Professor Wielomski on Frankfurt School, i.e. ignorance and nonsense (part 1)
For a good fewer months, there has been a increasing dispute on the Karon line – Wielomski, which concerns the view of Marxism as an ideology and the work of Karol Marx. As we are moving primarily in the net area, the speech of both Lords is widely known in narrow circles, and most of the society, as they knew nothing about communism, is inactive in ignorance. Nevertheless, I thought it would be worth putting my 3 cents into discussion and comment on 1 circumstantial subject (or at least for now).
LINK: The second part of the survey discussing the essence of the conflict of Caron – Wielomski.
LINK: The final part of the argument, together with the presentation of circumstantial allegations against Prof. Wielomski.
Conspiracy of conflict
To begin with, in the words of explanation, let us find what is the subject of the full polemic and what positions interlocutors present. In short, Prof. Adam Wielomski, political scientist and historian of ideas, and besides academic lecturer, acknowledged the theories presented by Krzysztof Karonia, writer and author of the book «Anticulture HistoryFor the false and improper reading of Marx’s writings. The positions of both intellectuals (it is simply a good term, I think?) disagree on many issues, although for the purposes of this paper I would like to focus solely on the alleged revision of Marxism. Prof. Wielomski expressed in his many statements the view that Marxism had already ended, and specified groups as e.g. Frankfurt School "the end of the intellectual past of Marxism" or "made its deconstruction". In another words, alleged cultural Marxism does not exist, and we are now facing completely different threats: large corporations, postmodernism or masonry.
Below I will effort to address the question of the word "cultural Marxism” and his alignment with Nazi or neo-Nazi rhetoric. In the following parts of the paper, I will effort to respond to the arguments of Prof. Wielomski in substance, due to the fact that I believe that he showed a considerable ignorance of the subject or (worsely) knowingly falsified certain facts. I am only a modest bachelor's degree, but I will let myself a small criticism of technological authority.
The hard Heritage of American Intellectuals
Cultural Marxism is indeed a somewhat unfortunate term, which, without wanting to settle on our Polish field, wandered straight from the United States from the alleged environment. paleoconservatives (in a sense they preceded Alt-right). What is very important, it was not their spontaneous verbal cancer, due to the fact that for the first time the American philosopher wrote about “cultural Marxism” Trent Schroyer in his 1973 work "The Critique of Domination: The Origins and improvement of Critical Theory". Schroyer finished Marxist The fresh SchoolAnd as an academic teacher, he taught critical theory. In another words, the word "cultural Marxism" was coined in the womb of neo-Marxism, whether rightly or not, is simply a separate issue, but there is no uncertainty as to the origin of the name.
A somewhat vulgarized concept of neo-marksism was presented by specified paleo conservative writers as William S. Lind, Pat Buchanan and 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 having, colloquially speaking, plowed America through culture: promotion of degrengolada, activation homolobby, launching ideological panic (Political correctness), confusion in the head postmodernism Or breaking up a conventional family. In short, evil Marxists (by default judaic intellectuals) want to destruct the civilization of a white man and drive arrogant Americans into a cerate.
On the 1 hand, I realize the idea, i.e. a simplified message addressed to a broad public, but on the another hand, in factography, presenting Frankfurters exclusively as destroyers of conventional culture is ignoring the essence of the matter. As a affirmative example, I can give a friend's book Dariusz Rozwadowski, which, in fact, has ‘cultural Marxism’ in the title, mainly due to the already lost association, but importantly expands the side threads, thus presenting the comparatively coherent past of Marxism in the light version. Of course, this book by Krzysztof Karonia “History of Anticulture” exploits to the limits of possibilities the subject of deconstruction of culture and the ethos of work (in the explanation of the author the essence of Marxism), thus my comment “version of light”. The Caron powerfully prefers to usage the word "anti-cultural Marxism" or simply "AnticultureIt’s okay. ”
I'd alternatively not devastate 1 of the jobs here, due to the fact that after reading them, I presume that they just execute another functions. I'm certain I'm more aware of the issues after I've read both positions than if I'd just left one. Nevertheless, the hard legacy of American intellectuals, whom I briefly discussed, continues to follow us. It cannot be said that this is simply a closed subject, due to the fact that we have neither removed the patch of fascists, nor found ourselves under the roof with a message, which truly is about this (anti)cultural Marxism. And despite appearances, culture is of small importance here.
Cultural Marxism is cultural Bolshevikism?
I'm most likely not amazed to tell you that specified rhetoric has been rapidly recognized as a manifestation of conspiracy explanation and anti-Semitic prejudices, in addition to bad ones derived straight from Nazi propaganda (video cultural Bolshevikism). specified an explanation has been in the "Frankfurt School" slogan on Wikipedia for a long time. In fact, in the 1920s and especially in the 1930s, the national socialist government utilized concepts specified as cultural Bolshevikism in its propaganda (Kulturbolschewismus) or Sexual Bolshevikism,hitting the russian Union and its agentry in Germany, which is primarily Communist organization of Germany and another utmost organizations. Of course, Nazi ideologists created the alleged image. Jews, thus implying that all communism is the work of Jews who want to destruct European civilization by revolution, overthrowing states and spreading social degrengolada. As the Nazis, and thus the top monsters in the past of mankind, claimed, this was from the beginning to the end a lying thesis, while those who now repeat theories about "cultural Marxists" fit into the same strategy of accusing Jews of deliberately destroying the planet of white man.
The problem I see here is very simple, namely the usage of bivalent logic: either evil Nazis and their lies, or the politically correct version of the communicative of innocent Jews who were actually the only victims of the Holocaust. I'm not saying the fact lies in the mediate due to the fact that it's cliché. The fact lies... where it lies. And it seems that part of the judaic community became active in communism and even played a leading function in the uprising of russian totalitarianism, which does not mean that a hebrew equals a communist. For example, in the russian Union Jews dominated the bias minsheviks and trockists And they did lose crucial influence in the 1930s erstwhile helm stood Joseph Stalin. The classics of the genre are most likely 2 revolutions of 1919, in Bavaria and Hungary, where republics of councils were briefly formed. The fact that they both carried out most of the revolutionaries of judaic origin only reinforced the simplified belief in the existence of a judaic woman. But what am I getting at? The fact that the Nazis, to any extent, rightly criticized the Bolsheviks does not change the fact that they themselves were left-wing assassins, but from a somewhat different current. Similarly, the Bolsheviks rightly accused national socialists of crimes and anti-Semitism should not give emergence to uncertainty that communists are liable for countless atrocities. The conclusion is very simple – it is whether the allegations were justified and not who formulated them. That's it. That's it. And a strong alignment of the full argument about the fresh Marxism to Nazi propaganda has only 1 goal: to discredit the debater, and even condemn him as a heretic of unworthy participation in the alleged public discourse.
LINK: The second part of the survey discussing the essence of the conflict of Caron – Wielomski.
Bibliography
1. Buchanan J. P., Death of the West, Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Vectory, 2006.
2. Frankfurt School [in:] Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
3. Rozwodowski D., Cultural Marxism. 50 years of fighting Western civilization, Warsaw: Prohibita Publishing House, 2018.
4. Trent Schroyer [in;] Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Schroyer
