Thursday, February 15, 2007

Cultural Marxism

Linda Kimball’s latest piece on the subject of cultural Marxism, found at American Thinker, is an impressive synthesis and worthy of attention. There are a few typos, but *learn* it, kids, because we’re in deep trouble.

4 comments:

Your Liberal Friend said...

Beth,

Come on! You're not only telling people to read this garbage; you're also claiming that it's an impressive synthesis of the issues and that it means we're in "big trouble."

This is faux-academic propaganda, an argument propped up by selectively highlighting fringe movements that occurred eighty years ago in Weimer Germany and Hungary.

It would be easy, for example, to selectively take out passages from Mein Kampf and compare it to neoconservative theory. But it wouldn't be fair.

It astounds me that seemingly smart people would subscribe to this.

Multiculturalism is actually Cultural "Marxism" in disguise? To me, the agenda is obvious.

If you can form a loose narrative of the history of Marxism (which, by the way, is completely misunderstood in this article), throw in an occasional Engels quote, reference some weird stuff that happened in Hungary eighty years ago, compare that to the hippies, and then suggest that anyone who lobbies or protests for a cause outside of a narrowly defined conservative Christian worldview is a "radical," then you can compare them to a Marxist or, even better, a communist.

From the article, "Thus we now have for example, radical feminists, black extremists, anti-war ‘peace' activists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, and ‘gay' rights groups. All of these groups pursue their piece of the radical agenda through a complex network of organizations such as the Gay Straight Lesbian Educators Network (GSLEN), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), People for the American Way, United for Peace and Justice, Planned Parenthood, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), and Code Pink for Peace.


Both communism and the New Left are alive and thriving here in America. They favor code words: tolerance, social justice, economic justice, peace, reproductive rights, sex education and safe sex, safe schools, inclusion, diversity, and sensitivity. All together, this is Cultural Marxism disguised as multiculturalism."

I am not sure why gay is in quotes or why practically all of these groups are painted as radical with a "radical agenda," but I think I know why.

In the same fashion that this author attempts to blur the rhetorical differences between Marxism and "economic justice," she is also constructing her own version of what is radical and what is mainstream.

There are many of us who believe that a strong military industrial complex, buttressed by no-bid contracts and preemptive wars under false pretenses, is an example of radicalism.

There are many of us who believe that a government's intrusion into our private lives, through invasive techniques under the guise of national security, is akin to communism.

There are many of us who believe that our government should not endorse or sponsor any one particular religious belief, and that any attempt to do so is a step toward a bigger and more authoritarian government.

The wonderful thing about democracy is that it rejects the notion that a government should be ruled by any one particular ideology. Neoconservative lobbying groups can coexist with those gay rights activists you seem to be so frightened by.

Elizabeth Weber Levy said...

Very artfully, you have illustrated my point. We are in trouble.

Nevertheless, I am not and never have been frightened by homosexuals or homosexual activists. What frightens me, though, is how easily our citizenry is cordoned off into special interest groups, whatever the stripe. That, however, is what the Gramsci Effect is all about: divide and conquer.

Essentially, I find it interesting that Kimball’s piece elicited such a lengthy response from you. That says to me it must have struck a nerve, somewhere.

B

Your Liberal Friend said...

Beth

That is what we call a tautological argument. The theory isn't true simply because it garnered a counter-theory or a response (?). If the theory is about dividing and conquering, then any divisive argument against the theory can be said to prove the theory (?).

Instead of arguing this on point, you've attempted to subsume the counterargument without any real rebuttal.

Again, Beth, come on!

Elizabeth Weber Levy said...

No, YLF, you come on, honey. Obviously, you’ve drunk the Kool-Aid. Please put down the glass, do some serious, independent, wide-ranging research and *think*. That’s what my posts and links hope to foster. Should you bother, I suspect that, at the very least, you’ll learn you’re a tad “confuzzled,” regarding your use of “isms.”

That said, would it trouble you to learn that, in my mind, your remarks have the hallmarks of projection? Of course, I expect you’ll accuse me of the same…

Nevertheless, you’re right about my earlier argument being tautological. My “mama” slip was showing. Mea culpa. ;->