





‘Cultural Marxism’ is psycho-babble for conservatives. They use it in the same way AA uses ‘denial’ and the official, castrated Left tosses about the useless cliche’ of ‘inclusiveness.’ It’s a trite expression which means nothing. ‘Cultural Marxism’ is also an oxymoron like ‘Christian Zionism’ and ‘Religious Right.’

Mainstream conservatives in the USA believe in the Theology of the Fall from Grace. That is, they preach America once was perfect but somehow some devils wormed themselves into the System and fucked everything up. With the demise of the Soviet Union, Cultural Marxism has emerged as the latest demon.

It also enables the brain-dead Right to label anything they don’t like or understand to be ‘socialist’ or even ‘communist.’ Also, because the Cult of Political Correctness does not allow Conservatives to call Obama a nigger, they call this minion of ultra-Capitalist Wall Street a ‘socialist’ or Muslim instead.

The shibboleth of ‘Cultural Marxism’ picked up speed when it was cited as the new devil in two different, best-selling books by Pat Buchanan. Buchanan, using a single source, presented a caricature of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci and an hysterical over-estimation of the Frankfurt School. This is Pat Buchanan at his worst, a Catholic Traditionalist. (Catholic Traditionalism is a relic of the bigger medieval relic, the Roman Catholic Church.)

Gramsci, who was imprisoned until near death in Mussolini’s prisons, is known today for his PRISON NOTEBOOKS and THE MODERN PRINCE. His focus there is not on ‘de-Christianizing the West’ as Buchanan alleges, but on Proletarian Hegemony. In fact, I never used the word hegemony until I read Gramsci. Gramsci is concerned about increasing the weight & influence of the working-class in society. This is to be done by building a counter-hegemony to that of the Ruling Class. Gramsci is concerned with independent institutions of the class, such as trade unions and cooperatives, eventually leading to workers councils. THAT is the prelude to Revolution, not tossing verbal spitballs at Christianism and the Roman Church.

As to the Frankfurt School, Pat Buchanan grossly inflates its importance. He sees it as a subterranean path for ‘communizing’ the West. What the Frankfurt School really was is something quite different. They were instead a dissident group of intellectuals alienated from both the Communists and the Social Democrats, who were the two main currents active in the European working-class and competing for their allegiance. Thus the Frankfurt School became divorced from any actual working-class practice. THAT was the reason for their turn to culture. Their works became increasingly metaphysical in character, really removing themselves from Marxism per se. They tried to reconcile Marx and Freud which can’t be done. Read what Rosa Luxemburg, a real Marxist, had to say about ‘human nature.’ This would lead Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School to end up being anti-working class and thus anti-Marxist. These renegades are a pretty weak devil.

Is Obama, then, any kind of ‘cultural Marxist’ or radical. Nope. His school of thought is the Bill Clinton one of serving the Oligarchy. Do that and they’ll make you rich. Bail out Wall Street and not Main Street. What’s radical or Marxist about that?