POLANDA : - powered by PolishForums Classifieds [57] Off-Topic [110]
Results: 56    

Marxism and the Frankfurt School

11 May 2017  #21

ah you would do it right would you?

The evolution of society, the progress of humanity and the inexorable march of time certainly will.
12 May 2017  #22

commie regimes

We haven't had a proper one yet. One day we will.

12 May 2017  #23

There you go again. Remember, all humans are equal, and you can't turn the clock back to a world where the "survival of the fittest" means that you would certainly have not survived.

One of the many reason that the basic premise of Das Kapital is still as fresh as the day it was written and so far His theses on the march of history remain accurate.
12 May 2017  #24

all humans are equal


Obviously you never played or watched sports (well, perhaps you do avidly watch all male sports but not for the same reason the main public does). Nor could you have even been in a position of responsibility and having to interview several people to fill a single important vacancy or assign a critical time-sensitive task to someone. You wouldn't be able to do it unless you were an absolute hypocrite when it comes to the egalitarian platitudes you are dispensing on here.

And since you have frequently boasted of having a very long and diverse "portfolio career" (i.e., loads of job hopping due to a lack in skills and competencies in order to lock down anything permanent) then let the forum know how you always sought out the person or persons you managed to bump out of the running so that in the name of equality you could share your pay cheque with them. Or did you smugly believe their dole money would be enough to compensate for things so you could move on with a clear conscience?

Lets look at real life when it comes to your belief that all humans are equal and answer each of the following:

1. Which gender has the highest rates of homelessness? A) Males; B) Females; C) The rates are always exactly the same because all humans equal; D) There is no homelessness because all humans are equal

2. Which gender always gets lower prison sentences (fines and incarceration) for committing the same types of crime? A) Females; B) Males; C) The sentences are always exactly the same because all humans are equal, D) There is no crime because all humans are equal

3. Which gender pays less in taxes during a working career due to taking loads and loads of time off but then lives longer and thus draws more in pension and medical benefits funded by payroll taxes? A) Females; B) Males; C) The tax burden is always exactly the same because all humans are equal; D) I don't know because I could never hold a job down in Britain and wasn't qualified or legally allowed to work in Poland so instead I now work in despotic Islamic countries where I get paid under the table in cash and keep it all stuffed in a foreign bank and away from the taxman back in Europe so I now just sit back and relax and troll on PF all day about the virtue of equality

Correct Answers:

1. A
2. A
3. A & D

"survival of the fittest" means that you would certainly have not survived.

Survival of the fittest meant reproductive success according to Darwinian theory.

You must be against abortion then and a woman's right to have one. After all if all humans are equal then both men and women are equal and have equal rights. It takes both a man and a woman to conceive a child and so the man would have equal rights regarding consent to terminating a pregnancy. Right? All humans are equal?

Three words for you all two faced leftists out there:

12 May 2017  #25

Obviously you never played or watched sports

Sports, Bieggers are playing. A distraction, and no basis on which to form an overarching philosophy of humanity. That's very clumsy thinking, discredited and stale long before Ayn Rand claimed her welfare cheques.

very long and diverse "portfolio career" (i.e., loads of job hopping due to a lack in skills and competencies in order to lock down anything permanent

That's actually the opposite of the truth. Something that therefore reflects your post succicinctly.

Or did you smugly believe their dole money would be enough to compensate for things so you could move on with a clear conscience?

That actually means nothing, rather like the rest of your rant. Those of us who work, as you will one day learn when you are old enough to get a job, pay our taxes and social insurance in part to ensure equity and a social safety net. A developed culture is not the dog-eat-dog Darwinesque world that you pretend to relish however in fact fear.

All humans are equal. This is the basis of civilised society. Some may have very deep-seated psychological issues, as your insolent and childish Cartmanesque rants prove, however any developed society, including Poland, is based on the concept that all humans are equal, with equal rights and equal responsibilities.
12 May 2017  #26

The books Escape from Freedom (author Erich Fromm), Mass Psychology of Fascism and the Sexual Revolution (Wilhelm Reich) maintain critical theory. But the most influential book of the Frankfurt School ever published is The Authoritarian Personality (Theodor Adorno). In it the economic determinism of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels is replaced by cultural determinism. If the family is profoundly Christian, with the authoritarian head of the family as a father, you can expect that the children will become racists and fascists. When he "discovered" that fascism occurs in the patriarchal and healthy families, Adorno has now "identified" its natural habitat, traditional culture: "It is a well known hypothesis that susceptibility to fascism is a phenomenon that is most characteristic for the middle class, that it is "in culture" and that, therefore, those who most conform to that culture, will have the most prejudice." Adorno and the Frankfurt School cold-bloodedly claimed that individuals who grow up in healthy families are potential Fascists and National Socialists. In the mid sixties of the 20th century, those who opposed the revolution in universities, were proclaimed to be fascists. Since that time, the most effective weapon in the hands of Jewish occupiers was precisely the proclamation of a rival as a hater or mentally ill person. "If you want to challenge something that someone is doing. . . call him a mental person." Evaluating Studies on the prejudices of the Frankfurt School, of which the most famous was Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality, Christopher Lasch wrote: "The aim and the plan of the Study about prejudice dictated the conclusion that prejudice, rooted in the structure of the" authoritarian personality ", can be eradicated only if the American people are subjected to collective psychotherapy - if they are treated as if they were in a sanatorium for lunatics. "

Horkheimer, Adorno and other cultural Marxists realized that the road to cultural hegemony leads through psychological conditioning, rather than a philosophical discussion. To American children it could be made conditional that in schools, social and moral beliefs of their parents and families they reject as racist, sexist and homophobic, and to accept the new morality, Marxist. The schools openly said that it is less important that children learn facts or skills, but to leave school equipped to demonstrate "correct attitude".

However, the importance of schools (although still significant) in brainwashing young minds, soon overcame the new media: television, computers, movies and series. William Lind once wrote: "The entertainment industry. . . fully appropriated the ideology of cultural Marxism and kept repeating it, not only in teaching, but also in parables; strong women that beat up weak men, children who are wiser than their parents, corrupt priests who are cheated by the mocking homeless, blacks from the upper class who oppose the violence of whites from the lower class, firm homosexuals who lead normal lives. It's all made up, a reversal of reality !, but the entertainment media make it to appear realistic, even more than the world around us. "

During the fifties, the Frankfurt School lacked the personality that would spread ideas buried in the prose of Horkheimer and Adorno. There appeared the already mentioned Herbert Marcuse, who gave the answer to Horkheimer 's question: "Who will play the role of the proletariat in the future cultural revolution?" Marcuse had his candidates: the radical youth, feminists, black militants, homosexuals, the alienated, the socially incompetent, revolutionaries of the third world and all the other angry voices of the persecuted victims of Europe. That would be, according to Marcuse, the new proletariat to overthrow Western culture.

Marcuse believed that sex and drugs, among others, represent powerful weapons. Marcuse has recommended a general acceptance of the principles of pleasure. "Lets reject the cultural order in full and we will be able to create a world of "polimforne perversion''. When millions of children of the "baby-boom" started flooding schools and colleges, his time had come. Marcuse's books have become one of the best selling. He became one of the cult figures. During the student riots in Paris, in 1968, the rebels carried banners reading "Marx, Mao, Marcuse."

In the book One-Dimensional Man, Marcuse advocated educational dictatorship. In repressive tolerance, he sought a new "liberating tolerance", which carries "intolerance of movements on the Right and tolerance for movements on the Left."
12 May 2017  #27

Marxist theory and some of the socio-cultural interpretation of it does actually cover some of the oddities, bile and extreme behaviour evidenced in post #24. Marxian thought is flexible - there's a good interpretation of the American school shootings, Dylan Roof etc, which gives a good perspective on why someone so young, still a teenager might have a hatred of the altruism at the heart of humanity and a staggering contempt for women.

The Lacanian approach (influenced by Marxian thought, however arguably based on much earlier ideas) to human psychology particularly addresses such self-loathing, and is of course in so many ways more Freudian than Freud himself in that respect.
12 May 2017  #28

As I've always asserted; we are all equal as human beings, endowed by the same Creator with the same rights and privileges, however NOT as people!

If you're arguing that Marx would've been in favor of a Jewish genocide because the latter represented capitalism, such a statement is nearly as cockeyed as it is offensive. Are you in some way attempting to justify Hitler's genocide?
12 May 2017  #29

however NOT as people!

Check out the concept of equity - often confused with equality and very close as a concept but with key distinctions - Marx covered this when He wrote his magnum opus as well as the manifesto. Basically we all have different things to contribute to the world and different needs to be fulfilled. A person who is 7' 5" in height has different living, clothing and possibly housing needs to someone who's 5' 2". Similarly, someone who's got an IQ of 130 and someone who's got an IQ of 50 have different things to contribute to society.
Dirk diggler
12 May 2017  #30

Come on jon do you really believe ALL humans are equal? I dont quite see how a starving infant from Sierra Leone and the British royal couples daughter are equal. Aside from both being human, they certainly were born with a very different life ahead of them. Same with say Kim Jon un and a random north Korean - no matter what Kim was going to be wealthy and powerful while the other nk is subservient to him.

If everyone were created equal all nations would have the same level of development and there wouldn't be a migrant crisis.

If blacks were equal to whites then why does affirmative action and why did apartheid exist?

This world is survival of the fittest whether you realize it or not. Someone can be born dirt poor like say gaddafi or idi amin and rise to the highest office in their country. Meanwhile people born on the same day became postal workers, carpenters, doctors, beggars, whatever which are different from each other and different still from being a dictator or President. Yes perhaps a person who is lazy and refuses to work for a living will not be left to starve to death like he would say during medieval. That person will be provided with government aid. However take that aid away and were back to survival of the fittest. Perhaps in Angola he would starve as the government doesnt have the funds to provide him with food

People are all human beings - everyone wipes their own butt in that sense yes everyone is equal as we are the same species. However in terms of fate/destiny, position in the world, etc no we are not equal far from it.

Communism tries to make all people equal because they inherintely are not and even that falls short because you'll always have a political class with access to capital and foreign goods and the working poor masses. If based on economics alone no we are not all equal let alone in health, physique, anatomy, destiny, and most importantly worldview as everyone has their own unique worldview
12 May 2017  #31

I dont quite see how a starving infant from Sierra Leone and the British royal couples daughter are equal.

That's actually a very valid and interesting point, much discussed over the last dozen decades by scholars and interpreters of the man Himself and entirely Marxist in scope. As humans, of course we are all equal. Some have historically and socially derived privilege, some don't, some have more abilities, some have less. That doesn't impact on either equality or equity. As the world's greatest economist Karl Marx said, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need".

If blacks were equal to whites then why does affirmative action and why did apartheid exist?

A historical lottery and set of cultural and social conditions that are fast disappearing.

However in terms of fate/destiny, position in the world, etc no we are not equal far from it.

You've understood the point of Marxism. To remove those circumstances that hold some back and allow others to steal the surplus value of their labour.
Dirk diggler
12 May 2017  #32

Yes I've read Marx's manifesto but I still find the ideas far too theoretical and impractical. The Soviet union was basically run off the ideals in the manifesto and look what happened. You can still never eliminate the top ruling class that has the access to capital, can make or change laws as they please, and enjoy perks like even drinking Champaign during receptions and sleeping in fine hotels even if say their official salary is equal to a peasant. A peasant/worker certainly wouldn't be afforded the same opportunity of tasting dom perignon or staying at the Ritz Carlton.

But when we tweak Marxism-leninism it can be a successful practical system. For example gaddafi's green book. He did not do away with religion, nor class, nor national identitity, nor gender roles and id argue that the average Libyan lived far better than an average soviet.
Dirk diggler
12 May 2017  #33

Also when you say that the social and cultural conditions are fast disappearing I agree but that is due to globalist capitalism. Also, Marxism tells peasants they essentially can't keep their crops since its owned by 'everyone.' I think you'd have trouble telling farmers they can't eat and sell their own cattle or potatoes. The means of production are a separate topic we can discuss though.

Perhaps one day instead of sending our computers to be burned for scrap copper in Ghana, the Ghanese will instead have a mix of whites blacks arabs Chinese etc all working in different fields inside this advanced economy. However this will take a very long time and many states will rather perish than give up their sovereignty like say north korea or russia. Even in the Soviet union everyone knew the Russians were in charge - even in the peoples assembly the Russians had more reps combined than say kazaks Uzbeks Estonians etc. It wasn't toll after gorby that started to change.

Maybe we will see a world where the us Ghana and poland are all relatively equal in terms of development. However that's going to take a lot of infrastructure investment and convincing of people to let go of millennia old ideologies like religion and the sovereign nation they identify with. Maybe that can be accomplished in western Europe and North America. Maybe even an African union like gaddafi attempted to create at least through his dinar currency. Nonetheless you'll always have someone leading the pack that's just a tad bit richer tad bit smarter tad bit more powerful and hence unequal.
12 May 2017  #34

that is due to globalist capitalism

The Marxist interpretation of history allows for this - capitalism can develop differently due to variable circumstances: technology, war, natural disasters shape the form in which it develops before it falls.

Also, Marxism tells peasants they essentially can't keep their crops since its owned by 'everyone.

Actually it doesn't. He was very clear that the property of the affluent peasant or small artisan is theirs. Don't confuse Marxism with faulty interpretations of it - a common mistake.

Maybe we will see a world where the us Ghana and poland are all relatively equal in terms of development

This will certainly happen one day - the world is always changing, always moving to a new future.

"Workers of the world unite".
Dirk diggler
12 May 2017  #35

"Workers have no fatherland" yet in Venezuela north Korea Laos or any socialist nation their still receive their paychecks from their governments nation.

Also last time I checked the Russians slaughtered their own animals rather than allow Stalin to appropriate them. Was Stalin's interpretation of marxism-leninism faulty? So yes to someone who understands Marxism has read the manifesto and other socialist works i see historical examples as being rather contrary to doctrine.

Yes worldwide socialism CAN THEORETICALLY be achieved through a worldwide revolution I won't dispute that. However short of a worldwide genocide I don't see how that can happen. Stalin stated he was willing to kill half the ussr population to achieve his socialist utopia. He stopped short of that and before his death blamed his murders on his midget nkvd chief so history wouldn't judge him as a bloodthirsty monster.

Where do you draw the line in what is an acceptable death toll to achieve a worldwide revolution leading to socialist utopia? A few thousand? A million? A billion? In nearly every example of when socialists attempted to bring about their revolution there was an extreme death toll so what is an acceptable number. Is it Stalin's half the population?
12 May 2017  #36

their still receive their paychecks from their governments nation.

Of course. Wages for work are a right. So are the full fruits of a worker's labour, without some capitalist skimming money off the top. This is in line with Christian teaching also.

Was Stalin's interpretation of marxism-leninism faulty?

'Marxism-Leninism' was a deeply flawed interpretation, as was Stalin's understanding of Marx's thought.

A few thousand? A million? A billion?

Even the highest of those numbers is far fewer than the number who died and will die earlier than they should because of capitalism.
12 May 2017  #37

The evolution of society, the progress of humanity and the inexorable march of time certainly will.@ jon357

Ah yes the same old tripe. Vladimir Mayakovsky - Our March
Sound good apart from the fact that the reality of the commie ruled world is grim, bloody and damned. Careful what you wish for.

all humans are equal,

What that? what do you mean? You could elaborate a bit, rather than peddle that slogan?
12 May 2017  #38

You've understood the point of Marxism

You do realise that Marx book wasn't prescriptive but descriptive and history proved him wrong a long time ago. Only some other looser or couple of them took his book and made it into ideology and dogmas. Its worthless bc doesn't take into account the truth about human nature.

allow others to steal the surplus value of their labour.@ jon357

To do that you would need to stop all taxes.
12 May 2017  #39

If you're arguing that Marx would've been in favor of a Jewish genocide because the latter represented capitalism, such a statement is nearly as cockeyed as it is offensive

Well sunny boy why don't you read what Marx had to say about Jews, an eye opener let me tell'ya. Marx is dead I don't know how he would react to the idea of extermination.

Are you in some way attempting to justify Hitler's genocide?

I tell you want is offensive in the extreme. Your an unspoken assumption that I must be somehow anti-Semitic. Is that bc you're a racist or is that bc you are a (male genitals). I know not. I don't asker to you and I already told you that I don't hold racial prejudices. I would 'kiss' your fat ass not bc of your DNA but due to your BS. Clear?

On the flip side your reaction proves you're not terribly bright. As you see I don't buy into a myth that Jews are somehow more intelligent on a whole, phew!

Dirk diggler
12 May 2017  #40


Yes that's what I mean by the manifesto and Marxism-leninism works great in theory but not in practice due to human nature. People are greedy, lazy and inept but also are ambitious and entrepreneurial. I think if Marx studied psychology a bit more he could've devised a more practical system. He certainly wasn't a dumb guy I don't agree with his politics but I can surely respect him for his accomplishments.

Marxism-leninism works great if in fact all humans were equal like Jon says and there weren't differences in tangible things like wealth, property, etc and intangible things like intellect, drive, etc. There's always going to be a group of people more intelligent/ambitious/lazy/greedy/wealthier than you hence humans are not equal. All you have to do is replace the adjective with any tangible or in tangible item.

But... Again when we tweak Marxism-leninism and the manifesto into the green book now we start seeing a more real life practical application of socialism. Gaddifs socialist revolution was essentially without casualty when he deposed long idris. Gaddafi did make the society more equal because the populace was given so much free or cheap stuff which basically eliminated poverty. However gaddafi and his cronies certainly lived better than the rest if the population. The same can be applied to any socialist state past or present - Stalin and the ussr, mao and china, the kims and no" etc etc. Basically they were not equal to the rest of the population.

In any political system there will always be inequality because the rulers and their cronies will always have it better than the general populous. Even if their income is identical their apartments are the same etc a ruler and his cronies will still have something that sets them apart from the rest whether its priority in a medical treatment sense, access to dom perignon during a reception, even nicer clothes to wear, and a less physically demanding job than sat a coal miner who will surely live shorter than say a politician who works in an office and will be given priority in treatment over one of the thousands of sick miners.

Short of eugenics, population control, censoring history and religion, total redistribution of wealth, erasing of borders and national identity, having the same infrastructure and economic opportunities everywhere there can't be total equality. You'd essentially have to reprogram the entire human race and unilaterally develop the world so all lands are at the same exact level. Until that happens a system like Marxism-leninism won't work as at the moment humans are not all equal in countless different ways.

America's also got its Wyborcza, Newsweek and TVN [27]GOOD NEWS: Trump defunds Obama's pro-abortion legislation [73]

Home / Off-Topic / Marxism and the Frankfurt SchoolTop