Exactly. Its like Jordan Peterson thinking that western society is being undermined “because Foucault” when about 0.001% of the population has read him and of those that have only 0.3% have actually understood him. Stephen King has probably had 10000x the influence on western societies than Derrida. Just more paranoid gibberish from the right.
Look at how well they’ve done over the years. Capitalism has never ever been so strong. Ever. There is no alternative truly being pushed. Even many Marxists agree with this now. Most Marxists that I stumble across are just descriptive rather than prescriptive, and I can totally see why. I mumble a bit about mixed economies and then go back to reading Heidegger. The idea that this grand success of Marxism culturally, plots etc, is just cookoo.
And most people who are seen by the right as “woke” are fully ideologically neoliberal, often with complete unawareness of being so. In fact that is why major companies are so keen on it too, and appear very woke often, because it’s creates a kind of atomised “well being” mode of existence where the only thing that truly matters is someone’s inner phenomenological experience instead of class war fare and solidarity. My company is massively right on whilst cutting our wages each year pretty much. Nothing to do with Adorno
The whole point about cultural Marxism is that it operates in the realm of culture. Not the economic realm.
Your attributing that to one single cause - a few Marxist thinkers that no one ever reads?
Ah but people do read them. And they think about them, discuss them endlessly, and do their level best to implement their theories. Not a lot of people perhaps, but some very clever ones.
Bit like those who read Proust or Shakespeare avidly then. Real powerful cultural forces in the world, lol
Yes. And personally I'm an economic deterministic. I blame all our problems on usury.
It's hard to know where to start with this. I'll just choose one aspect.
No argument from me. I think the cultural prominence of nonprocreative sexualities is linked to the economic dominance of auto reproductive finance. Adorno would not approve.
Sexualities have to do with sexualities, not economics or finance.
This isn't true. The idea that "sexuality " forms a discrete sphere of experience arises only in the C20th West.
Sexualities and third genders have been around for centuries, in Japan, Thailand India and other countries outside of your Western bubble.
No I meant the idea that sexuality can be isolated from other areas of life, like the economy. That's both false and recent.
I don't know if men who visited molly-houses identified as homosexual -- it would have been difficult, as the word hadn't yet been coined -- but this has fuck all to do with anything.
Of course they did not. They identified as sodomites, catamites, Ganymedes, buggerers, pederasts, minions, poppets, lombards, judies, maries, mollies (obviously) and brown-hatters.
Try to calm down. Did you have a point, or were you just wanking?
The point is that the "homosexual" is a recent invention. The terminology I rehearse above describes a range of sexual roles and behaviors utterly different from our own.
It's interesting.
I suspect it's over your head tbh.
My point has always been that the dichotomy between sex and economics is illusory. The historical examples I cite above should have established this clearly.
There's nothing false about sexuality, you utter prick
