~ archived since 2018 ~

Martin Armstrong: Feminism is a cultural Marxist movement to destroy the west by destroying men and marriage

rodvanmechelen

July 14, 2018

30 upvotes

/r/MensRights

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/economics/divorce-collapse-of-socialism/

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Martin Armstrong: Feminism is a cultural Marxist movement to destroy the west by destroying men and marriage
Author	rodvanmechelen
Upvotes	30
Comments	17
Date	July 14, 2018 3:24 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/8yu02n/martin_armstrong_feminism_is_a_cultural_marxist/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/martin-armstrong-feminism-is-a-cultural-marxist.897952 https://theredarchive.com/post/897952

Comments

[–]quietthomas 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Cultural Marxism is just The Frankfurt School's critique of The Culture Industry (particularly of the mass production of pop-culture, which they saw as a threat to the 'high arts' of western civilization). Similar critiques were made by The Birmingham School of "massification" (which today is known as "globalization") - the critique The Birmingham School made gets called "British Cultural Marxism" (as can be seen in this book)... then the final "Cultural Marxism" is "Thompsonian Cultural Marxism" - it's the critique of the mass production of history, which a man named E.P Thompson made in his book "The Making of the English Working Class"... none of these "Cultural Marxisms" have anything to do with Identity Politics.

The term has since become synonymous with a right-wing conspiracy theory, which blames the left in order to cover up the rights failure to interject positive representations of their ideas within popular culture and society, allowing the left to maintain a Cultural Hegemony. It's this hegemony which the right seek to explain via their conspiracy theory interpretation of "Cultural Marxism". But they confuse the critique of mass produced culture, with control over the mass production of culture (the latter remaining in the hands of Capitalists).

[–]InhabitantOfOddworld 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]quietthomas -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]InhabitantOfOddworld 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]quietthomas 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's reductionistic of you to reduce the whole of society and culture to radical leftist identity politics. I don't believe that's the case. The dominant world view in my opinion is neo-liberal capitalism. That is to say; corporations like to employ and service a diverse range of demographics; not because corporations are secret Marxist who want an absolute say on what's racist/sexist/homophobic ect... but instead because it maximizes their profits, and minimizes their political liability.

To put it in business terms; the demographics of Identity Politics make up their various target market audiences, and employing from those demographics makes them politically immune to criticism (and hence protects their profits).

So no, I don't believe "Cultural Marxism" is the beverage (I believe capitalism is always the beverage, and neo-liberalism is this particular beverage, and that it's specifically NOT "Cultural Marxism"). Besides which, society needs multiple value sets (left and right) to choose from... so hegemony is the problem, regardless of the content. I'd be just as displeased (to be honest, probably more so) if there was a right wing cultural hegemony. So hegemony is the problem.

{EDITED MY WORDING BUT NOT MY INTENDED MEANING}

[–]InhabitantOfOddworld 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It's reductionistic of you to reduce the whole of society and culture to radical leftist identity politics. I don't believe that's the case

Neither do I but nice assumption you got there

The dominant world view in my opinion is neo-liberal capitalism

More agreement. How odd. Think you might be attacking a scarecrow here, or some other form of dehydrated plant matter humanoid.

That is to say; corporations like to employ and service a diverse range of demographics

Until those demographics resemble James Damore

but instead because it maximizes their profits

Did Marvel maximise their profits by becoming more diverse? Or did they just end up with a few titles that never sold and were promptly cancelled? I don't recall lady Thor or black female Iron Man being hugely popular among their devoted fanbase nor the SJWs who don't read comics anyway.

To put it in business terms; the demographics of Identity Politics make up their various target market audiences

Except when they often don't but diversity is just forcibly pursued as a goal unto itself

employing from those demographics makes them politically immune to criticism

immune to a *certain brand of criticism

So no, I don't believe "Cultural Marxism" is the beverage

You can believe what you like. But when an Apple Inc diversity officer is fired for daring to say white men can still be diverse, I'll absolutely continue to know that CM is applicable more so than mere hegemony. It's a hegemony of a certain type. Not all hegemonies are alike and need to be fought against on different terms. Knowing the specifics is useful. The devil is in the detail so to speak.

I'd be just as displeased (to be honest, probably more so) if there was a right wing cultural hegemony

You're free to that opinion. I know it would bother me less but I try to work against my admittedly often partisan nature.

So hegemony is the problem, regardless of neoliberalism or "Cultural marxism".

Indeed, but this tells you nothing about how to argue it. If someone says they think all white men are racist and sexist, you can't use the same argument on them as you would a neo-liberal who wants to maximise centralised state power and who is devoted to a military-industrial complex.

I also think that the left's reliance on attacking neo-lib capitalism is their way out of the knowledge that corporations have absorbed much of their own talking point. Diversity? Check. Affirmative action? Check. Punishing wrongthink? Check. LGBT Pride? Check.

[–]Vwar -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]InhabitantOfOddworld 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vwar 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

It's goofy to use the word "Marxism" to describe Identify politics. Marx himself was staunchly opposed to IDpolitics and wrote eloquently of how ruling elites turn average people against one another on the basis of race, ethnicity etc.

If the argument is that that identarians use an "oppressor/oppressed" dynamic, well so does pretty much every other political philosophy. Some classical liberals for example believed that the majority oppressed the "minority of the opulent" (in James Madison's words).

So yeah, it's basically just a dog whistle to to the far right and a way of playing off latent cold war hysteria. Words like "identarian" or "feminist" or more than accurate. There have been tons of astute critiques of feminism and ID politics on the far left, not only by the anti-authoritarians but Marxists themselves.

[–]InhabitantOfOddworld 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

It's goofy to use the word "Marxism" to describe Identify politics

I agree, but that's not the claim you were making

Marx himself was staunchly opposed to IDpolitics and wrote eloquently of how ruling elites turn average people against one another on the basis of race, ethnicity etc.

Indeed. He just ironically used class as his own.

If the argument is that that identarians use an "oppressor/oppressed" dynamic

That would be the outline to it, with a little more nuance required, but essentially yes

So yeah, it's basically just a dog whistle to to the far right and a way of playing off latent cold war hysteria

Hardly a dogwhistle to the far right when it's become a common phrase even among fairly centre leftists.

You also say latent as if to imply no one is Marxist anymore. The only ones really pushing the Cold War narrative today are people like H Clinton and various other neo-liberals. The far right of today care exceedingly little for more conflict with Russia.

Words like "identarian" or "feminist" or more than accurate.

They are, which is why they're also used.

There have been tons of astute critiques of feminism and ID politics on the far left, not only by the anti-authoritarians but Marxists themselves.

Eh, the most critique I've seen from Marxists is that it "divides the proletariat"

Aka "stop sub-dividing my special herd of oppressed sheep into more special herds of oppressed sheep", which is basically what intersectionality does.

Just a shame for the Marxists that people more readily unite over race, nationality etc than class. WW1 defied the Marxist predictions and the soon-to-be fascists quickly realised that when they started reworking their ex-socialist ideas.

[–]Vwar -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Hardly a dogwhistle to the far right when it's become a common phrase even among fairly centre leftists.

Example?

Indeed. He just ironically used class as his own.

I don't see anything ironic about it. Unlike ID politics class analysis makes a great deal of sense and is highly predictive. In fact Adam Smith made essentially the same arguments as Marx about the role of the state under market systems. Indeed a great many classical liberal philosophers, from Herbert Spencer to Von Humboldt to John Stuart Mill, compared wage labor to slavery. Adam Smith's argument for markets was that they would lead to equality of outcome (!)

De Tocqueville later predicted that corporations would lead to unimaginable forms of tyranny.

So Marx actually fits squarely within the western enlightenment tradition, as noted in the essay I linked.

Constantly using the term "Marxist" is, again, silly, and not only for reasons I described; Marx borrowed most of his ideas about class from previous western philosophers, eg Proudhon, Saint-Simon, even early Christian sects -- who often had a much more fierce critique of class rule (eg the priest John Ball during the 13th century). Marx was fairly generous to rich people, and rarely blamed any of them personally. I say this as someone who is not a Marxist, though agrees with much of his criticism of capitalism (a term he coined, incidentally).

The only ones really pushing the Cold War narrative today are people like H Clinton and various other neo-liberals.

If by "neo-liberal" you mean "advocates of austerity and corporate rule" then sure. And if by "Cold War" you mean Russophobia then I agree here as well. But the Cold War didn't merely involve hysteria about Russia.

The far right of today care exceedingly little for more conflict with Russia.

Nor does the "far left", however this sort of nuance gets lost if you only listen to people like Jordan Peterson.

Moreover, you can't reduce members of the ruling class or the military establishment to simplistic ideas like "left" and "right"; the neocons, for example, very much support increased conflict with Russia, and they are far right.

my special herd of oppressed sheep

This may be a view of some on the left, but it's a not majority imo.

Just a shame for the Marxists that people more readily unite over race, nationality etc than class.

When one group of people has billions at their disposal and a massive propaganda apparatus to divide people, sure. I mean capitalists in the US went so far as to arrange people on assembly lines so people sitting next to one another couldn't even speak the same language; capitalists in Hawaii imported Filipino workers when Japanese workers started to unionize; etc. etc. During WWI, the US government created the biggest propaganda campaign in history. So it's definitely an uphill battle. Sorta like men's rights in fact.

soon-to-be fascists quickly realised that when they started reworking their ex-socialist ideas.

This is laughable, and certainly doesn't describe the majority of fascists. Everyone from Winston Churchill to David Lloyd George to FDR to major capitalists and bankers in both Europe and the US openly supported fascism in its early stages as a bulwark against socialism. There is absolutely no controversy about this.

[–]InhabitantOfOddworld 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Unlike ID politics class analysis makes a great deal of sense and is highly predictive

SJWs would argue IdPol is predictive too

In fact Adam Smith made essentially the same arguments as Marx about the role of the state under market systems. Indeed a great many classical liberal philosophers, from Herbert Spencer to Von Humboldt to John Stuart Mill, compared wage labor to slavery.

Indeed they all did, but they don't reach the same outcome of historical materialism that is bourgeois vs proletariat aka oppressor vs oppressed

So Marx actually fits squarely within the western enlightenment tradition, as noted in the essay I linked.

That still doesn't mean he's inherently correct as far as HM goes

Constantly using the term "Marxist" is, again, silly, and not only for reasons I described

We already agree.

Marx borrowed most of his ideas about class from previous western philosophers, eg Proudhon, Saint-Simon, even early Christian sects

Which is ironic given that he thought religion to be a societal opioid. Further ironic because Christians certainly ordained their own social hierarchies within feudalism.

Marx was fairly generous to rich people, and rarely blamed any of them personally

SJWs don't always blame everything on white people personally either. Doesn't make the oppressor vs oppressed line any more subtle.

But the Cold War didn't merely involve hysteria about Russia

Indeed, but it's integral if we're talking modern day political attitudes. I'd argue that the neo-libs who attribute people's voting against their policies to some form of Russian collusion (see; 2016 US election, Brexit) to be the definition of Cold War. It's almost McCarthyism in some ways.

Nor does the "far left", however this sort of nuance gets lost if you only listen to people like Jordan Peterson.

Of course, and never insinuated they did. Nor do I only listen to Jordan Peterson. I'd have thought me attributing only Neo-Libs to the previous Cold War stance rather than "the left" would have made that clear. If there's anything I'm not, it's being partisan.

Moreover, you can't reduce members of the ruling class or the military establishment to simplistic ideas like "left" and "right"; the neocons, for example, very much support increased conflict with Russia, and they are far right.

When did I do this? You seem to be inferring that just because I criticised your point about the far right and Cold War attitudes, I'm somehow a partisan with so called "simplistic ideas". A strawman at it's finest.

Well, if you think Neo-Cons are far right, you haven't seen how far the right wing spectrum goes. Neo-Cons aren't Nazis. It's an absurd statement to say that neo-cons, whom the actual far right call cuckservatives, somehow share the same space as said neo-nazis and other associated radical national or ethnic socialists/identitarians.

This may be a view of some on the left, but it's a not majority imo.

NotAllLeft

Seriously though, it doesn't matter. If your ideology is predicated heavily on oppressor vs oppressed, then that's what the oppressed gets seen as.

When one group of people has billions at their disposal and a massive propaganda apparatus to divide people, sure

You don't even need that. Happens tribally. We're tribal people. Sadly for you, people can anticipate some hierarchy so class conflict doesn't come immediately. If some African natives do it, then your propaganda machine matters little. Doubly ironic when communist love their propaganda just as much if not more so.

During WWI, the US government created the biggest propaganda campaign in history

Citation?

Sorta like men's rights in fact.

Pahaha

This is laughable, and certainly doesn't describe the majority of fascists.

Who in your mind constitutes "majority of fascists"? I'm talking about the literal history of fascism where the ex-socialist Mussolini, once good friends with Lenin, helped to generate fascism as a response to WW1 and the fact people were motivated more by national sentiment, proles working alongside bourgeois, than it was workers across Europe throwing off the governments and industrial leaders.

Everyone from Winston Churchill to David Lloyd George to FDR to major capitalists and bankers in both Europe and the US openly supported fascism in its early stages as a bulwark against socialism. There is absolutely no controversy about this.

Indeed, but that doesn't even address the above fact that fascism came FROM socialism in the early 20th Century.

[–]Vwar 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

SJWs would argue IdPol is predictive too

Arguments are useless without evidence. If IdPol made any sense we wouldn't have white homeless men and black female billionaires. Conversely, class really is predictive on a number of fronts. Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page at Princeton and Northwestern have argued that the United States is not a "democracy" but an "oligarchy". They claim: “Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.”

Is this accurate? Well yes it is. It was already demonstrated over a decade ago by Thomas Ferguson, whose Investment Theory of Party Competition revealed that elections are elections are “best understood as competitions for investment from wealthy segments of society. This is because political campaigns are expensive, and so political parties whose policies are most attractive to wealthy 'investors' will tend to be more successful as they are better able to attract the finances required to win election campaigns.”

So essentially the more money you give to politicians the more they will act on your behalf. Not exactly rocket science, but dispels the myth of "democracy."

but they don't reach the same outcome of historical materialism that is bourgeois vs proletariat aka oppressor vs oppressed

They really did though. Have you honestly read any of their work? Chomsky has some interesting material on classical liberalism that is quite interesting. Even if you don't agree with his conclusions, it's worth checking out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq9irdLcZmU

Which is ironic given that he thought religion to be a societal opioid.

Worth quoting in full: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

Marx's opinions about religion were, again, not unusual for the time. He certainly wasn't nearly as harsh on religion as the like likes of Diderot. And there is a huge Christian socialist and anarchist literature. So I'm not sure what the point here is.

I personally think Marx inadvertently created his own sort of "religion", due to his insistence that communism was an "historical inevitability." Though his critique of capitalism was highly astute, I don't think he really aided the cause of socialism.

Citation?

Creel committee.

the ex-socialist Mussolini

I'm not sure what the point here is. Mussolini spent a short time as a socialist, Franco and Hitler didn't; and all three were financed by capitalists to attack socialists, including non-violent socialists and anarchists.

We may be talking past one another, because I'm not a Marxist or communist. I oppose concentrated state power. Indeed that's one of the reasons I oppose capitalism, because you end up with the same thing.

[–]InhabitantOfOddworld 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

If IdPol made any sense we wouldn't have white homeless men and black female billionaires.

Not defending IdPol but black female billionaires aren't particularly common.

So essentially the more money you give to politicians the more they will act on your behalf. Not exactly rocket science, but dispels the myth of "democracy."

I'd say you're jumping the gun. Democracy isn't mythical and would exist more akin to what you want if there was a seperation of powers between state and economy. Or on smaller terms, politicians not accepting bribes.

They really did though

Then they're just as bad in that case

Have you honestly read any of their work?

I haven't and likely should.

Marx's opinions about religion were, again, not unusual for the time. He certainly wasn't nearly as harsh on religion as the like likes of Diderot. And there is a huge Christian socialist and anarchist literature. So I'm not sure what the point here is.

Point being his class conflict views were established, as you said, by Christians who also perhaps incidentally established much of the class system that persisted in Europe from the middle ages onward. Pagan societies like the Norse, while hierarchy did exist, it was expanded upon to quite the extent that the church did. It's ironic because of who he borrowed the ideas from and who it was who really developed social class.

I personally think Marx inadvertently created his own sort of "religion", due to his insistence that communism was an "historical inevitability."

This is what I'm trying to get at here. Marxists can criticise IdPol all they like, they still fell for the same foibles in principle.

I'm not sure what the point here is. Mussolini spent a short time as a socialist, Franco and Hitler didn't; and all three were financed by capitalists to attack socialists, including non-violent socialists and anarchists.

Point being one evolved from the other. Physical conflict doesn't mean diametric opposition. The English Civil War was between Catholics and Protestants, but they share much more in common than some other religion like Buddhism. That is my point. Socialists often use this point to say "look! They fought! Not same!", despite the fact violence erupts more readily between people who largely agree except on small points than between people who disagree on literally everything.

We may be talking past one another, because I'm not a Marxist or communist. I oppose concentrated state power. Indeed that's one of the reasons I oppose capitalism, because you end up with the same thing.

I agree with you here. Difference is, I find, Marxism and communism necessitate more force on a state level than capitalism does, i.e. redistribution of societal wealth vs protecting individual property rights.

[–]Vwar 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Not defending IdPol but black female billionaires aren't particularly common.

Sure. But you get the point. If "white male privilege" were meaningful we wouldn't have white male homeless men at all.

This is what I'm trying to get at here. Marxists can criticise IdPol all they like, they still fell for the same foibles in principle.

No I don't agree, as I think class oppression is real. So I don't think it was a mistake. The solutions offered may have been a mistake (and were, in the case of Marx).

share much more in common

I'll concede this point if we're talking about eg communism and fascism; they were/are far more alike than different. But we need to take responsibility for our own role in all this; fascism was in many ways a response to perfectly fair demands on the part of working class men and women for a more fair society. Elites preferred mass slaughter and brutal oppression to fairness.

redistribution of societal wealth vs protecting individual property rights.

Capitalism entails the perpetual redistribution of wealth upwards, as does communism.

Anyway check out the Chomsky vid I linked, I think you'll find it interesting on the subject of classical liberalism/ideas about freedom.

[–]juanml82 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrway_1000 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link