THE METHODS OF CULTURAL MARXISM AND CRITICAL THEORY

 

 

What is the strategy of cultural Marxism? Dennis Grimski has done a remarkable job of summarizing it:

 

·       The strategy of Marxists is always to cultivate a victimized group and then convince its members that solidarity is required against the oppressors. This creates divisiveness, resentment and hatred and is how Marxist ideologies fulfill their revolutionary objectives.

 

Why does Marxism sow divisiveness and revolution? These techniques have always been the methods used by imperialists – make allies and set them against the ruling class. Since the world religions have favored peace and stability and have usually supported non-oppressive governing systems, the Marxist has inevitably regarded organized religion as its foe. Kenneth Craycraft has written:

 

·       The fact remains, contends Marx, that where religious institutions are present, eo ipso, exploitation and alienation also are present. Religion is an ideology which always supervenes upon material forces in history, and which, like any other ideology, is used by the ruling class to legitimate its power. The very presence of religion, by definition, means that real human emancipation cannot yet have occurred…Religion will not be abolished by criticism, but rather by action, i.e., changing the situation in which religion is fostered. Religion is just another form of illusion which disappears when other forms of illusion (including ultimately the state) also disappear. https://www.crisismagazine.com/1989/why-marx-hated-christianity-a-reply-to-leonardo-boff

 

Religion had to be eliminated, but how? Marx thought that it would simply happen without revolution. However, the workers did not revolt as predicted, even in the midst of the devastations of the world wars. Dennis Grimski details the Marxism updated strategy:

 

·        [Georg] Lukacs built on [Antonino] Gramsci, and decided that Marxist dialectical materialism was not a good tool for predicting the future. Instead, it was a tool for destroying society and Western culture itself. Lukacs wrote:

 

·       “Simply destroying the status quo, including the destruction of a country’s historical institutions, beliefs and institutions, especially the society’s reliance on Judeo-Christianity would bring about Marxism.” https://bluewaterhealthyliving.com/the-frankfort-school-and-the-history-of-political-correctness/; and all subsequent quotations)

 

How then to foment revolution? The prevailing traditions had to be undermined. The powerful flames of sexual attraction would provide the fire to incinerate the Biblical Faith:

 

·       Lukacs beliefs were so influential that in 1919 he actually became Deputy Commissar of Cultural Development in Hungary. Through his government office, he developed a sex education curriculum and had it inserted into the public school system. Lukacs taught children about “free love” and the “rejection of morality.” Lukacs also had schools distribute “condoms” without parental permission to promote sexual activity. In his role, Lukacs tried to live out his ideology of societal destruction. The curriculum instructed children not to obey their parent’s old fashioned values, but instead they could have sex with anyone, at anytime, and anywhere.

 

The more youth practice a sexual lifestyle in opposition to Biblical principles, the more they will feel judged by them, and the more they will reject and hate them. However, it is not enough to simply sexualize the youth. Everything of the old system had to be criticized and deconstructed. It is easy to find fault with capitalism, traditional marriage, and straight white males. Why? To some degree, in this broken world everything is broken. Grimski documents the continual Marxist assault upon Western institutions to pave the way for revolution and identifies Max Horkheimer as a key player:

 

·       At the Frankfurt School, Horkheimer coined two terms that would embody the whole philosophy of his fellow travelers mission to destroy a society’s culture and to replace it with the Marxist dialectic. Horkheimer called his concepts: ”Cultural Marxism” and “Critical Theory.”

According to Cultural Marxism (CM), instead of a military invasion, Western society must first be divided and corrupted from within before any revolution could succeed.

 

·       For Horkheimer, “Cultural Marxism” (changing a society’s culture with Marxist beliefs); and “Critical Theory,” (criticizing everything in a society, everywhere, and at all times) were critical to destroying a society and readying it for socialism. When you think of Cultural Marxism as defined by Horkheimer, it was nothing but “political correctness” as we know it today. Many Americans are familiar with political correctness, yet you may not be familiar with its origins in cultural Marxist theory. While the classic Marxist might argue that capitalism and the class structure it created must be overthrown because it is oppressive to workers, Horkheimer introduced the concept of “Cultural Marxism.” Under this term, Horkheimer argued:

 

o   “It is not economics that creates oppression but rather the nuclear family, traditional institutions, traditional morality and concepts of race, gender and sexual identity. These are the chains of tyranny which must be broken by revolution.”

 

Everything had to go! No mention here of the tyranny endemic to Marxism! This is the vital part of the equation missing in university education and now even in grade schools. Instead, CMs view the youth as malleable recruits once they are convinced that they are serving the higher cause of tearing down an “unjust society” as they rebel against the society which had nurtured them:

 

·       Per Horkheimer, Critical Theory has no positive elements. Its whole purpose is to destroy a society by “promoting a dialogue of constant ‘negative criticism’ in all spheres of society. All advocates of “critical theory’ need to be taught to point out the rational contradictions in a society’s belief system. Critical Theory is a process to tear down the social fabric of society by using the school system, especially the social sciences: sociology, psychology, economics, political science, and law of that society to criticize the country’s culture, historical heritage and traditional institutions. He believed you could take advantage of normal youth “rebelliousness” to get them to attack their parents, and all things of value in their society.

 

Consequently, the generation gap is growing. Parents, afraid of loosing their youth often feel compelled to join them in hope of keeping them.

 

·       For Horkheimer, critical theory was an infinite and on-going criticism of the status quo. It was designed to be targeted at youth and young adults, by having them learn that it was appropriate and necessary to attack all of society’s rules and norms.

 

For this to work, reason and evidence had to be demoted as merely the tools of an oppressive society. According to Horkheimer, the criticism of Critical Theory was the only appropriate response:

 

·       “…It recognized that disinterested scientific research was impossible in a society in which men were themselves not yet autonomous…the researcher was always part of the social object he was attempting to study.”

 

Consequently, every opposition to CM is dismissed as racist, oppressive, and unscientific, and its speakers are shouted down before they can be heard. Any forum to civilly discuss the merits of CM cannot be found, even at the universities.

 

According Grimski, Critical Theory also targeted the traditional family as an obstacle to their goal - dependence on the State. However, the costs have been staggering:

 

·       As an example, look at the Black Family in America, and its historical impact under the public welfare system implemented by the ‘Great Society’ under President Johnson. In 1962, only 14% of black families were single parent. However, in 2017, 72% of families are single parent (almost 3:4 families). The government rules for family subsidization, welfare, food stamps, etc. have but almost destroyed the black family unit in America.

 

Consequently, the destruction of the black family had to be explained in another way. Therefore, the CMs constantly harped on the legacy of slavery and segregation as the cause and also that the USA is inherently racist and therefore had to be radically transformed. Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfort School described their strategy:

 

·       “One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution since the protest is directed toward the whole of society and its cultural establishment, including the morality of the existing society. What we must undertake is a diffuse disintegration of the entire societal system.”

 

This means revolution, and it is increasingly becoming more obvious. What had started with the deconstruction of Western Biblical norms grew into silencing techniques of shaming and “political correctness,” and then progressed into discrediting and canceling out any opposition. Now we see it manifested through Marxist support of violent groups, which use threat and intimidation. All of this seems to be just a prelude to what characterizes Marxist nations – the end of 1^st Amendment guarantees, “re-education” camps, repudiation of the family and its influence, and even genocide, all justified to protect the welfare of humanity.