So Yea Forums , any book on cultural marxism ?

Attached: pid_1103.jpg (388x600, 74K)

It’s one of those terms that is only good because it’s the right people. The more vague and amorphous it is, the better.

Adorno literally though capitalism was bad because it turns people into drooling consumerist automatons and creates an aesthetic monoculture regulated and controlled by a tiny cabal of authoritarians. "Le Adorno wanted to make us all Amerimutts" is 100 percent the opposite of what he actually believed and taught but good job falling for /pol/ propaganda that is just repackaged anti-Bolshevik propaganda from the 1930s lmao

It is proganda and works wonders.

It is a stamp used by far-right ideologues, economists, journalists and politicians to attack any manifestations contrary to their creeds and ideals, even if the opposing arguments are historical facts.

Just one example. In present-day Brazil there is a polular discussion in which part of the population says that the 1964 military coup was "necessary" to prevent a "communist revolution", and part of the population says it was a breakdown of national democracy.

Well, all historians (both Brazilian and from the international community) usually agree that there was no risk of a communist uprising and that the military coup was a breach of the democratic rule of law, largely motivated by American foreign policy. There are official documents supporting these allegations, as well as all sorts of detailed analyzes of the society before the coup.

Today, however, far-right activists (especially those who benefited from the military coup) claim that books and studies that analyze the breakdown of democracy are examples of "cultural Marxism", and not serious works. No matter who writes the book, how many and how qualifying the evidence you present, etc., critics will say it is "cultural Marxism.". This has gotten so dangerous that those days a lot of the population sees professors as enemies and bad influences. It goes like this: if a researcher states something that is bitter-tasting then this professor is a no-good troublemaker and his/her words nothing but sonorous poison.

The same people say that Brazil was a haven of security and order during the military rule, ignoring that, before the military rule, the rates of urban violence were very low, and that during the period of military dictatorship such indications increased, not only because of the rise of international drug trafficking, but also because of the escalation of violence originated as reaction towards the army and police-sponsored extermination groups.

The same far-right "theorists" claim that the armed struggle of militants against the military is proof that a "communist threat" was real and imminent, totally ignoring two exhaustively proven facts: 1) such armed struggle only broke out good years after the military regime was established and 2) this armed struggle was never in the least able to cause damage to the state structure. Even if there was an intent to make Brazil a communistic country before 1964, there was simply no way for that plan to have success.

1/2

Cultural Marxism isn't communism.

But none of that matters. Facts don't matter, evidence doesn't matter, numbers don't matter. The influential voice of power-holders and people's visceral desire to believe (it's something almost like Stolcolmo's syndrome: "they raped the population and wiped their dirty hands on democracy, but they weren't so bad; I didn't look up and if I did not contradict them and I bowed my head and obeyed, so they never harmed me") has a stronger voice than the evidence. Proofs are like small, annoying mosquitoes trying to bite the voice of the thunder.

The same thing happens with Global Warming Deniers, but in this case world wide. No matter how detailed and robust the voice of the kinetic community, many will call it "leftist propaganda"

>I don't seem to understand, correct if i'm wrong, they saying basically that cultural marxism as a cultural zeitgeist it's a oxymoron, since it encompass the whole society, not a specific class ?

Well the basic definition I hear for cultural Marxism is a system where the structure of Marxist thought is maintain but the content is swapped out. In most cases this means Class being replaced with something along the lines of Identity Politics. Sometimes this is framed as a cope by theorists upset over the degeneration of the USSR in to totalitarian authoritarianism, othertimes it is framed as the classic Frankfurt School Rabbi's sitting around Gendo Ikari style muttering "Just as planned" conspiracy.

Marxists theories of history revolve around class conflict as the engine of history itself - so if you remove this and replace it with something else it is it Marxism anymore? Marxists would say no it isn't because they care about the content of Marxism as much as the structure, so if you can't change one thing without changing the lot. Non-Marxists might still consider it a kind of marxism as they may care about the structure and therefore a real or perceived genealogy than any specific content.

At the end of the day it is better to discuss the actual ideas at play rather than fight over the labels.

The threat of communist takeover is omnipresent. Anyone who claims that it is not a threat in any and all situations is deliberately distorting the facts to advance a communist agenda.

These professors do it consciously, and they are the enemy of the nation and people in doing so.

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

Wasn’t he virulently against the nuclear family though? It seems hard to take him seriously when he and his capitalist “opponents” shared many of the same goals.

On a side note, what books of Adorno would you recommend to somebody who wanted to unpack that concept further?

It does the opposite. How can one sleep when the most influential institutions in our country have been systematically taken over by communists that exist in bad faith?

Reminder that cultural "marxism" is really Cultural-Hegelianism !!!

The Culture Industry is the only one I've read and it pretty much articulates what he thought about capitalisms degradation of art and so on. A good summary of his argument can be seen in this interview m.youtube.com/watch?v=-njxKF8CkoU

He basically says boomer liberals who were protesting Vietnam and the larger establishment actually just ended up further consolidating and entrenching the power of the establishment by falling for their tricks, including making pop music virtue signal as "antiwar", and thus allowing themselves to be assimilated into the very structures they were supposedly rebelling against.

From what I understand Adorno articulates his anti-authoritarianism mostly in the Dialectic of Enlightenment but I haven't read that one yet.

Also I don't know about Adorno's thoughts on the matter specifically but many first wave Marxists (ie before the New Left and boomer interpretations of Marx like "because communism would be a society without borders we should go ahead and get rid of borders rather than focus on overthrowing capitalism as such" and other identity politics shit that ultimately ended up strengthening rather than weakening capitalism) weren't outright against what is now called the nuclear family they were just against the concept that the family should be structured in such a way that it serves whoever is above you on the class hierarchy. To put it another way, Marx didn't want to kill all the white babies and make everyone polyamorous. Im not trying to defend the USSR but for what its worth women who lived in the Soviet union said that long term monogamous relationships, sexual satisfaction from their husbands, and the general atmosphere of family life was better and more stable back then then it is now for their daughters

It is real, the left is trying to deny it, because they don't know it either, and those who know keep it a secret, and the rightwing. The shepherd doesn't tell the herd where is the pasture. Read Antonoi Gramshi.
this man is a known liar, as many of your, knowing or not. Except in the part that the military coup was democratic and it ultimately helped the people, wich it wasn't and didn't. As a matter of fact, the academic and the media spheres where completely overruned by communists, they lied thier asses off(they said there was no guerrilas, there where 300. They said there was no armed confrontations, they literally armed themselves and robbed trains and banks to bankroll thier armed groups. The military where killing people in the streets, hardcore bullshit, the ones killing people by the back where the commies, the milicos where shitting and walking for the people, just thinking about thier pious and mercyful tecnocratic estate), that's why the whole brazillian university and media system today is a pittyful joke with no excuses. This man is propagating desinformation, historic revisionism, with a single drop of truth that means nothing in the sea of poison dropping from his fingers. This man is the living proof that cultural marxism exists and it had subverted the whole academia. The estate won't save us, no Bolsonaro, neither the flag nor the union, only God can save us from this madness and we should not stray from his light. Você meu senhor, Vá tomar banho na soda, seu mentiroso sem vergonha, SE ARREPENDA!

Sorry. THe first line got messed up, i said the right wing is oportunistic in namecalling before knowing. Left or right, the powerplay keeps on. The left lie, so does the right, so does the center, wich is an amalgam of both and thanks neither

ain't reading that shit, schizo

Suck a fucking dick faggot.

You are living with delusions. One thing is to support social democratic measures but respecting the limits of the Constitution, and other very different to create a police State in the moulds of old Soviet Union or North Korea. There’s literally no chance of that happening here.

And I’m being serious when I say that not a single unbiased source states that there was any danger of a Communistic revolution in Brazil in the 60s.

By the way, if the US was so nervous about coups with a Communistic boas, why they didn’t implement a dictatorship in their own land? Do you realize we had 30 years of systematic killings of native Indians, corruption by the military with their own friends and associates, persecution of labour-rights advocates, selling of natural property of the country, and etc. during the military years? We were a banana republic and there’s people who still think it was a good thing.

Furthermore, look for the indexes of public violence before 1964, see just how much the army helped making us “safe” from the terror we were living before.

I can’t understand why people support a dictatorship because they are fearing a dictatorship. The Americans have a story about Benjamin Franklin on the street after the institution of the republic, and a woman asking him what kind of government he and the others have given to the people. He said: “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it”. Now, don’t you feel ashamed of yourself in admiring people who destroyed democracy in your country? Even if you don’t agree with left-wing policies, they respected the constitution and the democratic State, so they did more than any of the military presidents did. You need to be proud, to respect yourself, to be able to face the fact that some people robbed your country several years of democratic government out of nothing but ambition.

The reason I said “whatever makes you sleep at night” is that some people prefer to think that the army-rape was necessary, for to live with the fact that those kind of people and the US foreign policy were successful in their plans is sometimes to hard to carry.

>cultural marxism

Attached: 0 troll.jpg (200x200, 7K)

>Marx didn't want to... make everyone polyamorous
Engels did though. Marxism and degeneracy are like peas in a pod.

checked, schizo

That doesn't adress the issue
Well, a country is made of people not of an economic view, so, one can be a communist in a capitalist country, if it isn't endorse by the culture, it's a counter culture. Do i make sense to you, or i missed you point ?
I agree with your point, I'm not a marxist myself, but i would much rather discuss it with someone like you AND read the actual literature.
I didn't read it much, but my problem with marxism is this
1) it promotes labor as the highest human activity (this is the point of Adam Smith too)
2) It's a materialistic view of the world, and a utilitarian too. As far as this goes, my view is that Marx, such as Freud, Nietzsche and Darwin, was a man of his time, so not much of a sin, just a observation and a personal one.
3)I think it still plays out as a view towards an utopia. I like reading some marxists because they are one the most on point critics of modernity, but they lose me when advocating for their goal.

What do you want? I honestly can’t tell. The holy inquisition or something?

You need to stop listening to Olavo de Carvalho: it’s making you schizophrenic.

>Well, a country is made of people not of an economic view, so, one can be a communist in a capitalist country,
america is a capitalist country with media hegemony that supports capitalism
it's endorsed by "culture"
there's a difference between culture and hegemony but for the sake of conversation it's culture

Any source that does not acknowledge the omnipresence of the communist threat is biased towards the communists and is effectively communist propaganda. That claim that the ultimate subversives are not always looking to subvert and acting with the attempt to subvert is a claim made in bad faith.

Any sort of society, no matter how violent, brutal, or unsafe is preferable to one in which works obtain the entirety of the value their labor produces. Democracy is not inherently good if it incubates a system that necessitates the destruction of nation states.

>You are living with delusions. One thing is to support social democratic measures but respecting the limits of the Constitution, and other very different to create a police State in the moulds of old Soviet Union or North Korea. There’s literally no chance of that happening here.
The was, still have.
>And I’m being serious when I say that not a single unbiased source states that there was any danger of a Communistic revolution in Brazil in the 60s.
There weren't no unbiased sources.
>By the way, if the US was so nervous about coups with a Communistic boas, why they didn’t implement a dictatorship in their own land? Do you realize we had 30 years of systematic killings of native Indians, corruption by the military with their own friends and associates, persecution of labour-rights advocates, selling of natural property of the country, and etc. during the military years? We were a banana republic and there’s people who still think it was a good thing.
Fuck the hawk, fuck the bear.
>Furthermore, look for the indexes of public violence before 1964, see just how much the army helped making us “safe” from the terror we were living before.
The army didn't did shit, but the statistics where from comunists killing and robbing, they waited to go full blown when the army took over to make the people think it was them.
>I can’t understand why people support a dictatorship because they are fearing a dictatorship. The Americans have a story about Benjamin Franklin on the street after the institution of the republic, and a woman asking him what kind of government he and the others have given to the people. He said: “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it”. Now, don’t you feel ashamed of yourself in admiring people who destroyed democracy in your country? Even if you don’t agree with left-wing policies, they respected the constitution and the democratic State, so they did more than any of the military presidents did. You need to be proud, to respect yourself, to be able to face the fact that some people robbed your country several years of democratic government out of nothing but ambition.
Of course the left respect the constituition, they wrote it when the miicos jumped off.
>The reason I said “whatever makes you sleep at night” is that some people prefer to think that the army-rape was necessary, for to live with the fact that those kind of people and the US foreign policy were successful in their plans is sometimes to hard to carry.
It wasn't necessary nor asked.
>to live with the fact that those kind of people and the US foreign policy were successful in their plans is sometimes to hard to carry.
It was hard to carry the 3000 know KGB agents operating in Brazillian soil, but whatever makes you sleep at night.

>Engels did tho
Lmao no he didn't although he thought people should have the freedom to be and that it didn't exist under capitalism.

The Old Left was pretty anti degeneracy btw, even the anarchists. The us communist party literally had a point in its 70s platform about homosexuality being bourgeoise nonsense

Olavo is a hack. The inquisition sounds fun but kinda boring nosing into peoploes lives. What i preffer doesn't matter, the point of discution is history.

Hell yeah!

>Recommend books on a literature board
>Get told off
Child, please grow up.

You’re basically saying that any source that doesn’t affirm what you want is wrong.

There were communists back in that time just as much as there are now. But there was no logistical and ideological ways of implementing Communism in Brazil. That’s a fact.

Honestly, you probably have a father that hard PT and a grandfather who states that everything was better in the coup decades. It’s more of a visceral and emotional view than a logical one.

This. It’s a sad thing, but Portuguese and Spanish cultures just love dictatorships.

No, any source that doesn’t affirm the most fundamental fact I underlying all social relations for half a century is biased to the point of effectively being propaganda.

Not , but
>You’re basically saying that any source that doesn’t affirm what you want is wrong.
IDC about media and academia, they are dead here, but seconding this .
>There were communists back in that time just as much as there are now. But there was no logistical and ideological ways of implementing Communism in Brazil. That’s a fact.
They are multiplying themselves, reaching for the lumpen proletariat to create an majority out of worthless minorities extremelly dependent of the services of the state, but that's why the have the state in the first place. There is, and you know it. Every election is a loss, the bigger loss, and maybe the definitive, would be Fernando Haddad, the cabeçárioman, the faggot kisser. He SAID IT IN AN INTERVIEW, that if he got elected, he would change the constituition for more the likes of Maduro's DICTATORSHIP, and freeing the nine fingers, which was the major factor of that election, what a sopa uh?

I pity you fucking first worlders talking like you have an objective POV on the overall current affairs worldwide. For you, election could mean, at hard, some tax raising. Here and others fucking peripheries of the world, losing an election can mean you can't fucking afford gas to fuel your stove the next month after the people's party win, it means an outburst of SDT because they are promoting human psycological abominations in the form of social experiments in the schools, there is an army of dead eyes, dement druggies in the streets. Fuck you first worlders, fuck you and your marxist theories and fuck your bodyguard of lies.

Just wait until the end of Bolsonaro’s government. You’re going to be begging for anything but your current choice.