What is 'cultural Marxism'?

[sandinista]

So would this make seth a "crypto" fascist or just simply a fascist?

[MrJonno]

So would this make seth a "crypto" fascist or just simply a fascist?

crypto means secret don't think there is much crypto about him

[drl2]

But Marxists are easy to detect

This quote inspired me to use my poor photoshop (or, in this case, Paint.NET) skills (or SKILLZORZ, as the kids today called them three years ago):

[Robert_S]

Seth, just an observation:

You seem to attribute more coherence to the long term goals and philosophy of the left than is justified.

Not really. I just understand the core principle of all leftists: "Somebody else has more than I do, I have to work harder than somebody else, and I don't fucking like it, so I want the government to give me just as much as everybody else has and make it so I don't have to work any harder than anyone else and I can still have everything I want, but I don't want to pay for any of it."

That pretty much sums it up. Pure, unadulterated greed, envy and jealousy. That's what the left is all about.

It's also what the right is about: Extracting the most money possible from consumers while paying the workers the lowest possible wages and the environment be damned.

[JimC]

Seth, just an observation:

You seem to attribute more coherence to the long term goals and philosophy of the left than is justified.

Not really. I just understand the core principle of all leftists: "Somebody else has more than I do, I have to work harder than somebody else, and I don't fucking like it, so I want the government to give me just as much as everybody else has and make it so I don't have to work any harder than anyone else and I can still have everything I want, but I don't want to pay for any of it."

That pretty much sums it up. Pure, unadulterated greed, envy and jealousy. That's what the left is all about.

It's also what the right is about: Extracting the most money possible from consumers while paying the workers the lowest possible wages and the environment be damned.

Luckily, this dream of unrestricted free-enterprise doesn't exist. Restrictions, applied in various degrees in various places in the real world, include the power of labour to organise into unions, and regulations imposed by democratically elected governments, much to the understandable dislike of many in the business world. The fantasy of the right is getting rid of all such restrictions...

The leftist fantasy is that somehow we can get rid of free enterprise altogether.

[Seth]

Seth, just an observation:

You seem to attribute more coherence to the long term goals and philosophy of the left than is justified.

Not really. I just understand the core principle of all leftists: "Somebody else has more than I do, I have to work harder than somebody else, and I don't fucking like it, so I want the government to give me just as much as everybody else has and make it so I don't have to work any harder than anyone else and I can still have everything I want, but I don't want to pay for any of it."

That pretty much sums it up. Pure, unadulterated greed, envy and jealousy. That's what the left is all about.

It's also what the right is about: Extracting the most money possible from consumers while paying the workers the lowest possible wages

Right in the first case...so what? Consumers have the ultimate power to deny any company their money if the goods or service are inferior, in which case the company goes bankrupt and some company that offers better products/services takes its place to fill the market need.

Right in the second case...so what? The free market for labor is the same as the free market for goods and services, and they are both interconnected. Employers wish to pay the least possible amount in wages and compensation to minimize labor costs and costs of goods sold, and workers want the highest possible wages and benefits. In a free market for labor, workers who have the skills that an employer needs are worth more to the employer than those with limited or no skills, so such workers command higher wages. Unskilled workers command lower wages because they are unskilled and easily replaced. This aspect is an inducement for workers to improve their skill sets so that they are of greater value to the employer, and therefore will command higher wages and improve their economic situation.

When the economy is good, and companies are doing well, and are expanding their market presence and product lines, unemployment goes down as the demand for workers goes up. As this happens, there are fewer unemployed workers of a particular skill class available on the market, so employers who need such workers have to pay a premium under the classic forces of supply and demand. Wages go up when unemployment is low as a result.

Obversely, when the economy is slow, and employers are stabilizing or contracting, the pool of unemployed workers is full or overfull (as now) and employers who need that particular skill set have many workers to choose from, each of whom is competing with other workers for the job in the free market for labor. This drives wages down because workers are willing to undercut other workers in their wage and compensation demands because any job is better than no job. This is perfectly normal, ordinary and indeed desirable, from the consumer standpoint. This is because as a surfeit of unemployed workers brings down labor costs, the costs of products also comes down because the costs of production are going down too.

In both cases, employees negotiate with employers over their wage and benefit packages, with employers trying to pay as little as possible and workers trying to get as much as possible. They usually (where unions and government don't artificially skew the negotiations) end up in the middle, with a reasonable compromise that provides adequate compensation for the worker while still providing adequate profits for the employer. Everybody agrees to the package and nobody has any room to complain because it's a voluntary transaction between individuals for fixed compensation for a fixed amount and type of labor.

and the environment be damned.

Only partly true. Yes, corporations try to reduce costs by compromising environmental protections, but that, in fact, is one of the few legitimate functions of government; to provide rules that apply equally to everyone in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people in general, and the environment as a part of that function. Such regulations, where they seek to control harm exported to others or to the environment, are generally acceptable and proper aspects of the government's police power.

So, there is a tension between corporations, who try to reduce costs and MAY (it's not inevitable or universal, as I'll explain) seek economic advantage by breaking environmental laws. But that's just lawbreaking, it's not a function of capitalism, it's a function of immoral and illegal behavior by individuals within a particular corporation for which they can be, and should be punished.

On the other hand, market forces also pressure companies to be "green" these days, and many companies pander to the eco-consciousness of their patrons by going the extra mile to be more environmentally correct than their competition, in hopes of gaining market share by doing so. And it's quite effective in some areas of the economy. All driven not by regulation, but by public perception and market demand.

So, in your final point, you're correct, but also mendaciously incomplete and obtuse, because you fail to point out the regulatory and free market frameworks that prevent corporations from simply disregarding environmental issues.

Thus, all in all, the free market system and capitalism are far superior to socialism because it's a self-balancing, self-correcting system that uses the billions and billions of buying decisions made by consumers every day as the metric by which companies survive or disappear, which leads to greater consumer satisfaction with the availability of diverse choices, something no centrally planned economy can, or ever has been capable of providing.

[Seth]

Seth, just an observation:

You seem to attribute more coherence to the long term goals and philosophy of the left than is justified.

Not really. I just understand the core principle of all leftists: "Somebody else has more than I do, I have to work harder than somebody else, and I don't fucking like it, so I want the government to give me just as much as everybody else has and make it so I don't have to work any harder than anyone else and I can still have everything I want, but I don't want to pay for any of it."

That pretty much sums it up. Pure, unadulterated greed, envy and jealousy. That's what the left is all about.

It's also what the right is about: Extracting the most money possible from consumers while paying the workers the lowest possible wages and the environment be damned.

Luckily, this dream of unrestricted free-enterprise doesn't exist. Restrictions, applied in various degrees in various places in the real world, include the power of labour to organise into unions, and regulations imposed by democratically elected governments, much to the understandable dislike of many in the business world. The fantasy of the right is getting rid of all such restrictions...

The leftist fantasy is that somehow we can get rid of free enterprise altogether.

The problem with the leftist fantasy is that it's a fantasy that fails to acknowledge either basic human behavior or the forces of the marketplace, even a centrally-controlled one.

All leftists fail (actually refuse) to distinguish between justifiable regulations which control and punish bad or harmful behavior on the part of businesses and individuals and unjustified socialist regulations that are intended to centrally-plan and control the markets and economy by selecting economic winners and losers as a part of a sociopolitical, not an economic agenda. Socialists issue regulations to try to make free market competition more "fair" or "egalitarian" rather than just regulations intended to prevent and control actual fraud or harm.

Economic regulations, such as government support for labor unions, are not intended to prevent harm, they are intended to meddle in the economy and skew the operations of the free market to benefit one group or individual over another group or individual economically. And that's where they go wrong; they try to inject social policy into the markets when all that does is destroy the markets, and thereby the economy, which makes all the social policy, particularly the entitlement policies, impossible to fund.

[Seth]

So would this make seth a "crypto" fascist or just simply a fascist?

Reported, you commie.

[Seth]

Not really. I just understand the core principle of all leftists: "Somebody else has more than I do, I have to work harder than somebody else, and I don't fucking like it, so I want the government to give me just as much as everybody else has and make it so I don't have to work any harder than anyone else and I can still have everything I want, but I don't want to pay for any of it."

Coming from someone whose entire life has been spending daddies trust fund and sucking more money of the state than a dozen crack whores , yeah working hard

It's been my observation that when Marxist fuckwits run out of rational arguments because they are just too stupid to see how worthless Marxism is, they resort to the classic Alinsky tactic of smearing, ridiculing and insulting their intellectual betters. It's a lot like going to the zoo and watching the monkeys throw feces at the glass in a vain attempt to vent their spleen at their inferior position in the food chain. Marxists are much the same as feces-throwing monkeys, it's amusing to watch them rant and rave, and it's fun to poke at them to cause them to do so, and it amply demonstrates the sort of inferior, un-evolved intellect that's required to be a Marxist.

Sounds like I touched a nerve there. How do your fingers smell?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So would this make seth a "crypto" fascist or just simply a fascist?

Reported, you commie.

So it's alright to call somebody a commie, but calling them a fascist is a personal attack?

[Seth]

So would this make seth a "crypto" fascist or just simply a fascist?

Reported, you commie.

So it's alright to call somebody a commie, but calling them a fascist is a personal attack?

Yup, especially as a bit of bantering rebuttal.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So would this make seth a "crypto" fascist or just simply a fascist?

Reported, you commie.

So it's alright to call somebody a commie, but calling them a fascist is a personal attack?

Yup, especially as a bit of bantering rebuttal.

So you continued Sandy's banter. I see. Case closed then.

[sandinista]

So would this make seth a "crypto" fascist or just simply a fascist?

Reported, you commie.

good luck with that.

[JimC]

When I hear the words cultural marxism, I reach for my Luger...

(well, the old Luger that Dad brought home from WW2, bought in an arab bazar in Palestine...)

(well I would, but it got handed in during a gun amnesty...)

Damn cultural marxists!

[GrahamH]

All leftists fail (actually refuse) to distinguish between justifiable regulations which control and punish bad or harmful behavior on the part of businesses and individuals and unjustified socialist regulations that are intended to centrally-plan and control the markets and economy by selecting economic winners and losers as a part of a sociopolitical, not an economic agenda. Socialists issue regulations to try to make free market competition more "fair" or "egalitarian" rather than just regulations intended to prevent and control actual fraud or harm.

Economic regulations, such as government support for labor unions, are not intended to prevent harm, they are intended to meddle in the economy and skew the operations of the free market to benefit one group or individual over another group or individual economically. And that's where they go wrong; they try to inject social policy into the markets when all that does is destroy the markets, and thereby the economy, which makes all the social policy, particularly the entitlement policies, impossible to fund.

Do you think there are any cases where society-wide strategic planning on economic issues is a good idea?

A free market is 'wisdom of crowds', which is good for some things, but not always the best option.