About how OKO.press and the Batory Foundation killed neo-marksism
In this text, I would like to draw attention to the study published under the banner of the Stefan Batory Foundation. The author is Anna Mierzyńska, who besides wrote an article on OKO.press on the basis of this publication. The subject concerns the phenomenon of neo-Marxism and alleged conspiracy explanation created by the "popularist right".
The study and article contain a mass of factual errors, which confirms the belief that social cognition is inactive poorly distributed even in the educated circles of our nation. However, there are besides many manipulations in addition to the shortcomings, which prompts me to make the thesis that p. Anna Mierzyńska She is only doing the job, and the client immediately appointed the thesis to be defended by the author. Both study Batory Foundationas well as the article from OKO.press they focus on justifying 1 dogma – that all who point to the influence of Marxism in public debate and politics are in fact proclaimers of another conspiracy theory.
The study is actually a watered down version of the article, so I will mention to both texts at the same time, and I will open my answer with an explanation of the word "(anti)cultural Marxism‘. I will then point out the unclean play that was certain to justify the thesis indicated by the payer. I will not mention to the author himself at all, due to the fact that it does not substance in this case.
LINK: The list of errors, shortcomings and substantive shortcomings in the Batory Foundation study was presented in a separate entry in a more transparent form.
LINK: An article on the OKO.press portal
LINK: Batory Foundation Report
Marxism (anti)cultural – the genesis of the concept and its content
‘Cultural Marxism“ is indeed an unfortunate word that unfortunately has already taken root in our public debate. The author of the article assured that her goal was not to engage in technological debate on the phenomenon. In fact, the concept is not clearly indicated in the text. We're actually dealing with an effort to transfer comments public opinion from the analysis of neo-marksism as a phenomenon, i.e. from the level of facts, to the field of ideological warfare, in which the implication of the opposing side of a love for conspiracy theories, possibly extremes or Fascism, is the basic maneuver of escaping the conversation “on the subject”. In this respect, the message of the left is fundamentally devoid of any mention to specifics, i.e. it does not mention to Marxism as such, and any quoted claims of polemists leave without comment, i.e. it considers as a manifestation of the so-called. foiling. This is simply a very convenient approach, which allows for the constant deficiency of substance of the matter.
The article as well as the study propose that "cultural Marxism" is in fact a spacious bag in which the right throws all phenomena assessed as negative. Unfortunately, publications are teeming with specified terms as: “populist right” or (more common) “extreme right” and since they have not been clearly defined, this leads to the thesis that they are simply utilized to drawer the Adversaries. This is simply a very plastic category, which is best demonstrated by joining the utmost right of the Confederate associate The Goodness of Sonnywhich itself defines itself as libertarianin.
The word "cultural Marxism" was promoted by American alleged paleoconservativeswho besides had an impact on improvement Alt-right. However, this verbal blockage is not spontaneously formed verbal cancer due to the fact that it was first presented in 1973 by an American philosopher Trent Schroyer in his work entitled “The Critique of Domination: The Origins and improvement of Critical Theory‘. due to the fact that it was Schroyer who coined this concept, and he was the lecturer of critical explanation on Marxist the fresh School, we have the right to say that the word "cultural Marxism" was created in the womb of neo-markists, as Mr Mierzyńska defines them. Of course, concealing this fact by the opposing organization is an impure approach to discussion.
At this point you can besides mention to another left-wing authorities, namely 3 Marxist professors. First of them, Professor Douglas Kellner belonging to the 3rd generation of Frankfurt School, in its article Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies defends the notion of ‘cultural Marxism’, referring to specifics. It describes the improvement of Marxism as ideologies, starting with Marx and Engels and their direct successors (social democracy and pro-Soviet communists), then recalling the names of specified theorists as György Lukács, Antonio Gramsci and Ernst Bloch, in order to yet be able to scratch the title line “cultural”. Well, Kellner leaves Frankfurt School, whose legacy was later continued by the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, or so-called. Birmingham School. The "cultural Marxism" described here identifies "cultural studies", or cultural studies initiated by the British Marxist centre, drawing, of course, from the ideas of Frankfurters' companions and writings of classics.
Let us quote:
Critical cultural studies stressed that representation policy must affect class, gender, race and sexuality, thus correcting gaps in earlier forms of cultural Marxism. British cultural studies gradually moved from focusing on class and culture to incorporating into their analyses gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, nation and another components of identity.
It is not hard to imagine that Prof. Kellner here means primarily feminists, racial and sexual minorities or immigrants, namely those groups that constitute new proletariat for Marxist ideologists. However, according to the author of the report, it is simply a conspiracy explanation of the "popularist right".
The second intellectual is Prof. Jürgen Habermas, the most crucial surviving typical of Frankfurt School today. In the book “Philosophical Discourse of Modernity” in 1985, he explained how a revision of classical Marxism actually took place:
The critical theory, developed in a ellipse centered around Horkheimer, was to deal with the political disappointments of the future revolution in the West, Stalinism in Russia and the triumph of Fascism in Germany; it was to explain the failure of Marxist predictions, not breaking with Marxist intentions.
The last leftist theorist I would like to trust on is Prof. Harry Cleaver, author of the celebrated publication «Political Capital Reading” 1979. He explained the question of the apparent transition of Marxism to cultural positions:
This helps to realize why critical explanation has turned towards an analysis of the “world of culture”. She assumed that in the mill the capitalist had full control, and the authoritarian state considered it to extend this hegemony to the remainder of the society, the apparent consequence of which was the survey of fresh forms of dominance occurring in this process. It should so be clear that the interest in Western Marxism and critical explanation was fundamentally political, without being, at least in the most fruitful period (the 1930s), a retreat to the “pure philosophical” planet of speculation, as any say.
Vulgarized, and thus easy to turn into alleged shurism (although I think the word "sectarianism" better reflects the essence of the phenomenon) were presented by specified paleo conservative writers as William S. Lind, Pat Buchanan or Michael Minnicino. Their 20th and 21st century publications, specified as “Death of the West“ Buchanana, presented a simplified imagination of transforming classical Marxism into an ideology designed to weaken America through culture: promotion of degrengolada, activation homolobby, launching ideological panic (Political correctness) or break up a conventional family. In short, the evil Marxists want to destruct the white man's civilization and drive arrogant Americans into the cerate.
O dirty games utilized in the report
A separate stream of investigation on Marxism was initiated in Poland by a author Krzysztof Karońwho prefers to call it “anti-cultural Marxism” or simply “Anticulture” which is to better represent the most crucial socio-technology of Marxism – the demolition of the main mechanics of all culture, and this mechanics is to drive human motivation into creative work. By stopping this mechanics it will be possible to make a social class of people incapable to produce the goods consumed by them independently and thus incapable to gain their own wealth. specified men would constitute an iron electorate of Marxists. The described class already exists – its name precarat. It utilized to be a proletariat.
In the position taken by the environment around the task Hammer for Marxism, considerations from the spiritual or axiological level are put aside, due to the fact that erstwhile analyzing materialistic ideology, which is Marxism, 1 needs to focus on much simpler, but mostly underestimated issues. The central concept from which all another pieces of the puzzle come out is Work. Well, in the simplest definition, Marxism is ideology. gaining power by destroying capitalism, that is, an efficient economical strategy in which people are able to gain their own wealth. Any cultural disputes we observe around gender, LGBT, sexual education, eco-terrorism, feminist postulates, immigration crisis etc., in their superficial layer they prove secondary. We should be curious primarily as phenomena in any way affecting motivations and abilities of people to keep a capitalist strategy which, erstwhile again, must stay deconstructed. Without efficient and skilled workers, I have a functioning economy. That's the point.
Are the experts of the Batory Foundation and representatives of the OKO.press curious in referring to the findings mentioned in the erstwhile paragraphs of Marxist professors who, what could be said here, have more competence in this matter? Thesis, which is formulated by journalists attacked in the study (specifically Krzysztof Karoń, Dariusz Rozwadowski and Jakub Zgierski), is justified even in their works. Strong attempts to put this environment next to it Right-wing publicists, priests and politicians, who, for deficiency of a deeper knowing of the subject, shimmer the issue and, for example, speaking of the sexual revolution, believe that it is about sex (and not about it), are definitely a manifestation of deliberate stereotypes.
Well... In the texts all opponents were thrown into 1 bag – they were there priests, politicians of the Law and Justice, American publicists, sympathizer of the Kremlin ideologist Dugina, various elevators, etc. Problem is, I'm putting you in this group. environment related to Knowledge Programme Social suggests that these people belong to 1 of the parties. Meanwhile, we clearly say that our goal is not to identify with the left. Or the right, only to advance the uncontaminated ideology of knowledge. And this is it. knowledge that primarily helps to realize the effects of various programmes political. Unlike most priests, we don't focus on idealistic defence of values, we just point out what fruits will bear the demolition of these values. From politicians, e.g. powerfully attacked Darius Matecki, what makes us different is that we don't focus on political agitation, so we do not care about falsifying the message and we besides regret calling it p. Matecki's expert on neo-marksism.
Among people/medias talking about Neo-Marxism listed Russian centres to be able to then propose that "Narration of Neo-Marxist Threat" is in fact Russian propaganda. due to the fact that all ideological opponent is Russian agent. How do we know...
The study accuses opponents of dividing society into ‘good’ and ‘bad’. It is simply a pity that we find an example of the same condemned practice: “Now in Poland neo-marksism is being utilized politically by the populist right and the Catholic Church. However, the long-term negative effects of this tool should already give a headache to all those for whom the future of our country is important." It is hard to remove a blade from the eye of a neighbour erstwhile a thick beam is sticking out of the eye of the remover.
The publications besides included attacks directed at the series “Anticulture” by TRWAM Television In Toruń. The task has been criticised as have all another attempts to bring public opinion closer to the subject of Neo-Marxism. So far production has 2 seasons of 12 episodes each. The 3rd will be aired in the fall of this year.
The article and study effort to associate their opponents with criminals, i.e. Breivik and National Socialists German. The concept was mentioned in them cultural Bolshevikism, utilized by the Nazis as a tool for criticizing the russian Union and its agents in Germany, which is primarily the Communist organization of Germany. A strong alignment of all arguments about fresh Marxism with Nazi propaganda has only 1 goal: to discredit the debater, and even to curse him as a heretic of unworthy participation in alleged public discourse. The point is to make the opponents of the left as though burn a swastika on your foreheadThat everyone treats them like lepers, in which direction 1 cannot even look. And the solution to this problem is very simple – it is whether the allegations were justified and not who formulated them.
Another crucial remark on naming. The author and historian mentioned in the study Dariusz Rozwadowski included the concept of "cultural Marxism" in his book on this issue. However, this was dictated by pragmatism – the word has already taken place, so it would be hard to guarantee that the fresh definition of the same phenomenon is readable.
Summary of the dispute
Our reflections I would like to conclude by quoting the conversation that took place in 2015 in the programme "Flying Hall" in TVP Info (Brunatna Polska. Fact or hysteria, 17.02.2015). The discussion afraid “fascism”, which is reborn in Poland. He was there. Krzysztof Bosak he replied to the audience of journalists and scientists that possibly all this misunderstanding comes from the fact that his environment is based on conservative and Catholic teachings, and his opponents on neo-marksist. The p. Agnieszka Graff from Political Criticism, which stated explicitly:
Yes, yes, of course, neo-marksism is the foundation of contemporary cultural studies and doctrine of culture, it is not a dramatic challenge. That's a certain obvious.
Is this the case with Mr Graff or the Batory Foundation and the OKO.press? I'll leave you with that question.
Rainer Zybura on behalf of the Hammer task squad for Marxism.
Substantial support: Jakub Zgierski and others.
Bibliography
1. Buchanan J. P., Death of the West, Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Vectory, 2006.
2. Cleaver H., Introduction [in:] Political Capital Reading, Poznań: The Trojka Brotherhood Publishing House, 2011, http://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/357k/RCP_final_Intro.pdf
3. Frankfurt School [in:] Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
4. Habermas J., Philosophical Discrimination of Modernism, Kraków: Universitas, 2000.
5. Jay M., The Creation of the Institut für Sozialforschung and Its First Frankfurt Years [in:] The Dialectical Imagination, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973, https://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/jay/ch01.htm
6. Caron K., Anticulture History, Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Samowe, 2018.
7. Kellner D. Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies, University of California, https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/facty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf
8. Mierzinska A., Neomarksist rainbow plague. How the conspiracy explanation of the populist right influences public debate in PolandThe Batory Foundation, http://archive.batory.org.pl/upload/files/Programs%20operational/Forum%20Idei/Interactive_Neomarksism.pdf
9. Mierzinska A., Rainbow neo-marksism at the gates. The Polish right and the Church took over this communicative from the USA and RussiaOKO.press, https://oko.press/teczowy-neomarksism-u-bram-polska-right-i-kosciol/
10. Written in the spirit of the Marxist manifesto, the basis for further improvement of the European Union? Expert comment Ordo Iuris, Institute for Legal Culture Ordo Iuris, https://www.ordoiuris.pl/international activity/written-in-spirit-marksist-manifest-base-further-development-Union
11. Rozwadowski D., Cultural Marxism. 50 years of fighting Western civilization, Warsaw: Prohibita Publishing House, 2018.
12. Trent Schroyer [in;] Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Schroyer
