rather than edge around your accusations, it might be better to state plainly what you're accusing him of. You're suggesting he's using "Marxist intellectuals" as a codeword for Jews, and that he's actually a Nazi (or at the very least a conspiracy theorist anti-semite) who is carefully wording his ideological diatribe so it sounds less ominous?
This is usually the accusation that's thrown out by ideologues to silence the middle ground by accusing them of being secret ideologues on the other side. Every communist is just "punching Nazis" and every fascist is just "stopping the red threat" when in actual fact they're both just oppressing moderates. Maybe think about that before you casually accuse people of being Nazis based on subtle inferences.
So why is he referencing Marxism in a discussion on gender? He's not actually referencing Marx, he's just .. labelling a bunch of people as Marxist? And therefore he is "accusing them of being secret ideologues on the other side", is he not?
because of the idea of "cultural Marxism", the lineage between Marxism and modern progressivism via critical theory. The story goes that the Marxist struggle was pivoted from economic to social when the working class in MEDCs didn't revolt in the 1900s.
[edit] also the fact that oftentimes the proposed solution to systemic oppression of women/minorities is ever-increasing power to the state to "even things out", which is a very Marxist concept.
"This conspiracy theory version of the term is associated with American religious paleoconservatives such as William S. Lind, Pat Buchanan, and Paul Weyrich, but also holds currency among alt-right/white nationalist groups and the neo-reactionary movement.[65][56][66]
At Weyrich's request William S. Lind wrote a short history of his conception of Cultural Marxism for The Free Congress Foundation; in it Lind identifies the presence of homosexuals on television as proof of Cultural Marxist control over the mass media and claims that Herbert Marcuse considered a coalition of "blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals" as a vanguard of cultural revolution.[55][64][69] Lind has since published his own depiction of a fictional Cultural Marxist apocalypse.
...
The Southern Poverty Law Center has reported that William S. Lind in 2002 gave a speech to a Holocaust denial conference on the topic of Cultural Marxism. In this speech Lind noted that all the members of The Frankfurt School were "to a man, Jewish", but it is reported that Lind claims not to question whether the Holocaust occurred and suggests he was present in an official capacity for the Free Congress Foundation "to work with a wide variety of groups on an issue-by-issue basis".
...
Adherents of the theory often seem to mean that the existence of things like modern feminism, anti-white racism, and sexualization are dependent on the Frankfurt School, even though these processes and movements predate the 1920s. Although the theory became more widespread in the late 1990s and through the 2000s, the modern iteration of the theory originated in Michael Minnicino's 1992 essay "New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'", published in Fidelio Magazine by the Schiller Institute.[53][87][88] The Schiller Institute, a branch of the LaRouche movement, further promoted the idea in 1994.[89] The Minnicino article charges that the Frankfurt School promoted Modernism in the arts as a form of Cultural pessimism, and shaped the Counterculture of the 1960s (such as the British pop band The Beatles) after the Wandervogel of the Ascona commune.[87] The Larouche movement is otherwise mostly known for believing that the British Empire still exists, is trying to take control of the world (mostly, but not exclusively by economical means), and, among other things, also controls the global drug trade. [90] [91]
...
More recently, the Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik included the term in his document "2083: A European Declaration of Independence", which along with The Free Congress Foundation's "Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology" was e-mailed to 1,003 addresses approximately 90 minutes before the 2011 bomb blast in Oslo for which Breivik was responsible
...
Philosopher and political science lecturer Jérôme Jamin has stated, "Next to the global dimension of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, there is its innovative and original dimension, which lets its authors avoid racist discourses and pretend to be defenders of democracy".[54] Professor and Oxford Fellow Matthew Feldman has traced the terminology back to the pre-war German concept of Cultural Bolshevism locating it as part of the degeneration theory that aided in Hitler's rise to power.[96] William S. Lind confirms this as his period of interest, claiming that "It [Cultural Marxism] is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I."
if you are trying to imply that I'm a follower of any of these people, I can assure you that I'm not. For what it's worth, my opinion is that there is some lineage between Marxism and progressivism, but that's about it. Nothing to do with holocaust deniers or murderers or white nationalism or any of that nonsense. Not sure what the fact that there are horrendous people who hold this sentiment has to do with the idea itself.
Do you think the author of the memo, like yourself, just randomly mentioned cultural marxism but doesn't actually believe in it?
Was it a specially coded message intended only for the reasonable, middle-ground, rational people who think there's some lineage between Marxism and progressivism, but certainly not in any way intended for the racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, white nationalist, Christian supremacists who invented and popularised the terms modern usage?
"Cultural Marxism" is just the idea that progressivism is a pivot from economic Marxism. That's it. So yeah, I do agree with that because if you look at the academic literature that defines progressivism you'll see that much of it is derived from Marxist thought. So what? Because I can read some academic literature and know the word for this idea I must be a radical anti-semitic white nationalist? A ridiculous idea. You might as well suggest that VW drivers are all Nazis because the company was created by Hitler.
In case I haven't spelled it out for you clearly enough: I'm not anti-Semitic, I don't deny the holocaust, I'm not a fascist or a Nazi, I'm not homophobic or any of that other bullshit. There are plenty of classical liberals like myself who are extremely skeptical of the progressive movement.
[edit] and if you're wondering where I learned the term, it wasn't from the depths of StormFront or some other alt-right cesspool. It's from a video made by Bill Whittle, who is a pretty mainstream conservative. I've equally seen the term used by Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin. None of these people are radical alt-right Nazis.
I didn't say you were. I said that you mentioned "cultural marxism" which you think is a perfectly reasonable thing for someone to mention, as it simply means, according to you, that there is some linkage between modern progressive thought and Marxism.
And I asked if you think the person who wrote the memo was using it in the same way. That seems to be the position the other replies are going for. Just no-one seems to like getting pinned down on this, about what exactly the big bad Marxists are up to with their plans to not discriminate against gay people. Apparently we just mention that Marxists think gay people were oppressed in a footnote to our very sciency memo on what's wrong with diversity and we mean nothing by that at all.
Or he could be intendeding it to be taken in the sense that it is commonly used, in which the jews are held responisble for all the "problems" of modern society, such as environmentalism, gay-rights, civil rights, athiesm and so on.
OK, well I'm glad you're just inquiring genuinely. It's hard not to get defensive when you trot out some pretty horrible characters.
I'm in strong agreement that discrimination against gays, minorities and women is bad. I think most reasonable people are. My issue with the progressive movement is how it doesn't seem to want to stop in the middle by just stopping racism, but instead wants to flip it over by making discrimination in the opposite direction the social norm. For example, diversity quotas explicitly stating that e.g. the engineering department's demographics must closely align with the general population's demographics. It refuses to account for different groups' inherent different tastes and interests by pushing forward the idea of tabula rasa (the human being is a blank slate and all differentiation is socially learned) which doesn't seem to be a foregone conclusion by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm not sure how the idea of a link between Marxism and progressivism has anything to do with Jews aside from that fact that there are a lot of Jewish intellectuals. If cultural marxism is some kind of anti-semitic dogwhistle now, that's a new one on me.
Bill Whittle seems like an asshole by the way. But a slick asshole so he stays within the bounds of what's acceptable to say, though even that has some real craziness in it.
Apparently you're not allowed to tell homosexuals that Iran mistreats homosexuals. "Marxist Critical theory" stops him from saying that somehow. I'm not sure why you want to say that to homosexuals, or get annoyed that they don't listen. Presumably the real message is "don't complain, as it's worse elsewhere?" Maybe casually bringing up people exactly like them being killed for being exactly like them is to make them feel welcomed and cherished. He doesn't exactly spell it out, because, as I say he's kinda slick even though he says lots of crazy stuff.
Also, black people in 1920s America, didn't realise there was a problem until the Marxists told them they were getting a bad deal.
I guess this stuff explains why over 50% of Republican's think Higher Education is bad for America. Direct quote: "You are paying people to teach your kids to hate you".
But since "mainstream" Republicanism include Trump and Birtherism (which is totally not racist at all, just asking questions as you would for any President), Climate Change denial etc. I guess you're not wrong to call him mainstream.
I can imagine you find Bill Whittle to be an asshole, because it seems you are pretty far away from me on the ideological spectrum. That's fair, you have every right to think so, but I find him to be reasonably interesting.
Not sure what you're saying with regard to Iran and their mistreatment of homosexuals?
Do you genuinely think that Marxists are the primary reason for black people realising that getting treated like dirt is a pretty bad deal? That strikes me as a rather low opinion of African Americans.
I wouldn't know much about Republicans and their opinion of higher education. If they're skeptical of Marxism though, I at least share that sentiment with them. But then I dislike any ideology that has killed millions of people.
[edit] Birtherism is a weird phenomenon and as a Brit I'm not close enough to it to know whether it's based in racism or just bad info. I hear the same questions were raised about Ted Cruz and whether as a born Canadian he would be allowed to be president.
"Do you genuinely think that Marxists are the primary reason for black people realising that getting treated like dirt is a pretty bad deal? That strikes me as a rather low opinion of African Americans."
That's Bill Whittle's claim, from the video I just watched. Take it up with him.
He says there were no African-Americans, no Italian-Americans etc. in the 1920s, just "Americans", but the Marxists didn't like that. So they told the African-American's that the white people had stolen everything from them, and made them angry (because they "didn't know any better").
Are you seeing how, even in this watered down form, where he leaves out explicit mention of "the jews", how this is a conspiracy theory? Divorced from any kind of facts?
Personally, I wouldn't go around dropping the phrase "Cultural Marxism" casually and I would be very, very skeptical of anyone who does.
that's not quite the same as saying "black people didn't know they were being mistreated until the Marxists told them they were" though is it? It's pretty clear that black people were badly treated at that time though, so I'll have to re-watch the video later to see if that's what he's actually saying or your interpretation. The idea about progressives trying to divide people up into smaller and smaller groups of oppressor vs oppressed is one I agree with though.
> Are you seeing how, even in this watered down form, where he leaves out explicit mention of "the jews", how this is a conspiracy theory? Divorced from any kind of facts?
Firstly I don't think it has much to do with Jews at all, it's more of a philosophical position. Secondly, it's not like I just accept everything Bill says in the video - there are parts I agree with and parts I disagree with. I'm not even a conservative. There are parts of what he says that are clearly backed up by facts about the academic history of progressivism.
I don't tend to drop the phrase casually but I was trying to establish the link for the previous user who was questioning what the memo had to do with Marxists.
I've seen what happens to people who are falsely tagged with certain labels. Id like to discuss politics calmly but when the big words get trotted out I feel the need to defend myself.
agreed, and I think him talking about "Marxist intellectuals" poisons his own well to an extent because he's bringing an ideological conflict into what seems to have mostly been a reason and science-based argument.
[edit] also as a side note the lineage between Marxism and progressivism is open and provable. The story about how it came about, not so much (as far as I'm aware).
> You're suggesting he's using "Marxist intellectuals" as a codeword for Jews, and that he's actually a Nazi (or at the very least a conspiracy theorist anti-semite)
Do you genuinely believe that the only anti-Semites in the world are Nazis or conspiracy theorists?
I disagree. He seemed to be trying to avoid identity politics as much as humanly possible, without mincing words. And I'm not sure which identity you think he is supporting.
I think using "deeply buried in identity politics" is overstating facts. And I'm sure you can find many people in academia and otherwise who will clearly identify as Marxists and who advance the points of view that he was against.
If being against a certain current of thought makes you "deeply buried in identity politics", then count me in.
I've now seen several defences of this, and it confuses me.
The whole "Marxist Intellectuals are destroying our society from the inside by promoting the gay lifestyle" thing only makes sense in terms of being a dog-whistle for people who don't like jews or gays or liberals generally.
It doesn't make any sense to me if I take it literally. How is Peter Thiel or Tim Cook being able to be open about their sexuality bad for capitalism? Why is it basically large corporations that are holding the line against anti-LGBT legislation in the united states. Has the devious Marxist plan backfired totally?
Can you outline for me exactly what these "Marxist intellectuals" are up to in terms of supporting gay rights, and how it differs from say the Log-cabin Republicans?
Your comment is dishonest. That isn't a quote from the memo. It is:
[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”
I can find some meaning in his footnote which isn't anything like a dog-whistle. He is saying that the group of people fighting for a economically left system changed tactics. Instead of arguing about class, they are coopting gender and race to try to change society. I'm not sure I buy it, but it's reasonable to suggest.
"[...] the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy."
This is a dubious claim to say the least. There was little to no pro gay rights or gender equality activism in the traditionally very conservative little corner of the Earth where I live (ex communist, eastern European country). However, coinciding with the recent rise of the alt-right, we've had a sudden surge of anti-gay rhetoric packaged along with strong anti-establishment speech - this seems conspicuously similar to the ultra-conservative speech (both Russian and American) attacking liberals. To the point where the governing, majority, LEFT party initiated a referendum for changing the constitution to define the "Family" as the result of the marriage between a man and a woman. Interestingly, the referendum is supported by most (I think all) political parties and a vast majority of people. The "Marxist warfare against the white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy" doesn't and didn't exist here, yet we have the same alt-right crap being used by the governing party to "feed" the masses, distract from their image of a deeply corrupt party and thus grab more power. Similar things are probably going on in other places, the "Marxist threat" is mostly a boogie man used for a plain old power grab.
You admit the mainstream contemporary left is not advocating for Marxist class warfare. So why do you call them Marxists?
The talk of "Marxist intellectuals transitioning into gender and race politics" is bizarre because any such shift would have happened around 40 years ago. Those individuals are mostly dead or retired. What do they have to do with working conditions at Google?
I'm still not clear what they're actually supposed to be doing that is bad. Do you not know either?
edit: I just realised you thought I was providing a direct quote, I was just paraphrasing, but I think it accurately captures the spirit of this footnote. I'm happy for someone to provide clarification on how this isn't a reference to the widespread conspiracy theory.
You seem to be reading more into it than is there. It isn't the point that left ideology is necessarily bad, but that the fighters for it are shifting tactics because Marxism wasn't working.
Your paraphrasing is totally off (IMHO) because the footnote is neutral about the desirability of the gay lifestyle.
I think it's meant to evoke Marxism in terms of being dogmatic and not tolerating dissent, rather than actually anti-capitalism? Either way it's an extremely poor choice of term.
