Cultural Marxism?

It’s a new term to me, but maybe he’s onto something here…

I know the process is happening, and he’s got his history and facts straight. But it’s a different “package” than I’ve seen before and the name is catchy…

Subscribe to feed


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in World Economics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Cultural Marxism?

  1. George says:

    I see socialism as an economic and cultural disease. Imagine you had a garden. Not every single plant is going to thrive at exactly the same rate. Socialism in this analogy would be starving the vigorous plants and feeding the ones that are struggling. Then it would be actively removing nutrients from the thriving plants in order to prevent them from getting too far ahead of the ones that are not doing well.

    After several generations of this, assuming you replant the seed produced by the product of that sort of labor, you end up with a system that can not produce very much. The stronger seed has been starved and so did not yield much. The less productive seed was, through outside intervention, provided with much more in nutrients (resources) than it could get on its own and so it produced more that it otherwise would have.

    What is left is a garden of plants that requires a much higher level of maintenance in order to survive, is less productive, and is in a much weaker state then it needs to be.

    Capitalism, on the other hand, would have fertilized the entire garden, accepted that some of the plants are going to thrive more than others, allowed the more productive plants to reach their full potential and over the generations, the more productive outproducing the less productive results in a garden with a better chance of having more productive plants overall and producing higher output with less maintenance.

    Socialism is a disease that saps the potential of the economy. It taxes productivity and it subsidizes idleness.

  2. E.M.Smith says:


    Fairly well put. I’d note also that in many ways evolution is a capitalist system and a ranch is a socialist system.

    In the end, evolution produces a more fit individual, while a ranch produces soft tender meat that gets BBQ’d and eaten…

    On the ranch, it’s the “leaders” who benefit most…

    BTW, to anyone thinking of making a connection to Eugenics out of the statment about the strong thriving better in the non-socialist garden: The ranch analogy is more accurate. Eugenics is regularly used on ranches to produce good tasting and easily managed herds that follow blindly and are dependent on their masters for survival.

    I think I’ll take “living on my own” please…

    Sidebar: Pat Buchanan has always facinated me. What he said in the past often caused me to think he was a “Right Wing Nut”. Except that he’s been extraordinarily correct in his predictions about what the outcomes would be.

    So now I’m more inclined to give what he says a ‘fair listen’.

    And what I find is that he does seem to have a decent handle on things economic and social / political.

    Yes, he’s religious, and like most religious folks sees many things through that lens. Then again, it is true that religion has done much to stabilise America and it’s just as true that Communism has done it’s darndest to stamp it out whenever it got power.

    My spouse is very religious. I’m very non-religious. We make an interesting pair ;-) But of one thing there is no doubt: A religious belief is completely orthogonal to the tendency to inteligence. I’ve known very smart, and very dumb people, and there is no relationship at all to which have a religious conviction and which do not.

    Oddly, many on the socialist Loony Left try to protray religion as something for ‘the masses’, beneath those of higher intellect; yet fail to see the hypocracy in that…

  3. PhilJourdan says:

    Oddly, many on the socialist Loony Left try to protray religion as something for ‘the masses’, beneath those of higher intellect; yet fail to see the hypocracy in that…

    That is because they are not smart enough to know they know not.

    In my house, we are the opposite. I am (well not very, but) religious, and my wife is not. But I am hardly fundamental (still rare being a conservative Catholic). But I also understand that many smart people can be very religious and yes we do have to wade through their preachiness at times, but they contribute a lot. Sound economic and social policies can be influenced by ones religion, but they do not have to be. So conservatives are often branded fundamentalist because fundamentalists are usually conservative. But that just shows the ignorance of the believer. If all A are in B, it does not follow that all B are in A. Yet that logic constantly escapes liberals.

    because they are not smart enough to know they know not.

  4. George says:

    The reason for my choosing the word “disease” is that if looked at systemically, socialism “attacks” the
    “healthiest” members of the population and diverts resources to less productive members.

    If thought about in the context of an organism where the entire economy is looked at holistically, it is not unlike how cancer operates on a body. It, for example, tricks the body into increasing the growth of blood vessels to increase the supply of nutrients to a tumor and begins consuming the body’s resources to the detriment of healthy cells.

    So in that respect, I see socialism acting on an economic system much as cancer operates on a human body. Take the current left-wing rhetoric when it concerns “the rich”. It seems to have become their doctrine that the rich be punished for being rich. At this point it isn’t about economics, it isn’t about revenues, you simply have people demanding “the rich” pay more taxes simply for the sake of it because it is their doctrine. What they seem to overlook is that “the rich” are the very ones that enable their programs and agenda. 47% of the adult population of the US pays no taxes. The bottom 50% of all wage earners pay 5% of the taxes. Inhibiting the success of the most productive members of the economy will have an asymmetric impact on their ability to raise future revenue. They should recognize “the rich” as their best ally and do all they can to make more “rich” people but instead they take the opposite approach just as a cancer does in finally sapping the body of its ability to sustain itself and it (the body) dies taking the cancer with it.

    A cancer in a body is a biological analog to socialism in an economy where non-productive cells end up consuming so much in resources that the overall being can no longer sustain itself. This has proved itself out in every case where it has been tried.

    Now about Mr. Buchannan. I don’t listen much to him. He has been accused of being something of an anti-semite and though I am not Jewish, I don’t tolerate much in the way of religious bigotry. Having said that, I base that on what I have heard others say and not what I, myself, have heard him say. On occasions where I have heard him speak, I tend to agree with you, he does seem to have an accurate vision of the direction of things in general as they have eventually proved out.

  5. Pascvaks says:

    Regardless of it’s tennants, civilization is a very BIG, COMPLEX, SYSTEM that takes hundreds of years to develope. I’m of the mind that the ‘christian’ West is so entertwined with ‘christian’ principals and foibles that knocking down and burning these on a catch as catch can basis by the anarchists and ‘pure blooded socialists’ amounts to a cancer –not a gradual change that civilization can appropriately adjust to. The 20th Century was no more devistating in many ways than any other before it, except in one very “funny” area. Basic human principals and a lot of little wooden pegs left by ‘christians’ along the way have been removed, smashed, and burned by the “marxian socialist mob” that also comprise the everpresent anarchist mob. Society, in general, has ignored them, the judicial system has catered to them, and they have become like a plague of termites in an old New Orleans mansion. Things are getting flakey. Real flakey. “American Civil Liberties Union” anyone?

Comments are closed.