Grandpa:
Rjan:
…
Sorry Rjan, class was the original Marxist foundation, but many years ago a theorist named Gramsci discovered that Marx got it wrong and it changed from class to culture.
If Marx got it wrong so fundamentally then it’s not Marxism! It’s that simple.
It’s why we now have cultural Marxism, or what we call identity politics based around minorities. Cultural Marxism goes a lot deeper than equality, it’s an ideology specifically designed to destroy western values. During the Thatcher and Reagan years the left took a back seat, abandoned the workers as a revolutionary catalyst and re-discovered Gramsci. It’s why you see few workers protests anymore, but lots of minority ones.
I thought during the Thatcher and Reagan years workers were not abandoned, but smashed.
You say we see no workers’ protests - why is France aflame with its gilets jaunes? It is true the British worker rarely protests nowadays, but that is because he himself is mostly cowed and unwilling to confront any real power.
The promotion of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, a plurality of religions, the abolition of national identity and introduction of open borders, the drink and drugs epidemic … That’s all the result of cultural Marxism based on a type of anarchy.
Actually a major drink and drugs epidemic followed Thatcher’s closing of the mines in the wider context of millions being displaced onto the dole.
So too open borders, the pulling of workers hither and thither in large numbers is the product of those who worship free markets - as I showed at the beginning of this thread, the flow from one area is no sooner stemmed as the Tories seek to open up new borders (in this case, bringing Russians and Ukrainians in to do farm labour on the cheap).
As for homosexual lifestyles and plural religions, those are socially liberal positions unrelated to any Marxist theory. The only thing Marx had to say about any religion was that it kept people docile against the real powers that be.
When you grasp the basics of cultural Marxism, it becomes a lot easier to understand what is happening around us. There are no shortage of explanations of what cultural Marxism is and I provide an academic explanation of Cultural Marxism – Social Chaos which you can scroll down to read. If you only read the first few pages you’ll understand what happened and why.
(PDF) Cultural Marxism - Social Chaos | John V Asia Teacher - Academia.edu
You can always find someone else to support any old [zb]. You might try having a go to explain the essence of the theory yourself, in a forum where (unlike that author) you can be challenged on it.
Again no Rjan, it was called the industrial revolution because it moved away from agrarian farming to industrial mass production and the colonies funded it by cheap raw materials. We’ve lost the British Empire and just been through the biggest recession in history, so how can you say there hasn’t been an ‘economic catastrophe’?
The colonies provided cheap raw materials, particularly later on. And they still do.
But in the very first place the problem was how to feed industrial workers no longer engaged in agriculture. And the Tories themselves later split over the Corn Laws, the question being whether Britain would continue to produce it’s own food and industry have to compete with agriculture for both land and labour, or whether food production would be outsourced to foreign lands and the workforce move more decisively over into industrial production - domestic food independence only became important again later on when supply chains could be threatened by other powers.
The argument that the rich became rich by taking off the poor is a nonsense; it implies the poor were rich and had it taken from them. The poor had nothing to start with and the rich became rich because they played the economic system better than others. There’s no doubt the elite are taking advantage, but that’s the way it always was and wherever socialist policies have tried to equalize society by trying to spread the wealth around it has always failed. You already have a welfare system, medical care, a minimum wage and a pension. If others have found a way to rise above the minimum you can’t really blame them for doing so.
You say it has always failed, but it clearly hasn’t has it? The Russians went from backwater to superpower after confronting the Tsar. Britain went from hunger marches in the 30s to having homes with back gardens in the 60s.
And you can’t reconcile your two assertions that the poor are not being exploited and yet the “elite” are taking advantage.
Nobody is arguing for a Pol-Pot like erasure of those in society who organise or govern.
It is typical of right-wingers like yourself to suggest that when the office cleaner is charged 1,000% for payday loans and paid £5 an hour for cleaning the toilet bowl, that bears no relation to the fact that the financier is charging 1,000% for his lending service whilst paying only £5 an hour to have his toilets cleaned.