the inculcated from the natural. Nor if it is even possible between large groups of people to make a meaningful resolution since there is no guarantee that the natural is shared across all people. But that's just my hereditarian clashing.
Sure, I can see where this can be maintained by people who make it a point to reject idpol and diversity propaganda. But I'd also make it abundantly clear that people that hold to that position are in an absolute minority in the media landscape as well as policy landscape that gets people agitated. Zig Forums is tiny and nearly invisible next to some pinko hippie who appropriates your vocabulary, calls himself an anti-capitalist, and drapes himself in a rainbow colored flag whilst apologizing for his white male privilege to a "woman of color". Ridiculing the concept of "cultural marxism" whilst that pleb bandies about twitter with 90k followers is kind of insular. A much better resistance would be to give the concept a new and more apt name that is usable by those that need to use it.
I mean, does this not invalidate near all heuristics? I can't really see this. The heuristic, like any phrase or word, would always be dependent on context of the group using it. Could "marxism" not be described as its own ideologial community? I'm failing to see the distinction you draw.
OK. I'm not sure if that process is malleable to an extent that can ratify differences, but that's predicated on ideas I know you do not hold so whatever. I get where you are getting at.
I mean, sure. But It's not like we are at a lack for time for coming up with contingencies for ideas like hereditarianism. Which is where near all my contentions with marxist theory crafting come from.

Why would Marx have anything to do with it? You just quoted a sentence that explicitly stated that it was not an inference being drawn or intended to be drawn.

As for the schizo conspiracy theory. Is diversity propaganda real? Yes. OK, when did it begin in its modern form? Can we trace its origins? Can we trace any trends in its development?
theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/09/23/modify-the-standards-of-the-in-group-on-jews-and-mass-communications-part-one-of-two/
The answer to these questions is often times: yes. The developers of many of these things have names and they had their ideological histories and influences. They documented their progress and were proud of it whilst teaching it to others. To point towards the very broad range of topics they discussed over their entire lifetimes to brush off the fact that these were ideas and practical methods put into action by cause of their instigation is just idiocy.

Adorno being a social conservative does not change the fact that Flowerman, not a member of the FS, direct and co-edit the Studies in Prejudice series with Max Horkheimer, who was a member. The intellectual connection is there.

Wanting to take action against mixing and wanting to take action to encourage mixing are both idpol. Taking a stance on either front is an implicit idpol position. In any case, you have already created the position you want to argue against. I don't know why you directed it at me and not your diary you massive faggot.

Attached: div4.jpg (947x676 21.27 KB, 137.23K)

The conspiracy theory is named "Cultural Marxism", surely a link is being made here to Marxism as a movement at the very least.
The fact that it's possible to identify certain individuals who contributed to the liberal identity politics movement doesn't somehow provide evidence for the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory which tries to link these developments to the desire of Jews to destroy "western culture" or the supposed benefits of ethnic homogeneity.
I don't want to "encourage mixing". I want people to stop being brainwashed by the right into thinking racial identity is something that's even politically relevant, or that it makes any meaningful difference whether you fuck someone of your own "race" or a different one. There are too many important things to be debated in politics to waste time on these non-issues.

Attached: always acceptable.jpg (942x942, 64.67K)

In the space of differentiation, it is a personal revelation. Not to invoke fideism, there, but the process of enculturation seems to naturally invoke and make apparent its own flaws. The gaps and lack where the natural must call forth a discussion, a point of order, where the natural must, by discursive processes, declare that it is the natural order of things that cannot be abridged (in the face of natural phenomena that reject it). I wish I could pinpoint it to a specific mechanic or programme, but it is a profoundly individual process.
I agree, but in spite of the difference in 'natural' (here, talking about the perception of natural between members of some abstract group) understandings, group consensus still forms. To me, this is evident of the ability to both construct arbitrary ideas of universality, but also that there are exceptions within them.
While I've seen my fair share of that vein of politics at play, which of course is a majorly western happening, I'd say that politics for the individual seems to be a remarkably self-censorious affaire. People increasingly invoke ideological concerns in their own spaces, but restrict them in commercial and public forums (excluding if there is a cohabitation of spheres, such as rallies or protests or the like). Daily politics seems like it has come to a standstill, and we only debate the merit or ignobility of arbitrary situations. And for the name, I know not a means of detaching Marxian schools of thought from two communities: One determined to use its language and edifice to impart legitimacy and organizational power ; one that is determined that the former be known as the authentic, modern expression of Marxism and will stubbornly pursue nomenclature and dog-whistles like 'cultural marxism' to do so.
Well, we'd be getting into Hegelianism, so I'll cease my childish enthusiasm and say that you're correct so long as the heuristic does not involve a universal (pre-cognitive) subject.
It certainly doesn't make the supposed differences reality, that's more a process of in-group socialization, if i read that correctly.
Genetic and biological sciences are definitely the site of an enduring conflict in the philosophy of science, and I don't deign to speak outside my own realm of experience in physics. I can tell you that no one here is probably a supporter of tabula rasa, but that racialist politics, at least in their modern form, are much more a contingent reaction to the advent of fields such as epigenetics, developments in demographic statistics, etc. than the social expression of 'diversity culture' as a reaction to an empirical standard of racialism. This is not to say that the 'diversity awareness' shit isn't a response in some capacity, but more so a response to the idea of racism than a universal reality of racism

It's called "cultural marxism". Not classical marxism. The link to marxism is through institutions like the FS and the ideological histories of the men that instigated a majority of what is now labeled "cultural marxism". These men were marxists that took a leap into a different area. Like, neo-marxism, is that not marxist enough for you? What about post-marxism? This autism is pointless. The CULTURAL in "cultural marxism" should give something away. Critical theory+class theory turned into an idpol hierarchy. It's not classical marxism. It's not something Marx would like. But it's a product of certain marxist thinkers. It's "cultural marxism". If you don't like it find a better term for me to use. Stop barking conspiracy as if diversity propaganda doesn't exist or that the men that created it didn't exist. It's stupid.
The fact that majority of these individuals were of jewish background is not a conspiracy. Read the article. It's not a matter of debate. They self describe their actions as an attempt to change the perceptions of Americans surrounding diversity. To make the people less ethnocentric. They are saying this. Wow, believing them and noting their ethnic heritage and ideological background is such a CONSPIRACY. Whatever their motives were beyond that is not relevant to the key factual observations. The concept of "cultural marxism" is not reliant on their motives. It's an observation of fact. Stop trying to inject your own take on the subject and get this through your head: It's not about their motive or them being connected in some Protocols of the Elders of Zion tinfoil plot. It's about the facts of the matter. These men were majority jewish, lived and breathed in marxist academia and interacted with guys like Horkheimer. They researched, taught, produced and distributed diversity and inclusivity propaganda. These are not disputed facts. They wrote this shit down themselves.
You don't want to encourage mixing. So you are against diversity propaganda? Because standing idly by whilst the entire media apparatus plays into these idpol narratives is you taking a stand by not talking about it. Diversity propaganda is not the status quo. It's a concentrated and deliberate push.
As for your brainlet takes on the right wing narrative, I don't care that you don't care about idpol. I care that idpol cares about me. Not recognizing this is just asinine and any political discussion about the "important things" when everyone else is voting on racial lines and not following your preferred framework of principled bourgeois white people politics. Your hot take is 100 years past its expiration date.

lmao keep being dishonest. we all know this is just a phrase for you to call SJW politics because thinking about history is le too hard grug.
Foucalt has nothing to do with the Frankfurt School.
right…
and you're a retard for not seeing that this is why your precious civilization is collapsing under neoliberalism and neoconservatism, because nobody wants to talk about these two things.
as a programmer, let me introduce you to a concept called "timesink". you see, believe it or not, your time to get anything done relative to the people around you is limited. if you fill your schedule with frivolous activities such as "watching SJW BTFO compilations" or "arguing with tumblrinas" then nothing of actual productive value gets done. This is a common artifact for users of a lot of buggy applications, where nerds end up creating a lot of problems for themselves that could've been easily solved by using another application.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1266x546, 425.5K)

most of them were idiots generally speaking but some good came out of it. Adorno was the least bad, with Guy Debord being a close second. Adorno hated jazz though (muh structuralism)

Society Of The Spectacle is a good critique of consumerism though.

You are projecting some boogeyman unto me. Take it to your diary. Where does diversity propaganda in its current form originate from? This question has an answer. I've linked the article that goes over what I am talking about multiple times.
But you have a caved in head strawman of what '!!REACTIONARIES!!' AKCHUALLY BELIEVE LOLOLOL so why even read anything presented.
theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/09/23/modify-the-standards-of-the-in-group-on-jews-and-mass-communications-part-one-of-two/
And where was this maintained? Is this a joke? What are you talking about?
theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/09/23/modify-the-standards-of-the-in-group-on-jews-and-mass-communications-part-one-of-two/ What quotes did the author cherry-pick? You can't just claim cherrypicking. What did the author neglect to mention? Oh, right. You didn't read anything and just shouted "CHERRY PICKER".
Again, nowhere is it claimed that this is connected to Marx's word or classical marxism. The marxist connection is from certain men having called themselves some form of marxist at one point or another.
Both of these things are discussed in all dissident political factions on both the left and right. Both are hated in those circles. You are such a know-nothing pleb dude. What even is this?
Are you an SJW or a tumblrina? Presumably not. Do they congregate here? I don't think so. Am I not here? So where does that leave your schizoid machination of what I am?
In any case, disconnecting yourself from reality and existing in a mental jerkoff sessions for eternity to maintain ideological purity is as big a timesink as anything else when the world around you operates under a completely different ruleset than what you are jerking off to. I care about the real world. I am forced to contend with ideas that are influential in that sphere. The construct you jerk off to leaves you unable to deal with the real world, so you just don't. That's fine dude, just don't pretend that your masturbation material holds any weight or relevance. Because the sad fact of the matter is that both the "SJW" and the guy making Ben Shapiro compilation #1312 are more relevant than you.

Attached: Doberman-Pinscher-473.jpg (2805x2244, 1.81M)

Wrong. Counter revolution is an actual observed historical process. Cultural Marxism is only a phantasm.

...

If you can get a hold of 'The Culture Industry', I'd recommend that as a nice starting point. Even if you don't agree with what Adorno talks about it gives you a nice perspective of his mildly social-conservative views on art and entertainment. It is, I would argue, a collection of short essays that throw the whole 'Cultural Marxism' myth on its head.