There obviously is such a thing as Cultural Marxism.
As most who study this know, it has two main sources, Gramsci and the Frankfurt School, but also Franz Fanon.
You may be confused because Cultural Marxism is not Marxism, it’s a derivative of Marxism that dismisses the working class — that's not Marxism.
In the ‘60s, the far left turned against the working class to side with the “marginalized.” Marx called them the “lumpenproletariat”—workers in rags, and so did Eldridge Cleaver, the Black Panther Minister of Information:
. . . . “The Working Class, particularly the American Working Class, is a parasite upon the heritage of mankind, of which the Lumpen has been totally robbed by the rigged system of Capitalism. ... O.K. We are Lumpen. Right on.” —Cleaver, 1967
He credits Fanon, but it’s easier to see why the F. School and Gramsci turned against them. The working class turned against the Marxists and Socialists in Italy and Germany and jailed and killed them. So, a new theory was invented based on Marxism.
If you don’t believe Cultural Marxism is real, check out this paper by Douglas Kellner, who published the collected works of Marcuse: “Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies.”
Marcuse was the very woke Ms Angela Davis's mentor, the new left's guru, and part of the Frankfurt school. Judith Butler pictures the two of them together on her Critical Theory Institute site at UC Berkeley. Butler is the godmother of Queer theory.
Robin Diangelo claims to have learned her politics from the Frankfurt school.
Alicia Garza of BLM credits Gramsci.
The Frankfurt School invented the concept of the culture industry, and Gramsci is credited with cultural hegemony.
Crenshaw, the founder of Critical race Theory in 1989, claims in two places that she named it after Critical Theory. That's the F. School's name for their cultural Marxism.
Read the founding document, Traditional and Critical Theory, Horkheimer, 1937. You will find that it hands the responsibility for the revolution to the marginalized and basically recommends that they must overthrow capitalist culture to reach an unspecified utopia.
Lindsay knows all this and talks flamboyantly about Marxism to get attention from a mass audience. He also exaggerates. But he knows a lot of history that you miss.
Hi Steve: thanks for taking the time to comment. The part of my piece relevant to your point is the third footnote, which perhaps I shouldn't have relegated to a footnote. I completely agree that there is a genealogy which stretches back to Marx and passes through the Frankfurt School and early critical theory, through to the late-20th century and deconstruction and critical race theory etc. - and that eventually, some of these ideas would influence today's social justice activism.
My point is that this is a very long chain indeed. You mention Horkheimer's "Traditional and Critical Theory" – the striking thing to me about that essay is the degree to which Horkheimer still relies on Marxian categories such as modes of production and the economic base. Horkheimer basically says that the entire point of critical theory is to critique society using Marxian economic concepts.
But a number of decades later I think critical theory abandoned these concepts altogether. It got mixed up with a bunch of Lacanian theory and semiotics, deconstruction etc.... schools of thought which are all about the symbolic realm with little or no grounding in material reality (and in my opinion these schools of thought are fairly incoherent, which is the critique that people like Chomsky level against capital-t Theory). Then CRT and queer theory, particularly as they're articulated in the activist sphere (as opposed to the academic sphere), seem to be grounded in various identity categories that again are not grounded in conceptions of production or labor. And insofar as social justice activists talk about economics, they tend to subscribe to a fairly bog standard Bernie Sanders-esque view of the economy which just isn't particularly Marxist (I mention that in my fourth footnote.)
My point is that most of the overlap social justice activism has with actual Marxism is superficial and cosmetic, to do with rhetoric or vibes. But if a theory isn't grounded in materialism it can't be Marxist, just like a monotheistic religion without a belief in Jesus can't be a branch of Christianity. (On the other hand, a lot of postliberal theory on the right these days does seem to be grounded in economic/Marxian categories -- fulfilling the promise of Horkheimer's Traditional and Critical Theory, in my opinion)
Hi Luke, Thanks for engaging. You say, “My point is” (1) this is a very long chain indeed [fm Marx to Social Justice], and (2) the overlap social justice activism has with actual Marxism is superficial and cosmetic.
So, I guess you did not read my first two sentences: (1) explains Marx is not in the chain. (2) “Cultural Marxism is not Marxism; it dismisses the working class.” So, I’m saying social justice is NOT Marxism.
You spend a lot of time saying, “ it can't be Marxist” —like, if you take Jesus out of Christianity, it’s not Christianity. Again, you missed my sentence #2: If you take the workers out of Marxism, it’s not Marxism.
You are not seeing cultural Marxism because you believe it’s some kind of Marxism. It Is Not Marxism. “Cultural Marxism” (CM) is just a name designed to sell a non-Marxist concept to a bunch of Marxists. Here’s how I know you’re not seeing it.
You never mention Marcuse. He was the #1 proponent of CM in the US, part of the F. School’s inner circle, Time Magazine’s “New Left Guru”, Angela Davis’s mentor, in Judith Butler’s (Gender Trouble) prized Marcuse-Davis photo on her UC Berkeley Critical Theory Institute for years, mentioned on 9 Persuasion pages, and the guy whose book I was arrested with for protesting Vietnam (didn’t read it).
Robin DiAngelo (#2 Social Justice author) says, “Our analysis of social justice is based on a school of thought known as Critical Theory. … Frankfurt … Horkheimer… Adorno, … Herberter Marcuse.” Angela Davis actually studied critical theory with Adorno.
Kellner, Marcuse’s #1 proponent and the collector of his work, wrote “Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies.” Obviously, he thinks CM exists.
if you missed all that, you’ve just never seen cultural Marxism (which is not Marxism). Also, your chronology is wrong in the typical way; it puts in a lot of Postmodernism and leaves out Black Power.
You go from “Lacanian theory and semiotics, deconstruction” to critical race theory. Derrick Bell was its godfather, and that postmodern stuff didn’t touch him. He was installed at Harvard by Black Power and given his two central CRT ideas by Stokely Carmichael on Face the Nation 3 days after Stokely launched Black Power (June 19, 1966).
Explaining the CRT name, Crenshaw says: “We discovered ourselves to be critical theorists who did race, and we were racial justice advocates who did critical theory.”
As to your idea that Horkheimer's 1937 paper “Traditional and Critical Theory” was promoting real Marxism because it “still relies on Marxian categories such as modes of production and the economic base.” First, I can’t find “economic base.” Second, the paper’s first third is a critique of traditional theory, including social science, which includes Marx’s “scientific socialism.” That’s where he speaks of “modes of production” — to criticize Marxism. Quoting phrases totally out of context proves nothing.
So, how do Black Power and Cultural Marxism fit together to help form Wokeism? Black Power made culture central (black is beautiful, etc) and introduced canceling—They canceled LBJ’s most significant civil rights initiative (1965), and Carmichael canceled John Lewis to take over SNCC. Finally, they canceled the whole Civil Rights movement as “a subterfuge for the maintenance of white supremacy” — repeated ad nauseam on Stokely’s speaking tour. They also introduce victimhood, ~ Oct 1965 (soon to become the slogan “blaming the victim’) to cancel LBJ via Moynihan. They sold whites on feeling guilty.
Critical theory provided CRT with a broader framework — use all oppressed groups to destroy the dominant culture which will open the way to a utopia, the beloved community. Horkheimer (1937) states explicitly that this cannot yet be imagined (ie it’s probably not socialism, more like communism or whatever). This imaginary dynamic provides a lot of power for the movement.
Crenshaw’s intersectionality harnesses all the oppressed groups and demands they become allies and attack the oppressors (on “the floor above”). Postmodern anti-essentialism gives her a bit of trouble, but she easily handles it. This is a brilliant construction of a particular (lowercase) critical theory that falls within Horkheimer’s (now capitalized) Critical Theory framework.
Appendix: Here’s What T&CT actually says:
Horkheimer mentions “modes of production” twice.
Mention #1: As man [observes] reality, he [sees it in a distorted way]. This process is [as true] of the modern Mode of Production, as of a … primitive hunters and fishers.
Horkheimer is talking about workers seeing reality subjectively. How do you read that as Marxist?
Mention #2: The “structures of industrial production” … and “intellectual operations emerge from the mode of production practiced in particular forms of society.” Again, he is not even talking about capitalism in particular but a far more general principle. Then, he says that the seeming freedom of workers is determined by “the working of an incalculable social mechanism.”
The latter point may be where the woke get that everything is socially determined.
When it comes to “critical theory,” he describes “the theoretician,” who is obviously the revolutionary agent and nothing like Marx’s workers:
“The theoretician is also at times an enemy and criminal, at times a solitary Utopian.”
[The theoretician] “exercises an aggressive critique not only against the conscious defenders of the status quo but also against distracting, conformist.”
Those conformists who he says to critique are now anyone who is not an active “ally” of one of the 50 or so intersectional identity groups.
[If the theoretician forms] “a dynamic unity with the oppressed class” and becomes “a force within it to stimulate change, then his real function emerges.” Note: the oppressed class, not the working class.
[Critical activity] “is suspicious of the very categories of better, useful, appropriate, productive, and valuable, as these are understood” … “about which one can do nothing.” So, the revolution is fought by discrediting the most fundamental cultural categories: “better,” “useful,” etc.
There obviously is such a thing as Cultural Marxism.
As most who study this know, it has two main sources, Gramsci and the Frankfurt School, but also Franz Fanon.
You may be confused because Cultural Marxism is not Marxism, it’s a derivative of Marxism that dismisses the working class — that's not Marxism.
In the ‘60s, the far left turned against the working class to side with the “marginalized.” Marx called them the “lumpenproletariat”—workers in rags, and so did Eldridge Cleaver, the Black Panther Minister of Information:
. . . . “The Working Class, particularly the American Working Class, is a parasite upon the heritage of mankind, of which the Lumpen has been totally robbed by the rigged system of Capitalism. ... O.K. We are Lumpen. Right on.” —Cleaver, 1967
He credits Fanon, but it’s easier to see why the F. School and Gramsci turned against them. The working class turned against the Marxists and Socialists in Italy and Germany and jailed and killed them. So, a new theory was invented based on Marxism.
If you don’t believe Cultural Marxism is real, check out this paper by Douglas Kellner, who published the collected works of Marcuse: “Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies.”
Marcuse was the very woke Ms Angela Davis's mentor, the new left's guru, and part of the Frankfurt school. Judith Butler pictures the two of them together on her Critical Theory Institute site at UC Berkeley. Butler is the godmother of Queer theory.
Robin Diangelo claims to have learned her politics from the Frankfurt school.
Alicia Garza of BLM credits Gramsci.
The Frankfurt School invented the concept of the culture industry, and Gramsci is credited with cultural hegemony.
Crenshaw, the founder of Critical race Theory in 1989, claims in two places that she named it after Critical Theory. That's the F. School's name for their cultural Marxism.
Read the founding document, Traditional and Critical Theory, Horkheimer, 1937. You will find that it hands the responsibility for the revolution to the marginalized and basically recommends that they must overthrow capitalist culture to reach an unspecified utopia.
Lindsay knows all this and talks flamboyantly about Marxism to get attention from a mass audience. He also exaggerates. But he knows a lot of history that you miss.
Hi Steve: thanks for taking the time to comment. The part of my piece relevant to your point is the third footnote, which perhaps I shouldn't have relegated to a footnote. I completely agree that there is a genealogy which stretches back to Marx and passes through the Frankfurt School and early critical theory, through to the late-20th century and deconstruction and critical race theory etc. - and that eventually, some of these ideas would influence today's social justice activism.
My point is that this is a very long chain indeed. You mention Horkheimer's "Traditional and Critical Theory" – the striking thing to me about that essay is the degree to which Horkheimer still relies on Marxian categories such as modes of production and the economic base. Horkheimer basically says that the entire point of critical theory is to critique society using Marxian economic concepts.
But a number of decades later I think critical theory abandoned these concepts altogether. It got mixed up with a bunch of Lacanian theory and semiotics, deconstruction etc.... schools of thought which are all about the symbolic realm with little or no grounding in material reality (and in my opinion these schools of thought are fairly incoherent, which is the critique that people like Chomsky level against capital-t Theory). Then CRT and queer theory, particularly as they're articulated in the activist sphere (as opposed to the academic sphere), seem to be grounded in various identity categories that again are not grounded in conceptions of production or labor. And insofar as social justice activists talk about economics, they tend to subscribe to a fairly bog standard Bernie Sanders-esque view of the economy which just isn't particularly Marxist (I mention that in my fourth footnote.)
My point is that most of the overlap social justice activism has with actual Marxism is superficial and cosmetic, to do with rhetoric or vibes. But if a theory isn't grounded in materialism it can't be Marxist, just like a monotheistic religion without a belief in Jesus can't be a branch of Christianity. (On the other hand, a lot of postliberal theory on the right these days does seem to be grounded in economic/Marxian categories -- fulfilling the promise of Horkheimer's Traditional and Critical Theory, in my opinion)
Bravo, Steve! You just saved me a lot of typing, and hit all the right notes.
First rate analysis Steve.
Hi Luke, Thanks for engaging. You say, “My point is” (1) this is a very long chain indeed [fm Marx to Social Justice], and (2) the overlap social justice activism has with actual Marxism is superficial and cosmetic.
So, I guess you did not read my first two sentences: (1) explains Marx is not in the chain. (2) “Cultural Marxism is not Marxism; it dismisses the working class.” So, I’m saying social justice is NOT Marxism.
You spend a lot of time saying, “ it can't be Marxist” —like, if you take Jesus out of Christianity, it’s not Christianity. Again, you missed my sentence #2: If you take the workers out of Marxism, it’s not Marxism.
You are not seeing cultural Marxism because you believe it’s some kind of Marxism. It Is Not Marxism. “Cultural Marxism” (CM) is just a name designed to sell a non-Marxist concept to a bunch of Marxists. Here’s how I know you’re not seeing it.
You never mention Marcuse. He was the #1 proponent of CM in the US, part of the F. School’s inner circle, Time Magazine’s “New Left Guru”, Angela Davis’s mentor, in Judith Butler’s (Gender Trouble) prized Marcuse-Davis photo on her UC Berkeley Critical Theory Institute for years, mentioned on 9 Persuasion pages, and the guy whose book I was arrested with for protesting Vietnam (didn’t read it).
Robin DiAngelo (#2 Social Justice author) says, “Our analysis of social justice is based on a school of thought known as Critical Theory. … Frankfurt … Horkheimer… Adorno, … Herberter Marcuse.” Angela Davis actually studied critical theory with Adorno.
Kellner, Marcuse’s #1 proponent and the collector of his work, wrote “Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies.” Obviously, he thinks CM exists.
if you missed all that, you’ve just never seen cultural Marxism (which is not Marxism). Also, your chronology is wrong in the typical way; it puts in a lot of Postmodernism and leaves out Black Power.
You go from “Lacanian theory and semiotics, deconstruction” to critical race theory. Derrick Bell was its godfather, and that postmodern stuff didn’t touch him. He was installed at Harvard by Black Power and given his two central CRT ideas by Stokely Carmichael on Face the Nation 3 days after Stokely launched Black Power (June 19, 1966).
Explaining the CRT name, Crenshaw says: “We discovered ourselves to be critical theorists who did race, and we were racial justice advocates who did critical theory.”
As to your idea that Horkheimer's 1937 paper “Traditional and Critical Theory” was promoting real Marxism because it “still relies on Marxian categories such as modes of production and the economic base.” First, I can’t find “economic base.” Second, the paper’s first third is a critique of traditional theory, including social science, which includes Marx’s “scientific socialism.” That’s where he speaks of “modes of production” — to criticize Marxism. Quoting phrases totally out of context proves nothing.
So, how do Black Power and Cultural Marxism fit together to help form Wokeism? Black Power made culture central (black is beautiful, etc) and introduced canceling—They canceled LBJ’s most significant civil rights initiative (1965), and Carmichael canceled John Lewis to take over SNCC. Finally, they canceled the whole Civil Rights movement as “a subterfuge for the maintenance of white supremacy” — repeated ad nauseam on Stokely’s speaking tour. They also introduce victimhood, ~ Oct 1965 (soon to become the slogan “blaming the victim’) to cancel LBJ via Moynihan. They sold whites on feeling guilty.
Critical theory provided CRT with a broader framework — use all oppressed groups to destroy the dominant culture which will open the way to a utopia, the beloved community. Horkheimer (1937) states explicitly that this cannot yet be imagined (ie it’s probably not socialism, more like communism or whatever). This imaginary dynamic provides a lot of power for the movement.
Crenshaw’s intersectionality harnesses all the oppressed groups and demands they become allies and attack the oppressors (on “the floor above”). Postmodern anti-essentialism gives her a bit of trouble, but she easily handles it. This is a brilliant construction of a particular (lowercase) critical theory that falls within Horkheimer’s (now capitalized) Critical Theory framework.
Appendix: Here’s What T&CT actually says:
Horkheimer mentions “modes of production” twice.
Mention #1: As man [observes] reality, he [sees it in a distorted way]. This process is [as true] of the modern Mode of Production, as of a … primitive hunters and fishers.
Horkheimer is talking about workers seeing reality subjectively. How do you read that as Marxist?
Mention #2: The “structures of industrial production” … and “intellectual operations emerge from the mode of production practiced in particular forms of society.” Again, he is not even talking about capitalism in particular but a far more general principle. Then, he says that the seeming freedom of workers is determined by “the working of an incalculable social mechanism.”
The latter point may be where the woke get that everything is socially determined.
When it comes to “critical theory,” he describes “the theoretician,” who is obviously the revolutionary agent and nothing like Marx’s workers:
“The theoretician is also at times an enemy and criminal, at times a solitary Utopian.”
[The theoretician] “exercises an aggressive critique not only against the conscious defenders of the status quo but also against distracting, conformist.”
Those conformists who he says to critique are now anyone who is not an active “ally” of one of the 50 or so intersectional identity groups.
[If the theoretician forms] “a dynamic unity with the oppressed class” and becomes “a force within it to stimulate change, then his real function emerges.” Note: the oppressed class, not the working class.
[Critical activity] “is suspicious of the very categories of better, useful, appropriate, productive, and valuable, as these are understood” … “about which one can do nothing.” So, the revolution is fought by discrediting the most fundamental cultural categories: “better,” “useful,” etc.