One of the things that are responsible for
the rot that has set into today's academia,
and the main reason they didn't want me there,
is what is known as "cultural Marxism".
Now this is a term that is often being used,
and often in the way that it should be used
– that is, derisively – but the people
throwing it around usually don't really know
what it exactly means.
In this video, we will try to explain cultural
Marxism and expose it for what it is.
So this is going to be a long video and will
get into some heavy philosophy, and if you're
not familiar with philosophy it might not
be easy to follow.
But cultural Marxism affects all our lives
now, so it is important that we understand
where it comes from, if we want to effectively
fight against it.
I am going to try my best to make it as clear
as possible, and I hope that by the end of
this video, I can give you a better understanding
of why cultural Marxism is so destructive,
and why its proponents behave in such callous
ways.
Now to understand Cultural Marxism, we first
need to talk about Marxism.
And to talk about Marxism, we will first need
to talk about Karl Marx.
And to talk about Marx, we will first need
to talk about dialectic thought, which means
that we must first say something about the
father of dialectic thought, the German philosopher
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
Now Hegel's philosophy is, heh, very hard
and complicated, so I'm going to simplify
it a great deal, but I just want us to understand
the basics that we need in order to understand
Marx and Marxism.
Now, I realize that I am coming over as a
bit condescending, in suggesting that I need
to simplify things for your understanding.
So I'll tell you what – let's make a deal.
I am going to read a paragraph out of Hegel's
main book, The Phenomenology of Mind, and
if after that you still feel like you don't
need it to be simplified, you are welcomed
to navigate away from this video.
If not, stick with me a while longer, ok?
So, here we go, a Hegelian paragraph: *ahem*
"SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS exists in itself and for
itself, in that, and by the fact that it exists
for another self-consciousness; that is to
say, it is only by being acknowledged or “recognized”.
The conception of this its unity in its duplication,
of infinitude realizing itself in self-consciousness,
has many sides to it and encloses within it
elements of varied significance.
Thus its moments must on the one hand be strictly
kept apart in detailed distinctiveness, and,
on the other, in this distinction must, at
the same time, also be taken as not distinguished,
or must always be accepted and understood
in their opposite sense.
This double meaning of what is distinguished
lies in the nature of self-consciousness:
— of its being infinite, or directly the
opposite of the determinateness in which it
is fixed.
The detailed exposition of the notion of this
spiritual unity in its duplication will bring
before us the process of Recognition."
Alright?
So that was one paragraph, and the book is
about five hundred pages of that.
So, are you still with me?
Then let's simplify.
Hegel philosophizes in the beginning of the
19th century, at the time of the French Revolution.
The French Revolution was a rebellion against
the old feudal order, a demand to create a
society where everyone is free and equal.
Until then, it was believed that only in the
afterlife can Man achieve a perfect state,
but 18th century thinkers changed that, and
claimed that Man is capable of creating a
Utopian existence in this life.
According to French philosopher Jean-Jacques
Rousseau, the nature of Man is to live in
a free and equal society, and it is only the
current crooked systems of thought and government
that prevent him from doing so.
But if it is the nature of Man to live in
a Utopian society, why did he create such
crooked systems?
Well, said the 18th century thinkers, that
is because Man first had to reach enlightenment,
and enlightenment, as the German philosopher
Immanuel Kant defined it, is "man’s emergence
from his self-imposed immaturity," whereas
immaturity is defined by him as "the inability
to use one’s understanding without guidance
from another."
So, according to Kant, until now Man did not
have the courage to think for himself, and
relied on the guidance of religious and political
leaders, thus imposing ignorance and oppression
on himself.
Once Man starts to think for himself and realizes
the truth about his existence, he will be
able to devise a social system that will guarantee
freedom, justice and equality for all.
So we must clean up our thinking from the
lies that took root in it, learn to see the
truth, and then we can create Utopia on Earth.
This project to free ourselves from lies and
achieve truth, and as a result free ourselves
from oppression and achieve a perfect state,
was what became known as the Project of Enlightenment.
Hegel comes shortly after Kant, and he presented
a different view of how the perfect society
is to be attained.
While he agreed that the nature of Man is
to live in freedom and equality, he disagreed
that he was capable of achieving it before.
The perfect social order is an elaborate thing,
and the human mind had to develop through
history, before it could reach the point where
it was able to devise it.
This historical progress is achieved in a
dialectic process, in which a better order
supersedes the order that came before it,
but this better order could not have been
thought by the human mind, if the previous
order didn’t bring it to that point.
To borrow an example from science, Einstein's
theory negated and superseded Newton's theory,
but Einstein could not have possibly come
up with his theory, if his mind wasn't already
shaped by Newton's theory.
So while the 18th century philosophers thought
that truth was always within our reach, from
Hegel onwards we started to think in terms
of progress.
One mind alone cannot achieve the maturity
that Kant spoke of – it must be a process
that all humanity takes part in, until it
matures and we all achieve enlightenment.
For Hegel, the current unenlightened social
order is not a self-imposed lie, as Kant would
have it, but rather a partial truth, which
is the best that humanity can come up with
at this stage of its development.
In the beginning of history Man came up with
theories that were already partially true,
and on their basis he devised a certain social
order.
This social order created a master class and
a servant class, but because the nature of
Man is to live in freedom and equality, no
one could be truly happy in this order.
The servant class could not be happy because
they were oppressed, and the master class
could not be happy because they saw humanity
being degraded, when they were looking at
their servants.
This unhappy state would eventually prompt
someone to come up with a better, truer theory,
and over time this theory would spread to
other minds, eventually bringing a revolution
and a new social order to supersede the old
order.
This new order was still only partially true,
and would still have a master class and a
servant class, but it was less oppressive.
For instance, the vassals of the feudal order
were less oppressed than the slaves of the
past.
But it was still an oppressive system, so
eventually someone would come up with a better
theory.
As we can see, the progress of humanity, according
to Hegel, takes place on two planes: the theoretical
plane of the mind, which thinks up new theories
and systems, and the practical plane of human
society.
The dialectic movement is achieved as an individual
mind thinks up a better theory, and then it
spreads to other minds.
Eventually this brings a change in society,
which is taken to a higher, more elaborate
and less oppressive order.
Minds that are born into this higher order
are then at a point where they can think up
an even better order, and so forth until the
perfect social order is achieved.
When will this happen?
Well, according to Hegel, on the plane of
the mind it already happened.
The human mind achieved full maturation in
the 18th century, when it came up with representative
democracy, capitalist economy, and enlightenment
values.
In the order built on these systems and ideas,
there are no longer masters and servants,
but everyone is both a master and a servant.
I serve you when you are my customer, and
you serve me when I am your customer.
So we are all servants, in that we labor to
maintain our society, but we are actually
serving ourselves, because in this liberal
democratic society we are all masters of our
own fate.
And for Hegel, this is what defines a free
society.
All that was left now was for these ideas
to spread and become the social order all
over the world, and then humanity will be
free.
200 years later, Hegel has yet to be proven
wrong.
Liberal democracy and free market economy
still characterize what today we define as
a free society, and over the past two centuries
this model has gradually improved, and spread
over half the globe.
Those of us who live in it are so accustomed
to it by now that we take it for granted,
and we don't appreciate just how elaborate
and clever these systems are, and what a feat
of the human mind it was to devise them.
To date, no one has been able to successfully
devise a system that works better, but there
has been at least one serious attempt to think
up a system that works better, and it came
from the mind of Karl Marx.
Marx came out of the school of dialectic thought
founded by Hegel.
If you read his later writings, like The Capital,
they read very much like that paragraph from
Hegel I quoted before.
His early writings from the 1840s, like the
Communist Manifesto, are easier to understand,
but again I'm going to simplify his philosophy
for our purpose.
Marx may have been Hegel's disciple, but he
disagreed with his claim that Man has achieved
his full maturation.
Hegel, claimed Marx, erroneously looked at
the mind as the thing that drives Man's history,
when in fact it is driven by Man's material
situation.
Every stage in history has its own economic
system, a system that creates two classes
of people and an uneven distribution of wealth.
The servant class does most of the labor that
creates the wealth, and the master class then
enjoys most of it.
When a new economic system is established,
it gradually changes the minds of the people
living in it, making them capable of thinking
up a better system.
This economic system also gradually improves
its means of production and increases the
wealth, creating the practical possibility
to establish a better system, one that is
more equal and creates even greater wealth.
It also increases the disparity of wealth,
and eventually this disparity becomes so great
that it can no longer be contained, prompting
a revolution that creates the better system.
The end of Man's development through history,
according to Marx, will come only when we're
in a system where everyone gets to work equally
and share the wealth equally.
It is a popular notion that Marx was anti-capitalist,
but that's not entirely true.
Remember that he believed that history progresses
in a dialectic process, meaning that later
systems are better than what came before.
Marx actually gives capitalism the credit
for the spread of Enlightenment values, for
the destruction of old oppressive systems
like the feudal system and theocratic rule.
What capitalism also did was strip the oppressive
relationship between people of all of its
religious and political garments, and exposed
it for what it is: a system based on exploitation
and profit, where the employer uses the labor
of the worker to create commodities which
he then sells for a high price, while giving
his employee only pittance of the wealth he
makes.
The capitalist system has thus split humanity
into two classes: the master class of employers,
also known as the bourgeoisie or the middle-class,
and the servant class of employees, also known
as the proletariat or the working-class.
Marx predicted that capitalism will spread
all over the globe, destroying the cultural
differences between people and creating a
global working-class of like-minded workers.
At the same time it will create enormous wealth,
which will allow humanity to devise a system
where we won't have to work so much.
But the middle-class, driven by greed, will
not agree to such a system and would rather
continue to exploit the workers and work them
even harder, creating an ever-increasing wealth
gap.
Eventually, the working-class will not be
able to take it anymore, but will unite and
bring about a revolution that will abolish
the capitalist system and create a world with
no commodities, no money and no possessions,
where everyone shares the wealth.
At this point there will be no need for government,
because Man will live according to his nature,
and Utopia will prevail.
So Marx believed that we are one step away
from achieving Utopia.
What was this belief based on?
Well, if we look into it, we will find that
it wasn't really based on any rational reason.
It's just that the perception after Hegel
was that we've already reached full maturation,
and Marx said "hold on, there is one more
step needed".
And because of this belief, Marx blames capitalism
for all the problems that are still left in
the world: hunger, crime, wars, injustice
and so forth.
Abolish the capitalist system, and all these
problems will disappear.
And this belief would have horrendous results,
for Marx and for the world.
Because it is this idea, which Marxists have
blind faith in, that was at the basis of all
the terrible crimes later done in Marx's name.
If capitalism is responsible for all the wrongs
in the world, then any means are sacred in
the fight to abolish it.
Marxists are therefore not bothered by trying
to solve individual cases of injustice or
poverty – all of their energy is dedicated
to bringing down the capitalist system.
They believe that they are on the right side
of history, and that this fact gives them
moral license to do anything they deem necessary
to speed up its progress, because history
will exonerate them once Utopia is achieved.
Alas, every attempt so far to create the Marxist
Utopia in practice has been a resounding failure.
The Marxist excuse for it is that these attempts
were premature: they were all performed in
places where the capitalist stage did not
yet get to the point where a communist revolution
could be successful.
However, what these Marxists refuse to acknowledge
is that there were at least three things that
happened since the time of Marx, that completely
pulled the rug from under Marx's logic.
First, the realization that Man is an ape.
The assumption at the basis of Marxism is
that Man is a being of benevolent nature,
and it's just the current system he dwells
in that corrupts that nature.
This assumption originates from Christianity,
from the belief that Man has fallen from heaven
into this world.
Marx, despite being an atheist, adopted this
assumption that the nature of Man is heavenly,
and so he could believe that Utopia will prevail
once the crooked capitalist system is removed.
But once we've realized Man comes from the
ape, there are no grounds for such an assumption.
Marxism presumes to be a rational theory,
but its core belief is nothing but a superstition.
The second thing that happened was that the
conditions for the working-class have greatly
improved.
Back in the middle of the 19th century, workers
had very little rights.
You would start working as a child, and work
every day of the week, most hours of the day,
until the day that you died at a young age.
In such conditions it was reasonable to describe
the workers as oppressed, and to believe,
as Marx did, that this social order was the
source of all the problems in the world.
But the socialist struggle that began in those
years has since then brought many rights and
privileges for the workers: a forty-hour week,
retirement age, abolishment of child labor,
minimum wage, free education, weekends, vacations,
paid leaves, insurance, healthcare, social
security, pension, unemployment benefits,
and many other rights which today we take
for granted.
Life for the working-class is quite comfortable
now, and yet, all the problems that were supposed
to be solved still persist.
In such a reality, it takes blind faith in
Marxism to keep on believing that worker's
conditions are the source of every problem
in the world.
So here, too, Marxism is exposed as based
on nothing but a superstition.
The third thing that happened is that because
of these rights, we all have far more leisure
time on our hands, and we began to identify
ourselves by our leisure identities much more
than by our working identities.
In previous centuries, if your name was Taylor,
it probably meant that you belonged to a family
of tailors.
From the day you were born you were destined
to be a tailor until the day that you died.
Your occupation was the thing that defined
you.
So if you were being exploited in that identity,
it was logical to say, as Marx did, that you
were being oppressed.
Today, however, you are no longer defined
by your occupation.
Most of us define ourselves more by identities
that revolve around our hobbies, our interests
and our pleasures.
This is our world now, whereas our occupation
is just something we do to finance our true
identities.
So if I show you that you are being underpaid
in your job, of course you are not going to
like it; you will feel like you are being
screwed
But you will not feel like you are being oppressed.
You do not define yourself by your occupation,
so being exploited in it is only a matter
of justice, not a matter of freedom.
But for Marxists, the reality is very different.
Since Marxism characterizes the capitalist
stage as a stage where people are defined
by their occupation, Marxists are incapable
of accepting that these changes occurred while
we're still in the capitalist stage.
They believe that we are all still defined
by our occupation, which means that we are
all still oppressed.
And we are even more oppressed than we were
during Marx's time, since the wealth increased
astronomically, and the disparity between
the overall wealth in the world and what the
average worker makes is much greater.
So why is it that the workers don't rise up
in revolt, as Marx predicted?
Because, say the Marxists, the capitalist
system is a sneaky one.
It has made social reforms to make the workers'
life more comfortable, and provides the workers
with a lot of temptations in their leisure
time, to distract them from thinking about
their oppressed condition.
In other words, Marxists do not accept today's
leisure-based identities as authentic.
They see them all as a manifestation of a
false consciousness, a consciousness of people
who have been conditioned by the capitalist
system to live against their nature.
The Marxists believe that only they can see
the truth, while the rest of us are blind
sheep.
So, while Marx saw both good and bad in capitalism,
Marxists see it as totally evil.
They regard it as a system that is deviously
holding on to its power, and sedating the
masses so they will never rise up and overthrow
it.
This has driven Marxists to the belief that
they should use violence in order to free
us from this system, and to all the horrors
that were done in the name of Marxism in the
20th century.
The crimes of Marxists against humanity are
well documented and discussed, but what is
rarely being discussed is the harm that Marxism
does to the Marxists themselves.
Since they believe that everything in our
world is a manifestation of the evil capitalist
system, they feel alienated to their existence
in it, and cannot enjoy any part of it.
I've never met a happy Marxist.
They are usually very bitter people, frustrated
by life, often depressed and occasionally
downright hateful.
While they keep telling themselves that they
are on the right side of history, history
itself keeps moving in a direction opposite
to their predictions, and their frustration
and alienation gets ever deeper.
Their blind faith in Marxist superstitions
is denying them the ability to enjoy their
existence.
One such Marxist was Theodor Adorno, a mid-20th
century philosopher.
Adorno despised popular culture and all the
wonderful things it has to offer.
Instead, he glorified the music of Arnold
Schoenberg, and said that this is the music
of the future.
Let me play you some Schoenberg, so you can
appreciate the majesty of his music.
Now, I'm not saying that this music has no
merit.
To be honest, I actually like this piece.
Experimental, avant-Garde art has its own
value and can open your mind in many ways.
But when you make it the only music that you
value, and reject ecstasy, rhythm, sexiness,
fun and everything else that is so great about
music, you are denying yourself some of the
most powerful joys of life.
Of course, Marxists don't really distance
themselves completely from all the joys today's
world has to offer, but they cannot enjoy
them without feeling guilt.
Because what Marxism is, when all's said and
done, is nothing more than a residue of Christianity
in the atheist sphere.
The Christians see this world as a prison
they have to liberate themselves from to get
to Heaven, so every time they partake in its
sinful joys they feel guilt for helping the
devil in his work.
Marxism has internalized this perception of
the world as a prison, and just reimagined
it with different concepts, so whenever a
Marxist partakes in its joys they feel guilt
for helping the capitalist system, their version
of the devil.
And so, Marxists are alienated and bitter
about the world, and their only real joy is
when they can escape it for a while and dream
about the Communist Utopia.
Thankfully, by the 1980s almost every human
with half a brain could see that Marxism is
based on no more than superstitions, and Marxism
was totally discredited.
But it didn't die completely, and eventually
it found a way to creep back into academic
discourse, by latching on to identity politics.
In my video about identity politics I showed
that originally it made sense, because it
was people from discriminated groups banding
together to fight against the discrimination.
But I also showed that their battles have
essentially been won, and now identity politics
have been taken over by the regressive left,
which uses it for its purposes.
The regressive left is based not only on Marxism,
but brings together several strands of thought,
but we shall leave the other strands to future
videos.
In this video, I will focus only on the mixture
of identity politics and Marxism, which produced
the abomination known as cultural Marxism.
For anyone familiar with the regressive left,
it should be quite obvious by now what place
Marxist thought takes in it.
Basically, it has adopted the Marxist dogma
but replaced capitalism with patriarchy.
The patriarchy is a system which is designed
to maintain the dominance of the heterosexual
cis white male, but exists nowhere except
in the mind of the cultural Marxists.
Just like traditional Marxists, they believe
that the patriarchy is to blame for all the
problems in the world, and that Utopia will
prevail once the patriarchy is brought down.
They have absolutely no rational basis for
this belief, it is just a residue of Marxism
in today's leftist thinking – a blind faith
in the idea that we are one step away from
Utopia.
That explains why cultural Marxists seem to
disregard any moral values in the pursuit
of their goal.
Just like traditional Marxists, they believe
that history will exonerate them, and when
Utopia is achieved we will all see how right
they were and thank them.
The Marxist mindset also explains why regressive
leftists seem to be so obsessed with identifying
people by the group they belong to.
For the rest of us, it seems like they are
the only ones left who care about such things,
while Western society already transcended
such distinctions.
But, just like traditional Marxists believe
that the nature of capitalism is to define
everyone by their working identity, the cultural
Marxists believe that the patriarchy defines
everyone by their race, gender and sexual
orientation.
It's not that the cultural Marxists think
that people should be defined by these identities,
but rather the opposite: they want to free
the world of such definitions.
But they don't believe this can happen as
long as the patriarchy exists, so they believe
that we are all still thinking according to
these definitions, and that we are only deluding
ourselves to think that we have transcended
them.
That is why the cultural Marxist will never
take your statement on face value, but will
believe that what is speaking is actually
your racism, sexism and homophobia, even if
you are not aware of it.
Only they can see the truth, so it is their
duty to wake the rest of us up to the realization
that we are still defined by these identities.
But, just like with traditional Marxists,
most people simply refuse to buy what the
cultural Marxists are selling, and they remain
alienated from society.
Once again, we find the same outcome: the
cultural Marxists become frustrated and resentful,
and lash out at the world that refuses to
bend itself to their ideology.
If you thought the Schoenberg piece I played
before was bad, try this out: a feminist opera,
that was put on stage last year.
This is what cultural Marxism is: a mind screeching
in pain, unable to contain its resentment,
alienation and hate of the world.
In their dreams of heaven on Earth, they have
turned their own mind into their own personal
hell.
