The oppressed and the oppressor

It maybe true to say that there is nothing in Marxism which specifically defines “cultural Marxism,” insofar as Marxism is more of an economic critique of the economy of the 19th century bourgeoisie.  Nevertheless, Marx saw the need for a revolution since Europe was in the throes of an economic crisis brought about, perhaps to some extent, by the bourgeoisie.  Given this condition, Marx saw the need to create the greatest antagonism between the proletariat (the working-class) and the bourgeoisie.  In other words, Marx wanted the proletariat to have power over its oppressors which was to be accomplished by a revolution.

And here, I think, is the way we come to “cultural Marxism” and its problem.  Oppression, its cause, arises from the dominant culture (strike bourgeoisie).  The oppressed (strike proletariat) are victims of the dominant culture.  The dominant culture must be overthrown by the oppressed which then gradually shifts power from the oppressor to the oppressed who then become new oppressors. 

The italicized portion is the problem that the operational logic of cultural Marxism faces.  It becomes revolution for the sake of revolution that seems to never end because the dialectic is inadequate. 

For the oppressed, truth is in the hands of the oppressor which is external to the oppressed.  Without being conscious of it, the transformation of the oppressed into a new kind of oppressor is to be sought for.  What advantage the oppressed saw in the former oppressor, he has now personally realized in the example of the Communist revolution of 1917 which turned out to be far worse than the Tsarist autocracy.  It accomplished nothing except destruction.  Revolution for the sake of revolution is, fundamentally, meaningless, hence, nihilistic.  The cultural Marxist is as dangerous as the older Communist.  They only see the world in terms of oppressed and oppressor.

For Buddhism, the lens of cultural Marxism sees it as a religion supported by the oppressors that needs to be radically changed getting rid of anything mystical or other-worldly which leads to a form of religious oppression (e.g. aryan vs. an-aryan).  Stephen Batchelor writes about a new Buddhism:

"Instead of authoritarian, monolithic institutions, it could imagine a decentralized tapestry of small-scale, autonomous communities of awakening. Instead of a mystical religious movement ruled by autocratic leaders, it would foresee a deep agnostic, secular culture founded on friendships and governed by collaboration" (Buddhism Without Beliefs).

But here again this particular view leads to another form of oppression, let’s call it oppression by secularism and secular consciousness.  By the way, one cannot read Stephen Batchelor and not sense something hidden, yet oppressive in his writings.  Like most of his kind he doesn’t wish to read Buddhism in its own context but only through a lens that seems more like the lens of cultural Marxism.  Thus, a revolution is born as a result, with Buddhists fighting Buddhists.  From this, one could almost summarize that cultural Marxism is totally diabolical.  In fact some have speculated on this, for example, Henry Makow, with his book, Satanic Possession: There Is Only One Conspiracy.

Comments

[Ian]

Hi smith.In other talks Jonathan Bowden spoke about trying to fight the Frankfurt School on their own terms by taking back the same institutions they and their intellectual progeny had infiltrated and changing the cultural paradigm accordingly.However,you may be right about the futility of this as,perhaps,the marxist view actually resonates much more with those who only exist and perceive on the level of mind/ego.There may be some benefit to fighting fire with fire but perhaps the most effective approach is to try and awake to that which exists beyond the mind rather than exchanging one set of ideas for another-although that may be a start as long as it didn't end there?Regards,Ian

[smith]

Ian: I posted this comment to that video link you posted.

"dead on, i only wish he was here now to comment and speak about what the marxists and globalists have done in the last eight years since he gave this talk. since the marxist obamexcrement regime, together with the globalist elites ala soros et al, came to full control and power, i can only imagine what he would be saying about them now that they are the dominant hegemonic force and paradigm in the world today. the future is bleak in all directions. Brainwashing and mind-conditioning by the marxists is real and powerful. Unbrainwashing post-marxist has never succeeded either - look at russia and or china today, to understand that."

[Ian]

Jonathan Bowden-Marxism and The Frankfurt School.A brilliant talk by a brilliant man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J92f2S3E0S8

[David Brainerd]

"Stephen Batchelor writes about a new Buddhism:

'Instead of authoritarian, monolithic institutions, it could imagine a decentralized tapestry of small-scale, autonomous communities of awakening....'"

Funny because I thought it already was decentralized. Theravads snd Zen seem to be. Only "authoritarian, monolithic institution" would be Tibetan Buddhism's Gulag sect headed by the Dalai Lama.

[smith]

zennist: i have 'speculated' on this myself. lol. I fully concur. and especially with the summation of and in the final paragraph. Diabolical and satanic. This is easily ridiculed and dismissed, But regardless it is the truth. I will add, that the oppressed majority today, the hegemonic power in the west, is the marxists(cultural-marxists). And their oppression is increasing rapidly and exponentially in every area of society. Marxism and its various guises and permutations - postmodernism, humanism, relativism, and its use of racism, sexism, feminism, etc, all things 'pc' politically correct, etc, is hard to understand. It's hard to understand because of the sheer magnitude ad complexity of its ideology and its operations. Which means that it, like soviet communism was within russia vis a vis the russian peasantry, hard to resist, fight, and defeat. Cultural-marxism is incredibly elusive and clever in its design. Satan according to Jesus is no match for human beings - he far too clever. Jesus accorded him power second only to God himself. He said to Peter, 'satan would have you to sift like wheat'. meaning you are no match for satan, and we see that the marxists, and the permutations which are just marxism in various costumes and dress, are mere brainwashed, mind-conditioned satanic puppets. Just like good little pavlovian trained dogs. This is a war - in which marxism is the wolf in sheep's clothing, claiming to bring the good, freedom, prosperity, wisdom, etc, but which delivers threats, coercion, intimidation, repression, oppression, incarceration, and eventually death on mass large scales. The ivory towers kept the embers burning until the political social conditions prevailed that enabled it to emerge in full power having gradually conquered the critical mass of minds for it to gain full control in all areas of power. Satan may be easily dismissed by the atheists that are also produced by marxism, as fear based fiction, superstitious imaginations, etc, but if the nihilist marxists and all the myriad labeled variants are correct, than there is no meaning to anything including them. In which case nietzsche and sartre, and the 'God is dead' believers, are also correct when they said basically the only thing left to do is kill themselves. Oh'!! if only they would succeed in conditioning the minds of their duped followers to do just that!! problem would be solved. Of course they never can face the ultimate ends of their delusions of reality.