Cultural Marxism: The Right Painting Themselves as Victims

[JimC]

The main point of the article in the OP was to paint cultural marxism in academia as an insidious conspiracy, aimed at destroying capitalism. Simply, it is no more than one strand of political thought in academic circles, with some useful bits and some very silly bits, but it has no chance of having any serious effect whatsoever on the dominance of the free market economy world wide.

[pErvinalia]

It's basically just the conservative right whinging that power in society has the potential to move away from them. They are so used to being in charge that their born to rule sensibilities can't take it.

For me, it's about being liberal and wishing to live in a liberal society. It's about opposing folks who want to control the language, and silence dissent and opposition. It's about affronts to reason and logic and skepticism.

I don't know what it's like in the US, but liberals here are famous for saying "everyone has the right to be a bigot", but get furious when they themselves are attacked, and aren't afraid at all to launch silly legal actions to stop people criticising them. Ultimately liberals are conservatives. They are only liberal about ideas that they themselves hold.

That's the regressive Left you're referring to.

No, it's the liberal right.

I think feminists, even the most radical of them, have every right to say whatever they want -- but, what makes me point to them as examples of illiberal intolerance is when they claim to be liberal but call for "muscle" to get rid of a reporter (from a public place).

Where do they claim to be liberal? And in any case, liberalism more often than not leads to authoritarian views, so they probably are a perfect example of liberalism.

As mentioned, if you liberals actually cared about freedom you wouldn't be largely voting for neoliberal governments like the Tories, Dems and Republicans, and Labor and Liberals* here in Australia (*The Australian Liberal Party is allegedly a "broadchurch" of liberals and conservatives. It's nothing of the sort. The Tories reign supreme in the party).

Well, I don't disagree, which is why I have no candidates here to support, and most liberals don't. Certainly, the Republicans have nobody that is really liberal in the offing. Of the GOP candidates, Trump is more liberal than Cruz or Rubio, but Trump is not a liberal in general, he's just not as overtly conservative as Cruz and Rubio, which isn't saying much. Rand Paul was more liberal than Trump, but Paul is not a serious contender.

Among the Democrats, neither candidate is liberal. Hillary is a conservative Democrat, and Bernie is a Progressive Leftist. Both are authoritarian, and neither really gives a shit about liberal principles.

If I limited my voting this year to liberal candidates, I would have nobody to vote for.

Well you must be a special case as most liberals I know of vote right, not left.

[Forty Two]

Well, you'll have to demonstrate how being in favor of liberal ideas, founded on ideas of liberty and equality, leads to authoritarian views.

Progressives, on the other hand, are the ones who demonstrate on college campuses demanding less freedom of speech, and demanding that the authorities exercise more control over individuals. Progressives don't just lead to authoritarian views, they openly express them and advocate for them.

[pErvinalia]

And liberals tend to vote on the conservative side of the ledger (in both the UK and Australia the liberals formed coalitions with the conservatives). One could perhaps say that at least progressives aren't misrepresenting their ideology.

[Forty Two]

And liberals tend to vote on the conservative side of the ledger (in both the UK and Australia the liberals formed coalitions with the conservatives). One could perhaps say that at least progressives aren't misrepresenting their ideology.

Well, I don't know what the "Liberal Party" in Australia does or votes for. But, liberal philosophy has a specific definition, and Progressives are not that. The things that a liberal would general believe would be in basic human rights, like the right to free speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to warrants based on probable clause (i.e., the right to be free from arbitrary government action), the right to privacy, and other liberal principles.

In terms of a liberal temperament or mindset, it would be a very "liberal" position to be open to all sides of an argument, to be against the silencing of points of view -- i.e., it is liberal to suggest that folks from various points of view would not be interfered with in the exercise of their right to free expression. It is progressive and illiberal to see a person expressing a view that one does not like and then to actively interfere with the expression of that other view -- like when progressives decide to make it impossible for a speaker to actually speak (pulling fire alarms, screaming with loudspeakers when others are trying to talk, throwing fake blood all around and badgering audience members, hollering at people and cursing at them and "getting in their face" when they stand in line to get into a peaceful speaking event -- you know, all the things that are common tactics of the progressive left - the cultural marxists - and the activist feminists.

[pErvinalia]

Yet liberals tend to vote on the conservative side of the ledger.

[rachelbean]

Not in the U.S...

[pErvinalia]

I'm guessing you are going to say they vote for the Dems? If so, that doesn't really change my argument as the Dems are right-wing by world standards.

[Forty Two]

Yet liberals tend to vote on the conservative side of the ledger.

Some evidence needed.

It sounds kinda like when leftists vote vote for Obama and then claiming to be voting for a slightly right of center middle of the road conservative.... A leftist progressive might vote for Obama because he's better in their view than the alternative, and they are viewing their goals through the lens of incrementalism, but it doesn't change their philosophy.

As a liberal, I would never, ever, vote for someone Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio here in the US. However, I also don't want to vote for someone like Obama. That being said, I might vote for Obama because he's the lesser of evils, or is incrementally or marginally better in relation to liberal causes.

[pErvinalia]

Yet liberals tend to vote on the conservative side of the ledger.

Some evidence needed.

Jeezus, I already gave it! The liberals in the UK and Australia have formed coalitions with the conservatives. Prominent non-politician liberals in Australia have been members of the Liberal party (the coalition of liberals and conservatives). The best example in Australia is Tim Wilson, who is now giving up his position as the "Freedom Commissioner" to run for Liberal Party preselection in the next election.

edit: by the way, check out his photo. More evidence for my theory that liberals can't grow proper beards and really are just very large well dressed children.

[Forty Two]

Yet liberals tend to vote on the conservative side of the ledger.

Some evidence needed.

Jeezus, I already gave it! The liberals in the UK and Australia have formed coalitions with the conservatives.

This doesn't mean anything. In Parliamentary systems, different parties will often form coalitions to oppose a ruling party. Doesn't mean they've abandoned their principles and become the parties they coalesce with.

Prominent non-politician liberals in Australia have been members of the Liberal party (the coalition of liberals and conservatives). The best example in Australia is Tim Wilson, who is now giving up his position as the "Freedom Commissioner" to run for Liberal Party preselection in the next election.

edit: by the way, check out his photo. More evidence for my theory that liberals can't grow proper beards and really are just very large children.

Look -- in South Africa, the DA and the EFF formed a coalition. In Canada, the NDP formed a coalition with the Liberal Party to oppose the Tories. That doesn't make the NDP and the Liberal Party the same thing.

[pErvinalia]

Yet liberals tend to vote on the conservative side of the ledger.

Some evidence needed.

Jeezus, I already gave it! The liberals in the UK and Australia have formed coalitions with the conservatives.

This doesn't mean anything. In Parliamentary systems, different parties will often form coalitions to oppose a ruling party. Doesn't mean they've abandoned their principles and become the parties they coalesce with.

"Doesn't mean anything".. Oh really?

Neither of them are opposing a ruling party. They are in government (well, the libdems in the UK were, in the last term). And in Australia's situation, they are a permanent coalition. It's utterly nonsensical, if you believe in the purity of the liberal ideology. If you realise that liberalism is usually based in conservatism, then it's not really a surprise.

Prominent non-politician liberals in Australia have been members of the Liberal party (the coalition of liberals and conservatives). The best example in Australia is Tim Wilson, who is now giving up his position as the "Freedom Commissioner" to run for Liberal Party preselection in the next election.

edit: by the way, check out his photo. More evidence for my theory that liberals can't grow proper beards and really are just very large children.

Look -- in South Africa, the DA and the EFF formed a coalition. In Canada, the NDP formed a coalition with the Liberal Party to oppose the Tories. That doesn't make the NDP and the Liberal Party the same thing.

You asked for evidence, I gave it.

edit: And we need to see a photo of you. I bet you have smooth baby-like skin and wear a really nice suit, yeah?

[Forty Two]

I'm guessing you are going to say they vote for the Dems? If so, that doesn't really change my argument as the Dems are right-wing by world standards.

Well, you're confusing "left wing" with liberal. Leftists aren't liberal, which is why many liberals aren't going to vote for "left wing" parties.

Indeed, by "world standards" both major parties in the US may be "to the right" of the middle ground in say, Germany. That's why it's mainstream in Germany to have a law to criminally prosecute insulting of religion. Just the other day, in Germany, a retired teacher was fined 500 Euros for insulting Christianity.

His bumper stickers said - “The church is looking for modern advertising ideas. I can help,” -- “Jesus, our favorite artist: hanging for 2,000 years and he still hasn’t got cramp,” and “Let’s make a piligrimage [sic] with Martin Luther to Rome! Kill Pope Francis. The Reformation is cool.”

The court ruled that the law said that this was not free expression or art. It was not a lawful political opinion to express, and not a lawful opinion about a set of religious beliefs. Because the Pope and the cross are central elements of the Catholic Church, German law has adopted the Progressive Leftist view that insulting and critical commentary about a religion is hate speech, and not permitted.

So, very, very true of you to say that the US political parties are largely to the right of the political center in Europe. However, the US political parties are also much more "liberal" than the political center in Europe. Most Democrats and most Republicans would cringe at such a prosecution here, and no law of that kind would ever pass. Here in the US, equal protection being the rule, banning such bumper stickers insulting Catholicism or Christianity would necessitate that similar criticisms of Islam or Satanism be prohibited too. Everyone here, pretty much everyone, knows that the liberal principle of free expression is far more important than the protection of religions from insult.

A true "leftist", however, someone who is far to the left of US politics, generally takes no issue with banning such speech. If that's what most people want -- to silence critics of religion, or feminists, or other "protected classifications" -- a good progressive leftist will be all for a solidly illiberal restriction on free speech.

[Forty Two]

I'll correct my reference to no law "ever" passing here in the US. Right now, the protections are in place against such an authoritarian and illiberal restriction on free expression. The political parties are pretty much in favor of free speech, and even where a law would pass, the courts tend to check against them by rulling them to be violations of fundamental rights.

The Progressive Left is doing its darndest to fix that, though, and they are succeeding slowly. And in some areas. They've met success on college campuses, for example, and on the Twitter, and in other specific areas. Incrementalism.

[pErvinalia]

I'm guessing you are going to say they vote for the Dems? If so, that doesn't really change my argument as the Dems are right-wing by world standards.

Well, you're confusing "left wing" with liberal.

Huh? Where did you get that from?

In Merca, what's your experience of who liberals vote for in say congressional elections? Do you have a proper liberal party or candidates? I'd agree with you, at least with the Dems, that they are more liberal than most left parties in Europe. But the dems seem more like a "broadchurch" like our Liberal Party here. They (the Dems) have self-proclaimed socialists like Sanders and a bunch of far more liberal members including some that I'm assuming even you'd agree that they are proper liberals. I see your Democratic governments as being more like the UK LibDems and the Australian Democrats (both centre-right parties, although, the AD's were probably more correctly very centrist).