It’s hard to read the comments on any piece in the Telegraph without encountering someone going off on one about Cultural Marxism and that this that and the other is evidence not only of Cultural Marxism but that the writer who evoked this response should go and read or write for the Guardian.
But what is Cultural Marxism and why do its self styled opponents have such a problem discussing anything with anyone whose stance hints of it to them?
To find out what Cultural Marxism is we could go to Wikipedia, but the article there is unremittingly dull and probably far too accurate for our purposes. Much better that we ask its opponents.
According to andyyy a contributor to the Telegraph:
[Cultural Marxism] means displaying an ignorance and contempt for the history and cultural traditions of this country, especially in relation to out Judaeo-Christian ethics and culture – you [Tom Chivers] certainly seem to do that. The corresponding default position of such sorts is a kind of moral relativism and today’s broken Britain certainly has benefited from that over the past 30 years hasn’t it? The real tragedy isn’t what you [Tom again] think (if you’ll forgive me for saying so) so much as the fact that your [still Tom] views are held by practically the entire political class.
According to the unwaveringly insane Dano Connor:
Cultural Marxism and its Critical Theory is a term that non-Liberal progressives use to enlighten Western Liberal progressives as to which ideological school of subversive malicious intellectual hacks were primarly responsible for implanting the virus seeds of the ideas they have running around in their heads which as intended blossomed into the present day mea-culpa –
” down with us ” White-guilt/moral vanity civilizational suicide cult.
All those things which in the past where considered sins become virtues , and all those things considered virtues become sins .
Cultural Marxism has become mainstream to the point where it is indistinguishable from ordinary everyday EU/ConDemLab/Democrat/Republican/Christian/
Universalist, Neo-Liberal progressive morality .
It is egalitarianism gone mad .
Insitutionalized moral nihilism .
I haven’t messed with Dano’s grammar, spelling or formatting, because I don’t understand Dano’s grammar, spelling or formatting.
But what does this mean, substantively?
As far as I can garner (great word “garner”) Cultural Marxism is anything that could, might, or would change culture from a set point in time as dictated by the individual and that that individual would see that as a “bad” change. Anyone who disputes the “badness” having come at the change from a different direction (possibly one grounded in the near suicidal stances of sanity, empathy or compassion) is a “moral relativist” and a proponent of Cultural Marxism. It’s interesting to note that while andyyy sees Christianity as part of “good” culture, Dano opposes it. One of them must be a Cultural Marxist. Other things that might be seen as Cultural Marxism would include (in no particular order):
The Suffragette Movement
The Civil Rights Movement
The emancipation of the slaves
The Industrial Revolution
and of course the Enlightenment.
That clears up what Cultural Marxism is.
The second question was “why do its self styled opponents have such a problem discussing anything with anyone whose stance hints of it to them?”, this is relatively easy to explain and I suspect that deep down, possibly subconsciously, the opponents of “Cultural Marxism” know that their position is based in self indulgent bullshit masquerading as a political stance to mask their bigotry and hatred of anyone different to themselves and as such they fear that if they examine their position they will have face up to this and change their lives to become sane and reasonable. This change would be “bad” and in itself would be Cultural Marxism.