"Cultural Marxism" may well have entered common parlance due to Jordan Peterson, I've never paid enough attention to his rantings (though his writing is calmer and more reflective in my limited experience). It is certainly very widespread and used almost exlusively in the pejorative.
Another term that is wickedly abused (and has been for very much longer) is 'ideology'. The notion is that this means 'bad ideas' held by bad people. Ideas you don't agree with... and therefore to be used to shut down any discussion.
Slightly more sophisticated arguments grasp the fact that to step outside of ideology is simply not possible but accentuate how systems of thought are manipulated for the purposes of social control. There's always a puppet-master....
Ironically those on the Right (whatever that even means) will frequently cite some or other messiah who will come and fix things, and proclaim that faith, family, and community are the true sources of solace and content. They would deem me heretical for agreeing, but pointing out that these are powerful ideological forces in the sense of constituing social cement.
Citing Gramsci and more contemporary sources wins few friends and naturally to mention the notion of the Ideological State Apparatus (for example) would invite condemnation _solely_ on the grounds that Louis A. was a _bad bad man_ who murdered his dear wife.
Practically everything has become a binary now: like/unlike. Althusser: murderer; Gramsci: commie; Foucault: kiddy fiddler; Deleuze: jumped out the window - obvious nutcase.
The notion that rebellious students are symbolically murdering their elders still holds true I think, eliding quite neatly with this algorithmic process of thought and action. And how do people skirt around the manifold contradictions? Well of course as well as the like/unlike there's the 'block'... "you're on ignore" as the AOL chat rooms popularised.
Karen, somehow I entirely missed this comment when you posted it. Please accept my apologies for not responding to your thoughtful and generous contribution to the comments section. I think we may be entirely in alignment on all of this. Tardily, thank you.
It's just that I commented there in a somewhat similar vein to this post of yours: https://open.substack.com/pub/treeofwoe/p/know-your-enemy, but am out of my depth (I am rather thin on post-Leninist Marxism, and the only Frankfurt school authors I read were Fromm and Marcuse.)
Here is the crux of the counter-argument from Alex:
"I would simply ask, "why is the ideology of the managerial class the ideology that it is?" and answer that with "because of the efforts of neo-marxists to make it that."
I think there are thousandfold ideologies that are compatible with managerialism and which it could manifest as - just look at the CCCP. It was not inevitable in some deterministic sense that managerialism became anti-white, anti-western, etc. "
I read the OP and your comments (eg citing Burnham) and thought you were pretty close to the mark. My own comment, a little abridged was:
<<...what a mess. To take one simple example: the notion of false consciousness was Engels, not Gramsci. The latter spoke of cultural hegemony: establishing norms and values that could be adopted by most people. Leading by example can bring people over to your side whereas telling them that the things they believe are 'false' is essentially insulting. Gramsci did NOT suggest that. Many in the Frankfurt School took up this line of thought and so did 'liberation theology' c.f. Paolo Freire for example.>>
I chipped in once or twice more but the whole essay was weak and your comment that Marxist ideas having been deployed does not make the people deploying them Marxists (I paraphrase) was spot-on.
The whole Left-Right thing needs sweeping away inm any case. These binaries, Team Blue and Team Red in a (to quote MM's footnote) perpetual struggle session succeeds only in keeping 'HR Professionals' in work . . . . Quite the grift.
Okay, I'm in the midst of getting organized to migrate south for the winter, but I'll make it a point to look into it and provide my impression, hopefully in January. Though, I might need reminding by then. Broadly speaking though, I of course agree with you. I don't know if I'd say a thousandfold, but certainly managerialism will express itself in keeping with the specific circumstances out of which it arose. As I argued, following Burnham, in The Managerial Class on Trial: fascism, Nazism, communism, and managerial liberalism were all manifestations of the managerial revolution, each calibrated to its own specific cultural, political, historical circumstances. But maybe I'd have more to say if I read the piece. Thanks. Happy New Year!
"Cultural Marxism" may well have entered common parlance due to Jordan Peterson, I've never paid enough attention to his rantings (though his writing is calmer and more reflective in my limited experience). It is certainly very widespread and used almost exlusively in the pejorative.
Another term that is wickedly abused (and has been for very much longer) is 'ideology'. The notion is that this means 'bad ideas' held by bad people. Ideas you don't agree with... and therefore to be used to shut down any discussion.
Slightly more sophisticated arguments grasp the fact that to step outside of ideology is simply not possible but accentuate how systems of thought are manipulated for the purposes of social control. There's always a puppet-master....
Ironically those on the Right (whatever that even means) will frequently cite some or other messiah who will come and fix things, and proclaim that faith, family, and community are the true sources of solace and content. They would deem me heretical for agreeing, but pointing out that these are powerful ideological forces in the sense of constituing social cement.
Citing Gramsci and more contemporary sources wins few friends and naturally to mention the notion of the Ideological State Apparatus (for example) would invite condemnation _solely_ on the grounds that Louis A. was a _bad bad man_ who murdered his dear wife.
Practically everything has become a binary now: like/unlike. Althusser: murderer; Gramsci: commie; Foucault: kiddy fiddler; Deleuze: jumped out the window - obvious nutcase.
The notion that rebellious students are symbolically murdering their elders still holds true I think, eliding quite neatly with this algorithmic process of thought and action. And how do people skirt around the manifold contradictions? Well of course as well as the like/unlike there's the 'block'... "you're on ignore" as the AOL chat rooms popularised.
It's warm and homely in our bubbles, not so?
Karen, somehow I entirely missed this comment when you posted it. Please accept my apologies for not responding to your thoughtful and generous contribution to the comments section. I think we may be entirely in alignment on all of this. Tardily, thank you.
"Mangerial Wokism:" I just read a commenter elsewhere who used the term "Woking Class." I like it.
Oh that's definitely stealable ;-)
What is your take on this: https://treeofwoe.substack.com/p/know-your-enemy ?
Homework?
The homework for you or for me? :)
It's just that I commented there in a somewhat similar vein to this post of yours: https://open.substack.com/pub/treeofwoe/p/know-your-enemy, but am out of my depth (I am rather thin on post-Leninist Marxism, and the only Frankfurt school authors I read were Fromm and Marcuse.)
Here is the crux of the counter-argument from Alex:
"I would simply ask, "why is the ideology of the managerial class the ideology that it is?" and answer that with "because of the efforts of neo-marxists to make it that."
I think there are thousandfold ideologies that are compatible with managerialism and which it could manifest as - just look at the CCCP. It was not inevitable in some deterministic sense that managerialism became anti-white, anti-western, etc. "
I read the OP and your comments (eg citing Burnham) and thought you were pretty close to the mark. My own comment, a little abridged was:
<<...what a mess. To take one simple example: the notion of false consciousness was Engels, not Gramsci. The latter spoke of cultural hegemony: establishing norms and values that could be adopted by most people. Leading by example can bring people over to your side whereas telling them that the things they believe are 'false' is essentially insulting. Gramsci did NOT suggest that. Many in the Frankfurt School took up this line of thought and so did 'liberation theology' c.f. Paolo Freire for example.>>
I chipped in once or twice more but the whole essay was weak and your comment that Marxist ideas having been deployed does not make the people deploying them Marxists (I paraphrase) was spot-on.
The whole Left-Right thing needs sweeping away inm any case. These binaries, Team Blue and Team Red in a (to quote MM's footnote) perpetual struggle session succeeds only in keeping 'HR Professionals' in work . . . . Quite the grift.
Okay, I'm in the midst of getting organized to migrate south for the winter, but I'll make it a point to look into it and provide my impression, hopefully in January. Though, I might need reminding by then. Broadly speaking though, I of course agree with you. I don't know if I'd say a thousandfold, but certainly managerialism will express itself in keeping with the specific circumstances out of which it arose. As I argued, following Burnham, in The Managerial Class on Trial: fascism, Nazism, communism, and managerial liberalism were all manifestations of the managerial revolution, each calibrated to its own specific cultural, political, historical circumstances. But maybe I'd have more to say if I read the piece. Thanks. Happy New Year!