Cultural marxiism vs. Nationalism

I think that most nationalists can agree that If socialism of any kind is to work it has to be backed by a nationalist culture that is reinforced by strong families and close adherence to strong values. Racially homogenized and not pluralistic. China and Russia had those elements and though they did not necessarily have governments that were of a democratic flavor they did have plenty of cultural solidarity and minimal racial issues except perhaps regional disputes from time to time.

If socialism of any kind be it worker based strasserisim which utilizes the best elements of capitalism and the best elements of socialism or something more narrowly defined and liberal like a welfare state combined with unionisim were to be implemented how could we divorce it from destructive cultural Marxism which is a strategy to undermine nationalism and racial purity. What parameters do we set on how far socialism can go out into areas that are ultimately destructive for all races.

Well thank you for your question.

First of all, and in order to give an adequate answer, what do you mean by "cultural marxism"? You mean the ideas put forth by the frankfurt school? Or are you refering to the current muticultural and consumerist society that was built in order to serve particular interests? The two are not necessarily the same, and quite frankly, both have very little to do with marxism itself. But i surelly understand your question, so please, be more specific.

Agreed. In fact, as used by the SF rabble, "cultural Marxism" doesn't even refer to Adorno, Marcuse, and other critics of capitalism (whom they haven't read in the first place) but rather to cosmopolitanism, multiculturalism, and identity politics -- all of which serve the interests of late capitalism well, based as it is on fragmentation of identitities and roles, "liquid modernity" (to borrow a phrase from Zygmunt Baumann), and universal alienation. It has no connection to Marxism that I am aware of.

The following is a short description of "liquid modernity," from which I've taken a pertinent excerpt. It could possibly be the basis for a discussion of the ways in which our fluid identities -- as part of the precariat, for instance -- coalesce with the imperatives of late capitalism, which in its protean financial form is just as elusive and fluid as the identities of the proles.

http://www.culturewars.org.uk/2004-02/identity.htm

Inevitably, the undermining of familiar institutions, an aspect of modernity that has certainly been intensified in recent years, has had important consequences for people's sense of identity. There is nothing new about the observation that national and class-based identities (both of which had seemed almost definitively modern) have been upset by the end of the Cold War and various other developments discussed under the heading of 'globalisation'. Similarly, Bauman notes that while the workplace was traditionally a very important source of personal identity, changes in the economy have rendered it far less reliable. He suggests that the enduring identities once associated with work have given way to looser and more provisional identities, and conceptions of community, that are subject to constant change and renegotiation. Indeed, Bauman points to a more profound transformation of how we understand what it means to be human in the absence of transcendent ideologies (traditional or otherwise) such as have characterised modernity until recently.

In this regard, some prior exposure to books like Mandel's "Late Capitalism" is also useful (albeit it's rather hard to obtain). An excerpt from a Wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism

According to the Marxist economist Ernest Mandel, who popularised the term with his 1972 PhD dissertation, late-stage capitalism will be dominated by the machinations – or perhaps better, fluidities – of financial capital.

In his work "Late Capitalism," Mandel argues for three periods in the development of capitalism. First is market capitalism, which occurred from 1700 to 1850 and is characterized largely by the growth of industrial capital in domestic markets. Second is monopoly capitalism, which lasted until approximately 1960, and is characterized by the imperialistic development of international markets as well as the exploitation of colonial territories. Third, is late capitalism, which displays such features as the multinational corporation, globalized markets and labor, mass consumption, and the space of liquid multinational flows of capital.

There are numerous other writers writing along similar lines -- Arrighi, Harvey, and Wallerstein come to mind.

On a personal note, it's a great relief to be able to write openly among like-minded people. The gulf between this forum and SF must be about 50 IQ points.

southernbygrace wrote:I think that most nationalists can agree that If socialism of any kind is to work it has to be backed by a nationalist culture that is reinforced by strong families and close adherence to strong values.

Tentatively? Yes, I agree. What values is the question of course, but generally I think that all agree that robbing, looting, raping and murdering are not acceptable social past times, in a orderly society.

Racially homogenized and not pluralistic.

What exactly do you mean to imply by 'pluralistic' here? Do you mean that there will be no dissent allowed ie a party line that must be followed, or do you mean it as multiracial/polyglot? Or are you implying that a racially homogenous nation would not have factions as they exist now?

China and Russia had those elements and though they did not necessarily have governments that were of a democratic flavor they did have plenty of cultural solidarity and minimal racial issues except perhaps regional disputes from time to time.

This is a very rosy view of those particular experiments in applied Marxism. The fact is that the Soviet Union keep is nations apart to a great extent, but to do so required a system of internal passports, labor camps, judicial murders, and generalized suppression of all non 'soviet' thoughts, and actions. The Chinese just assimilated, massacred or otherwise pacified the minorities, on top of doing all that the USSR did doubleplus more. Those minorities are about 15% of China's 1.5 billion population after all; Chinese Kulaks is what they are. The USSR and PRC are and or were slave camps pure and simple.

If socialism of any kind be it worker based strasserisim which utilizes the best elements of capitalism and the best elements of socialism

Which elements are these and why? Not disagreeing mind you.

or something more narrowly defined and liberal like a welfare state combined with unionisim were to be implemented how could we divorce it from destructive cultural Marxism which is a strategy to undermine nationalism and racial purity.

Why exactly would workers within an all White context uniting as a political force have anything to do with Cultural Marxism? And what is CM to you exactly, if you would kind sir.

What parameters do we set on how far socialism can go out into areas that are ultimately destructive for all races.

What is the necessity of socialism destroying any race much less all races?

southernbygrace wrote:I think that most nationalists can agree that If socialism of any kind is to work it has to be backed by a nationalist culture that is reinforced by strong families and close adherence to strong values. Racially homogenized and not pluralistic. China and Russia had those elements and though they did not necessarily have governments that were of a democratic flavor they did have plenty of cultural solidarity and minimal racial issues except perhaps regional disputes from time to time.

If socialism of any kind be it worker based strasserisim which utilizes the best elements of capitalism and the best elements of socialism or something more narrowly defined and liberal like a welfare state combined with unionisim were to be implemented how could we divorce it from destructive cultural Marxism which is a strategy to undermine nationalism and racial purity. What parameters do we set on how far socialism can go out into areas that are ultimately destructive for all races.

Socialism is a broad economic system where the most basic commonality amongst its many variants is the collective ownership of the means of production, be it by the state, community, or by workers' self-management. We are racial socialist nationalists; therefore, we are immediately exempt from being categorized as "cultural Marxists." Whatever ideology drives a particular form of socialism is irrelevant to the actual structure of the system itself. We are syndicalists who harbor nationalist principles and would therefore mold our syndicalism to nationalist standards.

Socialism, unlike capitalism, is not institutionally anti-nationalist. Syndicalism under economic democracy (the variant of socialism founded upon democratically self-managed organized production units propounded by the Executive Committee of the Revolutionary Syndicalist Front) is not driven to mindless expansion and waste as is laissez-faire capitalism (or any other form of capitalism, for that matter). Phenomena such as globalization and Third World immigration would be both prohibited by law and curtailed by a thorough lack of incentive.

It's long been my position that "Cultural Marxism" is little more than a bugaboo paleoconservatives constructed in order to feel relevant in the post-Cold War era. Most advocates of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory cannot even offer a coherent definition of what it's supposed to be. Occasionally, some of them will utter nonsense about how the Frankfurt School of Social Research had a pervasive impact on academia, but they haven't any idea what the work of Adorno, Habermas, Marcuse, et al. consisted of, let alone the actual extent academicians were genuinely influenced by the Frankfurt School. Being in academia myself (and having taken plenty of courses in the humanities over the years), I can unequivocally state that Freudo-Marxism is most certainly not the dominant conceptual paradigm among social scientists today. Sigmund Freud's research, in general, is hardly studied by most professionals today, and an adherence to any form of Marxism has been out of vogue among intellectuals for decades now (due largely to the negative legacy of the Soviet state socialism).

Many of the reactionaries who claim that universities engage in "Marxist indoctrination" will often cite such trivialities as being taught Marxian class analysis in a Sociology 101 course—while, in reality, they were being taught a plurality of differing sociological theories (including those established by the likes of Max Weber and Herbert Spencer), which they conveniently omit.

Professors, be they of a left, right, or center political persuasion—most of them being slightly left-of-center Social Democrats, in my experience—indeed promote multiculturalism, but then so does the overwhelming majority of the political establishment, business community, and religious institutions. In my opinion, it's patently absurd to believe that a group as small and obscure as the Frankfurt School somehow cunningly succeeded in convincing policy makers (and the majority of the Western nations) to embrace multiculturalism. I frequently refer people to my essay, "Profit, Profit, Über Alles!"—which outlines the strong economic incentives employers have in perpetuating multiculturalism—to counter this ridiculous Cultural Marxist theory.

With that said, I basically agree with your main point. I think that open-minded nationalists can come to appreciate the benefits a socialist mode of production would bring to a nationalist state. Personally, I'm of the conviction that not only is socialism difficult to successfully construct without incorporating some tenets of nationalism (e.g., ethnocultural homogeneity), but nationalism itself will be fundamentally impossible to maintain in the modern era without adopting a socialist economic system. Both systems are mutually dependent on one another.

"Cultural Marxism" is just a way of linking Marx to liberalism. It's a term with no meaning, just like the terms "left" and "right" have no meaning (in my opinion).

I believe "nazis" use the term because they view anti-Communism as something they believe in, and want to believe that the enemy of Communism still exists in form of liberalism. Also the Jewish ancestry of Marx and the Jewish ancestry of the liberals they blame.

To be blunt, I view the term "cultural Marxism" as reactionary trash.

Metal Gear wrote:"Cultural Marxism" is just a way of linking Marx to liberalism. It's a term with no meaning, just like the terms "left" and "right" have no meaning (in my opinion).

I believe "nazis" use the term because they view anti-Communism as something they believe in, and want to believe that the enemy of Communism still exists in form of liberalism. Also the Jewish ancestry of Marx and the Jewish ancestry of the liberals they blame.

To be blunt, I view the term "cultural Marxism" as reactionary trash.

I believe that cultural Marxism is useful only insofar as it establishes the origin of many of the concepts used to promote modern liberal values, but its usage as a term to describe some radical incursion into mainstream education and the bourgeois political establishment is nothing more than fear-mongering on the part of paleoconservatives like Patrick Buchanan. As Celtiberian has put it, it is little more than a "bugaboo."