Is Cultural Marxism A Conspiracy Theory?

A common allusion that you will see made on various right-leaning political websites (and some that have gone far beyond leaning to the right) is an allusion being made to the concept of “Cultural Marxism”. It’s certainly a term that I have used in the past, including the series of articles that started my website.

However, something that I have taken notice of in recent days is the fact that both Wikipedia (which is supposed to be a politically neutral site) and Rational Wiki (an openly left-leaning site, albeit one that is substantially less idiotic than their ideological brethren) state that the very concept of “Cultural Marxism” is a mere conspiracy theory, that there’s no factual basis to any claims of such, and anybody who does use the claim is literally using a rhetorical device from Nazi Germany.

While my views have substantially shifted rightward from my days as a liberal, never let it be said that I will not consider the views of others—“…I will defend to the death your right to say it and all that” (and yes, I know Voltaire was very much a leftist in his day. I will never deny that to an extent I do retain some leftist sympathies)..

So let me begin this analysis by saying that, in one respect…Wikipedia and Rational Wiki are absolutely correct. They are correct in saying that there’s no group of people called “The Cultural Marxists”, there is no institute of Cultural Marxism, and there are no books explicitly proffering the glories of Cultural Marxism.

So that’s it, the debate is settled, Cultural Marxism is a fake delusion made up by right-wing troglodytes, yes?

It’s certainly a murky issue, but I think there is some truth to it:

As I mentioned before, I used to be a dyed in the wool leftist before turning against leftism. One of the major reasons I did so was that I gradually noticed how modern leftism scarcely even pretends to care about labor unions or worker’s rights anymore (an issue I have always been concerned with), and seems to be far more preoccupied with racial/ethnic intersectionality, myriads of nonsensical gender identities, and perpetually sticking their thumbs into the eyes of Western civilization.

Don’t believe me? Then take a look at how leftists idealize corporations influencing governments as long as it promotes gay rights. Take a look at how they automatically assume that illegal immigration is an inherent good, even as doing so hurts the working man in those industries (or were Cesar Chavez and the UFW, who were vehemently anti illegal immigration, just examples of stupid white American xenophobes?)

Take a look at how they claim to be objective paragons of science and rationality while promoting this. Or how they denounce cultural appropriation in one breadth while gushing over Hamilton in another. Or how the gentle progressives seem to really love brutal (non-white) reactionaries. And of course, let’s not ignore that always important anthropology schism that I have discussed extensively.

Indeed, America in the “bad old 1950s” had a labor force that was almost 40% unionized, compared to today where America is simultaneously the wellspring of every odious concept of the new left and has a labor force that is increasingly becoming run by temp and underemployed labor, to say nothing of the rapidly shrinking unions!

This massive sea change is why I became increasingly disillusioned with the left. And while some (typically disaffected Democrats that have shifted further left) would argue that the abandonment of labor issues shows how the formerly leftist democrats have moved towards the center…I would disagree.

The concepts of intersectionality and critical theory and all the other “white people guilt tripping” (it’s not just for colonist countries like the USA and Canada anymore, nor even white people) academic disciplines certainly can’t be considered to be “Reactionary” or “conservative”, and they’re certainly been adapted by leftists, so while they undoubtedly represent a different TYPE of leftism than the old fashioned “labor unions and isolationism” sort, let us be honest and admit that these things are undoubtedly leftist concepts.

Where did these theories come from? Where else but the Frankfurt School, who are, of course the ones that rightists always claim are the root of Cultural Marxism, and whom Rational Wiki describes as being rarely named in debates on Cultural Marxism.

And, while it is again true that the term “cultural Marxism” was never used by them, that doesn’t change the fact that the Frankfurt school were…Marxists…who wanted to apply Communist ideology to cultural and sociological rather than economic contexts.

And judging by the sheer amount of intellectual progeny the Frankfurt school has had, I don’t think it’s unfair to say that they were at least somewhat influential in creating leftist political thought as we know it today.

So if Cultural Marxism can be said to not exist, it is only non-existent in the sense that it hasn’t been formally named. In that respect, since the intellectual progenitors of much of modern “goodthink” were openly Marxist, why not just use the traditional name?

  • Fickbowt

    The Frankfurt School were criticising the left:

    Jurgen Habermas of The Frankfurt School is the key critic of Post-Modernism:

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/#9

    Adorno was protested by feminists:

    http://field-journal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/tumblr_inline_o1o1r1Dlz11qmjacb_1280-768×524.jpg

    …and they were against the USSR:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Marxism:_A_Critical_Analysis

    • They may have been against the USSR, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t Marxists. They never claimed they weren’t Marxists, or at the very least were influenced by Marxist theory.

      And while one of the members may have criticized post-modernism, that doesn’t change the fact that they were influential in post-modernist (or more accurately modernist) theory, critical theory, and intersectionality.

      So again, it seems to be an issue of formal declaration and doctrine compared to their long-term implicit effects.

  • Caleb Stone

    German is a very hard language, maybe to hard for some, so they helped themselves with jiddish and came up with kirre theories.
    And that’s basically what Wagner had to say about the topic.

    • I’m not really sure what that has to do with this. I’m aware that many (not all, but many) of the Frankfurt School people were Jewish, but they did most of their writing in America, in English.

      • Caleb Stone

        And like Einstein said, when he needed to think, he used German for that task.
        And I agree, after the thinking part is done, one can write it down in English, if one doesn’t care about how it can be misunderstood.
        English has a vocabulary. German has a Wortschatz.
        I’m not kidding, there is a fundamental difference between it.
        I learned German, English and Latin, so I think I have at least some ground to base my claim on.
        And I realize, my sentence structure in English is often terrible, mainly because my thoughts are in German. And Latin is a great tool to compare both languages with, because there is no structure in a sentence at all (only for stylistic reasons, but the sense isn’t depending on any word order).
        I got to my conclusions only through listening to critique of postmodernism mostly in English, so I started to to become curious why many points only appear valid to me, when I put aside how they work in German, where there is at least some reason and sense too it.
        This doesn’t make it true, far from it, it seems more like, I can grasp how such ideas can come into existence, through bad German.

  • Sigma K

    Good stuff.

    The left used social status as a way in to the family unit/home and then branched off from there.

    University
    Keeping up with the Joneses
    Corporate life
    Bad ‘fathers’

    Etc… to batter the Wests senses and nice white guys went along to be helpful. No more.