Understanding Socialism Part 4: Postmodern cultural Marxism

Understanding Socialism Part 4: Postmodern cultural Marxism

From the author of The Day of the Heroes. A story about today's culture war in a time of dragons and heroes. Click Here to purchase from Amazon.

This blog is the last of a four-part series on Socialism and looks at how Marxist theory has mutated from an economic focus, to a cultural focus to bring Marxist and Socialist ideas to a Western society and an unsuspecting generation.

Domino Theory

In March 1947, US president Harry Truman gave a speech to the US Congress. In this speech he outlined his policy of ‘Containment’ in which he stated that the US government would give assistance to any country threatened by Communism, this was an attempt to stop Communism from spreading. The WW2 alliance which included Russia had crumbled when Churchill and Truman realised that Stalin had reneged on the deal to allow Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria free democratic elections. The remaining western allies feared that Stalin would attempt to expand his Socialist ideology into other countries.

Truman’s policy of ‘Containment’ was a result of a belief, which would later be known as the Domino Theory. This theory believed that if one country fell to Communism, then the next would fall, and so on, just like dominos. This conflict between Democracy and Communism caused the start of the Cold War between the West and the USSR, it was also responsible for the Korean and Vietnam wars.

The Domino Theory had a significant impact on America’s foreign policy from 1947, right up through to the Reagan administration in the 1980s, to the fall of the Berlin War in November 1989 when East and West Berlin were reunited. Many historians believe that with hindsight, the Domino theory is discredited, that it had no real basis and was just a scare tactic used by government to control the population. I believe, however, that the Domino Theory is very real and Marxist ideology has, in fact, made its way to Western civilisation. I believe that Marxist ideology mutated from an economic version into a cultural version and slipped into society under the radar. I believe that this ideology has infiltrated right to the heart of Western democracies, however, the average citizen is completely unaware of its existence, despite the fact that it has been gaining a stronghold over our culture. How much control this ideology has on our society is completely up to us.

The Feminist Movement

The feminist movement has so many variables and its impact so vast on society that it is impossible to do more than scratch the surface in a blog like this. The feminist movement is so integral to the cultural Marxist movement in the west, that it is impossible to separate the two.

There are considered to be four waves of the Feminist movement. The first wave Feminist movement took place over the 19^th and 20^th centuries and was focused on gaining the right to vote for women. The second wave feminist movement took root during the social protest movements of the 1960s and lasted through till the 1970s. This movement was about gaining equality in the workplace. I believe, however, that the second wave feminist movement should be broken into two movements, with the second starting in the late 1960s when it was taken over by Marxist ideology and moved into the areas of family and sexuality. The third wave feminist movement which started around 1990 is a continuation of the second wave movement, only far more radical and far more extreme in its beliefs. There is now supposed to be a fourth wave of the feminist movement, however, its ideology is exactly the same.

Although its ideas already existed in Western culture, Marxist ideology made a significant move into Western culture during the 1960s Social Protest movement, this is where the Feminist movement was hijacked. There were a number of feminist groups that took hold of Marxist ideas. If you remember back to my first post on Socialism, you will remember that a core principle of Marxist theory was the destruction of the family unit, this was a core principle of the Feminist movement from the late 1960s.

Kate Millett in the 1960s and 1970s was a strong advocate of the Marxist feminist movement, her Sexual Politics book from 1970 is even today considered a classic Marxist feminist text. Millet promoted the idea of a lot of terms we know today, terms like 'patriarchy' and 'male supremacy'. To provide an idea of what it was she was attempting to promote, I have included some text from an article written by her sister. Here she recalls a chant her sister’s group performed every meeting, which was supposed to be similar to an exercise Chinese Communists performed.

"Why are we here today?" she asked.
"To make revolution," they answered.
"What kind of revolution?" she replied.
"The Cultural Revolution," they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?" she demanded.
"By destroying the American family!" they answered.
"How do we destroy the family?" she came back.
"By destroying the American Patriarch," they cried exuberantly.
"And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
"By taking away his power!"
"How do we do that?"
"By destroying monogamy!" they shouted.
"How can we destroy monogamy?"
"By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!" they resounded.

Kate Millet was one of around twelve of this group, all of them highly influential in the feminist movement. It doesn’t take much to see the correlation between this belief system and today’s society in which all of these are promoted. This group was only one of many pursuing Marxist feminism, and their idea was to push this ideology into the school systems, media and government, which is exactly what we have seen in the Third wave of the movement. Many women were sucked into this ideology. Kate Millett’s sister Mallory, recalled many years later

“I’ve known women who fell for this creed in their youth who now, in their fifties and sixties, cry themselves to sleep, decades of countless nights grieving for the children they'll never have and the ones they coldly murdered because they were protecting the empty loveless futures they now live, with no way of going back.  “Where are my children?  Where are my grandchildren?" they cry to me.”

To access the full article, go to this link: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/240037/marxist-feminisms-ruined-lives-mallory-millett

One of the lines I tire of hearing in discussions on feminism is “But feminism is only about equality of the sexes”. Anybody that has read the texts on feminism knows the opposite to be true. Moreover, the question can be asked, “If feminism is about equality of the sexes, which of the men’s issues are the feminists fighting for at the moment?” Perhaps the high rates of male suicide, male disengagement with schools and universities, male discrimination at family law courts or high male workplace deaths. We all know that the answer is not one of those. In fact, when men even attempt to hold meetings on these issues, they are met by feminist protestors, screamed at and abused. The softly spoken Warren Farrell who is a lifelong advocate of equal rights between men and women has written on a number of issues facing males. When he attempted to speak at the University of Toronto in 2012, attendees were met with vitriolic abuse from the feminist movement, the following video was taken from this event and provides an insight into the hatred for males from the feminist movement. (Warning: explicit language)

The literature that shows how critical the family unit is to a stable society is immense, it is so vast that it is worth a whole blog on its own. Additionally, there is a far less chance of a child growing up in poverty where the parents remain together. Yet the Feminist movement, backed by its Marxist ideology still aims to destroy the family unit.

I feel I could write much more on the subject of feminism and have left out many important points. However, if I have explained the link between Cultural Marxism and Feminism then I have achieved my aim.

Identity Politics

A thorough investigation of Western culture will show that Identity Politics rules the day. Identity Politics has a number of vices in which it plays itself out, however, at its heart, it is built on racism, sexism, and totalitarianism. The irony is, is that it claims to be anti-racist and anti-sexist. Identity Politics is built on the Marxist principle of oppressor vs oppressed. In other words, just as Karl Marx did, it rules that people can be either only oppressed or oppressor.

In order to achieve this aim, it breaks a society into groups based on a social identity. That identity could be race, religion, sex or any other identity and believes that the politics of the group are formed by that identity. Identity Politics then places each of the groups, into either an oppressor or oppressed classification, from which all of the oppressed group are labeled minorities. It then plays itself out through its vices of Intersectionality, Equality of Outcome, Affirmative Action & destructive progressive political policies. All of which purposefully discriminate against the supposed oppressor.

The problem with this ideology, is that those behind it believe that any violence and oppression against those they believe are the oppressors, is validated. The same way that all of the radical totalitarian governments of the 20^th century did. The first step in their action is to label any speech against them or in fact any speech that they do not like, as hate speech and then shut it down. This is what happened to Cassie Jaye’s documentary ‘Red Pill’ in various parts of the world. Jaye, coming from the perspective of a feminist looking at the men’s movement, realised that all she had learned in the feminist movement was false. As the documentary shows, her views were completely changed after what she called her ‘red pill’ moment. The radical left movement managed to have the showing of the film at a large number of cinemas shut down on the premise that it was hate speech.

Equality of Outcome

Equality of Outcome is a very dangerous Marxist philosophy that has made its way into Western culture. It has both an economic and cultural strand and Its opposite is equality of opportunity. Many organisations, the Australian army comes to mind, have decided that a more equal balance between men and women in the army is needed. It disregards any biological differences between groups of people that exist and choices they may make based on those biological attributes. In this case the Australian army, it ignores the fact that fewer women want to enter the army than men and forces an equality of outcome on the end result. To do this, discrimination against one group has to occur. To look at it another way, African Americans make up just over 12% of the American population, yet they make up 70% of the NFL. Who in their right mind would ever suggest that the number of African Americans in the NFL needed to be reduced to 12%, to reflect their overall population percentage of the country? With the NFL, it is common sense that everyone has an equal opportunity to make the team, but the best player is selected for the position regardless of race. The fact that more African Americans make up these numbers is due to their superior biological physique, not because of systemic racism that holds back white men. Yet people believe it exists when it happens the other way around.

Australia’s oldest university, the University of Sydney has just introduced rules to increase the quota of women, people of indigenous descent and other various minorities into their debating team. The idea of meritocracy has disappeared, and instead of sending a team with the best debaters, they are sending a team with the best diversity (minus intellectual diversity), discriminating against those that do not fit into their diversity list. It is not just white men that are discriminated against, Asian men are also increasingly heavily discriminated against, due to the success they experience as a result of their culture of hard work.  

Intersectionality

Intersectionality is a relatively new concept that has been growing since the start of Third wave feminism, it is a direct result of the feminist movement and staunchly Marxist in its ideology. It started with the idea that middle class, white, feminist females were not as ‘oppressed’ as other groups of women. It started to look at a whole range of intersecting areas where people were ‘oppressed’. Under this ideology, for example, a black woman is considered to be more oppressed than a white woman. If that same black woman was from a lower socio-economic area, then that would mean she is more oppressed than a black woman from a middle-class area. There are a whole series of further variables that can be thrown in, including sexual orientation and disability. The more of these you have, then the more ‘oppressed’ you are. Males can now also be oppressed under this system, just not white males. Increasingly, this ideology is playing itself out through human resource departments in businesses through affirmative action. Intersectionality is becoming the premise on which someone is hired, as opposed to the best person for the job.

Final Thoughts

As has been seen in history, the children of economic Marxism through Socialism are starvation and poverty. To think that cultural Marxism will birth different children is insanity. By 1965 the poverty rate amongst African Americans had been declining for the previous decade and was in fact about half of what it was 15 years earlier. The great social welfare reforms from Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s were supposed to eliminate the remaining poverty and racial injustice. However, within ten years, New York City was almost bankrupt, as their social welfare bill was greater than the income they received through taxes thanks to the corrosive effect of social welfare. The result of these Socialist reforms led to a fatherless rate amongst African Americans to go from 25% pre-1960, to almost 75% today, resulting in yet greater poverty and violence amongst these communities. To add to this a whole layer of cultural Marxist reforms, the incentive and requirement of individuals to strive to be their best is removed.

Thomas Sowell, in his eighties now, is an African American economist, author of many books, and a member of the Harvard Institute. Sowell grew up in a poor neighborhood in Harlem but believes that the only reason he was successful in life, was due to the fact that these social reforms were not around when he was school and university age. Instead of being given everything handed to him, he had to work hard for it. His teachers were hard on him and his class. Yet from that class, came African American professors, lawyers, and doctors, all without the aid of cultural and economic Marxism.