Cultural Marxism: Why Liberals should be Concerned.
By: Liam P. Quinn Ii
Tags: Leftism, American Politics, Inequality, Cultural Marxism, Enlightenment Values

Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy theory.

While Marxists advocating for a communist revolution and the total redistribution of wealth have all but disappeared from the political landscape, segments of marxist thinking have infiltrated the western collective consciousness.

These ideas have the potential to fundementally destroy western civilization.

This is not an exaggeration.

Western civilization, and the progress and achievements that have arisen alongside it, is the result of a culture which recognizes enlightenment values as “divine.” (Divine meaning Absolute, Undeniable, Universally True)

Marxist concepts stand in direct contrast to these values.

Marxism is an ideology, which demands its adherents to recognize its concepts as true, and demands uniformity across a society as a means of achieving equality of OUTCOME.

Diversity of thought, of values, of opinion, stand in opposition to the utopian goal of marxist thought.

Marxism in this way is no different from 18th century religious dogma, which enlightenment thinkers fought tirelessly to overthrow.

It was that fight that made the conversation of equality even possible.

Enlightenment values and their embracement by the larger western world made scientific progress possible in the first place.

It was this philosophical tradition which laid the way for rationality to become the principle method for western societies to approach societal problems.

The commitment to rationality above all else creates a universal standard from which a range of ideas and concepts can be produced and compete amongst each other to bring about complex novel ideas which could and have benefited the society at large.

It was rationality, absent of ideology, which lead us to the conclusion that equality of OPPORTUNITY was a fundementally good idea.

It was rationality that lead to the technological and scientific advancements that we all benefit from today.

Equality of Outcome and Equality of Opportunity are two very different ideas.

Each posits a distinct conception of human nature.

Equality of Outcome presupposes that human nature is the product of social relations, and as such can be reconstructed.

Equality of Opportunity recognizes the possibility of a universal human nature, but it most importantly assumes that human beings are self interested organisms.

To bring about Equality of Outcome human nature must be altered to value equality and the collective good above self interest.

If we were to embark on a scientific quest to reveal the truth of human nature, which perspective do you believe the evidence would support?

Does the selfishness of human beings throughout history seem to be the product of social relations?

Does the competitive nature of natural organisms and their innate desire to reproduce and collect resources that bring about this possibility tell us nothing of human beings?

It seems to be that bringing about Equality of Outcome depends on rejecting the notion that human beings are extensions of the natural world bound by material reality.

Why? Because if Human beings are of nature, than they are the result of evolutionary processes working over time.

Processes which would inevitably result in the persistence of organisms whose psychological processes were shaped to optimize reproduction.

While one could argue that human beings are a social species, we are not social in such a way that it is reflected in us genetically.

Meaning that the continuation of our genes is not dependent on the continuation of other members of our species in the way that it is for Eusocial species such as bees.

We are a social species to the extent that our social relations benefit us individually.

Our altruistic tendencies are the result of our innate recognition of the benefits that come from reciprocity.

At the end of the day we as human beings are selfish, but that does not mean we cannot produce a more equal society, but it does mean that we cannot produce a society that is entirely equal.

This truth stands in direct contrast to marxist views and as such makes the reconciliation of a society based on rationality and marxist concepts an impossibility.

But are marxist concepts REALLY relevant and are they actually gaining traction?

Karl Marx recognized a fundamental problem with western capitalism. That overtime competition within a free market would lead to a concentration of wealth, and the division of society into two classes. This division would leave the majority in a state of poverty and result in a revolution.

This economic inequality is a natural outcome of the free market, and one which has resulted in numerous revolutions throughout history.

These revolutions are often lead by individuals committed to either marxism or fascism. Two very problematic ideological positions, neither of which can bring about a truly stable society.

Concentration of wealth is once again the problem we are faced with as a society. Individuals on both sides of the political spectrum are facing great economic challenges, and as a result we are seeing a rise in the acceptance of radical ideologies.

On the right, we are seeing a resurgence in Nationalism, Racism, Xenophobia, as individuals are being mislead to believe that their economic hardships are the result of globalism and multiculturalism rather than Corporatism.

On the left, we are seeing a resurgence in the Marxist ideology as a response to economic hardships and racial inequality which marxists equate as the inevitable products of liberal democracy and capitalism.

Our discourse on the left regarding rational inequality and economic hardship is devolving from a rational discussion of policy proposals to a rejection of western ideals in entirety.

More and more we are seeing the complete rejection of judgements in entirety, and the insistence that meritocracy and evaluation based on merit are fundementally immoral concepts.

We are experiencing an attack on the very notion of excellence, and the emergence of a marxist moral framework which characterizes individuals who achieve or aspire for excellence as immoral.

The total eradication of inequality from society is an impossibility. We must accept that some level of inequality will always exist, but that does not mean that that inequality should be as great as it is today.

Rejecting the very values that allowed us to exponentially progress as a society is not the answer.

We must become aware of the subtle attacks on enlightenment values, and reaffirm our commitment to them as a means of combating inequality.

These attacks are worrisome not because they could produce a communist government in the near future, but because they devalue enlightenment values, and give way to the potential of true marxists and right wing authoritarians gaining power.

We must act now, and we must recognize the progress that we have made as a society due to our commitment to rationality as the principle means by which we evaluate societal problems.

Liberals must be cognizant of this fact, or else Trumpists and other Far-Right Authoritarians will weaponize it and use it as a fear mongering tactic to gain power.

We must remain committed to pursuing equality of opportunity.