Skip to comments.The New Left, Cultural Marxism, and Psychopolitics Disguised as Multiculturalism
Posted on 10/18/2010 12:19:48 AM PDT by citizenredstater9271
Because the New Left lacked cohesion it fell apart as a political movement. However, its revolutionaries reorganized themselves into a multitude of single issue groups. 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 subversive organizations such as the Gay Straight Lesbian Educators Network (GSLEN), the American Civil Liberties Uni0n (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. Code words by which they can be recognized are: 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.
Birth of Multiculturalism
[snip] two Marxist theoristsAntonio Gramsci of Italy and Georg Lukacs of Hungaryconcluded that the Christianized West was the obstacle standing in the way of a communist new world order. The West would have to be conquered first.
Gramsci posited that because Christianity had been dominant in the West for over 2000 years, not only was it fused with Western civilization, but it had corrupted the workers class. The West would have to be de-Christianized, said Gramsci, by means of a long march through the culture. Additionally, a new proletariat must be created. In his Prison Notebooks, he suggested that the new proletariat be comprised of many criminals, women, and racial minorities.
(Excerpt) Read more at nodnc.com ...
Also, marxists and anarchists hate Jews, as said by their own theorists. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2606505/posts
Gay marriage will be a Marxist vehicle to put all human institutions on an equal level.
They need to create a downtrodden class in order to save it.
This is a very common but IMO mostly mistaken POV.
The common factor in all these issues is not for most a hidden secret devotion to cultural or really any other variety of Marxism. It is an unexamined visceral opposition to western and therefore American civilization. It is unexamined because to them being anti westen civ is just what decent people do. The educational system they grew up in took such opposition for granted and they've never been faced with a full-blown intelligent defense of western civ.
It's an anti belief system, not a pro belief system. When the New Left was popular, it was primarily because it was viewed as anti-western. When it fell apart, the participants just switched to one or another of the standins discussed in the article.
They can continue to switch from one group to another without breaking stride because all are just variants of anti-westernism, so for most of the believers it doesn't really matter which reason they give for their opposition.
IOW, the anti-westernism or anti-Americanism is the root belief system. The feminism, or Marxism, or animal rights, or anti-racism, or gay rights, or whatever, is merely the rationale they use to justify their anti-westernism to themselves or others. That's why they can cooperate so easily with each other, even when their belief systems would seem to conflict.
They can even cooperate or sympathize with groups such as Islamists who by any rational standard are even more opposed to their beliefs than is western civ. The important thing for them is that Islamists are anti-western. That's far more important than how Islamists treat women, gays, that they plan to reinstitute slavery, etc.
I would call these people "self-hating," except that they invariably have an extremely high opinion of themselves. They hate and despise their own society and most of the people in it, but think highly of themselves precisely because they reject their society. By doing so they give themselves and others like them a pass.
You’ve put it very well.
Not a particularly popular belief around here, as many seem to think the “isms” listed in the article are cover for a secret belief in Marxism.
My opinion, of course, is that the true belief is anti western civ, and Marxism is just another one of the rationalizations people use to justify their basic anti-westernism.
There are obviously true believers in each of these isms. I’m speaking not of them, but rather of the considerable majority of liberals and leftists, most of whom have never really given their belief systems any serious thought.
Western civ has objectively provided both greater personal freedom and greater prosperity to a far greater percentage of its people than any other civilization in history. Yet its opponents insist it must be destroyed because it isn’t perfect.
I do agree that the overriding motivation is to delegitimize the foundations of Western Civilization. But not to make it more perfect. Rather, to put themselves in power over it.The *perfection* meme is simply political cover.
..... I don’t see that one interpretation necessarily excludes the other.
The *perfection* meme is simply political cover.
The Marxists call these imperfections “incoherent” when the Marxists are acting in their deconstructionist guise. Their philosophy is attack without positing an alternative. They tear down, and as deconstructionists they conscsiously decide not to give a credible alternative system because it interferes with destruction. I view at as even shallower than putting themselves in power. I think it is merely a rhetorical device to make easier the process of destroying students attachment to a value system and a set of traditions.
That is a credible analysis, IMO. After all, they teach a relentless deconstructionism in every field, making the stance acceptable within academe and the elite sectors of the economy/polity.
Even when they do posit some utopian goal, there is always some faction of their own ready to attack it. I still think there is an element of personal power attainment involved. Within the progressive world, there seems to always be some degree of backbiting and personal destruction aimed at those in power. Of course, they can flip instantly and rehabilitate any of their cadre at any time, if it is expedient.
I don’t disagree. As I said, there are indeed true Marxists of believers in the other isms out there. Most of the leaders probably come from these groups.
I do firmly believe that most of their followers are merely brainlessly going along with their crowd as the default position.
The problem is I support every one of these, rightly defined.
My definition differs considerably, of course, from those who use them as multi-culti code words.
I still think there is an element of personal power attainment involved.
Often. Years ago Alamo Girl posted a piece on the left talking about magic thinking. It and the comments especially are worth reading:
It gave an alternate explanation to the raw power idea of left motivation. Summarized, it is a turning away from reality by the left that requires a shared fantasy. If the fantasy is not shared, and the fantasy is challenged, there are consequences since the fantasy itself is what is important, so deviation from the fantasy is supressed. It is a psychological explanation (and for believers in magic an alternate belief system).