I am increasingly using the expression “Cultural Marxism,” and it occurred to me that I shouldn’t simply assume readers and listeners know what it means. I will try here as simply and briefly as I can to explain the basics. If you have questions, please pose them in the comments section or on Facebook.
Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky and V. I. Lenin saw the basis of all human existence as economic. This was the social and political philosophy of the old Soviet Union. It is called classical or economic Marxism. This form of Marxism is not nearly as popular today (except in North Korea). By contrast, you might have heard of Marxists like Gramsci, Lukács, Sartre, and Marcuse. They are among the first cultural Marxists. Their view of Marxism was designed to appeal to and succeed in Western societies. They knew that economic Marxism would likely not win in the West. (This is why their revision is sometimes called Western Marxism.) For one thing, they doubted that the working class would rise up in violent revolution as they did in Russia in 1917; the workers in the West were mostly satisfied with life most of the time. To win in the West, you needed a Marxism suited to the West, one that took into account Western ways of thinking. Freedom, liberty, and equality, watchwords of the West, were ideas they could commandeer to win the day. They would engage in the “long march through the institutions,” words wrongly attributed to Gramsci but rightly describing the strategy of cultural Marxism. They would reinvent the meaning of liberty, freedom, and equality to seduce Westerners and gradually capture their culture.
Unlike the original Marxists, they held that humanity’s main problem isn’t economic. It’s that society’s ideas and institutions prevent us from fulfilling the Good Life. What is the Good Life? It is being able to be exactly what we want to be, to live exactly as we want to live — maximum autonomy. Every individual should be an artist, but in a very basic and profound sense. Every person should be able to paint his own life, his own meaning, his own reality. The world should be the canvas on which the person paints himself.
Unfortunately, our society conspires to restrict our autonomy. Traditional institutions like the family and church and business command our allegiance. Husbands lead families, parents direct children, clergy disciple laity, employers make demands of employees. This means they crimp our autonomy. It really means these institutions crimp our autonomy. Therefore, we live artificial, unreal, and unhappy lives to conform to these cultural institutions and expectations. We are alienated from our “true selves.” Marxists have always been very concerned about liberating the true, real self from the cultural environment suppressing it. That self might be atheistic, exhibitionist, homosexual, transgendered, bestial, or solitary; but in whatever form it takes, that self meets resistance in traditional culture. To be truly free, traditional culture must be marginalized or crushed.
An extended metaphor might help. Imagine thousands of tiny seeds, full of flourishing, fruitful potential, but they can never fulfill that potential because they’re submerged beneath hard, frozen, nearly impenetrable soil. Imagine further a sympathetic farmer who comes with a massive plow and cracks the soil and waters and fertilizes it so that the seeds can finally sprout upward.
The seeds in this metaphor are humans as we enter the world. But we’re stifled by the hard, frozen soil, which won’t allow us to unleash the potential of our real selves. That soil is our society, especially the chief cultural institutions like the family and church and business. We should be free to sprout and grow upward and exhibit to the world all of our autonomous beauty. What we need is a plow to break up this hard soil and get it out of the way.
In our metaphor, that plow is the state. This is why cultural Marxists are statists. It’s not because they simply love power. They want state power so they can destroy traditional authority, and especially Christianity, which justifies and produces that authority. For cultural Marxists, what has been called liberty in the West, defined as absence of political coercion, becomes true liberation, the imposition of political coercion to guarantee human autonomy. Liberation becomes liberty from the institutions that our society grants the liberty to enslave us. The state must pulverize every barrier to our true selves.
How do cultural Marxists instigate this liberation? How do they get the state involved in their liberation crusade? Mainly by divvying up people into different classes and fomenting conflict, claiming that all classes must fight for equality. This is called class consciousness. In Marx’s day, the oppressors were the bourgeoisie (elites, business owners), and the oppressed were the proletariat (employees, “wage slaves”), who demanded equality. By equality, the cultural Marxists do not mean equality of condition — that is, they don’t mean everybody must play by the same rules. Rather, they believe in equality of results — the rules must be bent to make everybody get the same things. Today class consciousness is known as “identity politics,” and the battling classes are expanded — men versus women, whites and Asians versus blacks and/or Hispanics, children versus parents, millennials versus the middle aged, wealthy versus poor and “middle class,” cosmopolitans versus nationalists, and other binary categories. Cultural Marxists portray one pole of the binary (women, homosexuals, millennials, blacks) as oppressed, and demand that the state liberate them from their oppressors. Oppression here almost never means literal enslavement, abuse, or assault. Rather, it means disrespect, disapproval, or social inequality. If, for example, homosexuals are not as respected as heterosexuals, they are oppressed and deserve state-coerced liberation. This is also where the new campus speech codes come from. The newly defined oppressed (millennials) are entitled not to be offended by words from the oppressing class (older whites, teachers, men).
Liberation becomes liberty from the institutions that our society grants the liberty to enslave us.
Over time, this human liberation sees even nature itself as an oppressor. Like the Gnostics of old, creation is evil and a barrier to the good life. Male or female body parts are oppressive. “Sex-reassignment surgery” must become “gender-affirmation surgery.” A man becomes a woman who then becomes a dragon. This is an extreme case but not an inconsistent one. It’s simply the latest example of liberation, and, unless this grand social march is arrested, we should not expect the dragonization of man to be the most extreme example of liberation in the future.
Progress by Conflict
It is this class conflict that produces cultural progress. Marxists have always believed that life is everywhere filled with opposing forces, and the collision of these forces brings a higher, better reality. Today’s liberals like to be known as “progressives,” and the progress they want is human liberation ( = autonomy). That progress comes about only by conflict. So conflict is a good thing, and the elites should be fostering conflict everywhere. If you want a better society, you need to spread conflict to get there — unremitting conflict, violent if necessary. The objective of launching rallies and Twitter campaigns to challenge the “hegemony” (a favorite word of Gramsci) of men, parents, whites, straights, Asians, and Wall Street is to create a conflict that ends in the liberation of the oppressed classes and a better world, all (except the previous oppressors, who will be dispossessed and de-privileged) enjoying the Good Life.
And all led, of course, by the cultural Marxists, magically at the very top of the egalitarian heap.
21 thoughts on “Cultural Marxism, Simply Explained”
Thank you for this clear exposition.
Since cultural Marxists have no absolute frame of reference, their ‘liberation’ must end in entropy. Theirs is, in fact, a closed system that will eventually decline into disorder and chaos, because “…where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”
The essence of a victorious Christian response must therefore be praise and worship of the one true God of Israel, Creator of the universe, in the name of Messiah Jesus.
Thank you so much, John. Yes, CM will self-destruct, but not before destroying many people’s lives.
Reblogged this on W. Travis McNeely and commented:
Many have mocked Christians (even within Christianity) by charging them with over-exaggerating by accusing people of giving into Cultural Marxism. I think this post explains very well exactly what a Cultural Marxist is and furthermore why it is so dangerous.
Thanks sincerely, Travis.
Can we talk on the phone soon? firstname.lastname@example.org
Thank you for articulating a cogent thought about the current cultural conflicts seen in our nation. I will admit that I have not read your previous blog posts, so forgive me if this question is addressed in a prior post. Do you view all protests (specifically I am thinking about BLM and #MeToo) as being part of this Cultural Marxism, or do you have a greater nuance? A further follow up would be this: do you think that there are those who have privilege based simply upon race, gender, or geography? If so, how are they to respond. If not, how can you show it is not a privilege?
I’m not trying to start any sort of debate, just wanting to a clarification to make sure I am appropriately reading your definition of and warning against CM.
Jurgen Habermas a “Cultural Marxist” of The Frankfurt School wrote a book with Pope Ratzinger, coined the phrase “leftwing fascism”, and is the key academic critic of Post-modernism.
Likewise, Adorno was protested by student radicals for calling the police on them. He was specifically protested by radical feminists.
These guys pointed out The Culture Industry – which is now predominately left wing. So to attack them for pointing it out – seems very silly. The Frankfurt School don’t easily fit into the left right dichotomy so it’s disappointed to see the constant attempt to write them off as communists. Infact, Marcuse wrote various critiques of Soviet Marxism for the state department during the Cold War (as he did with the Nazis during WW2).
“Cultural Marxism” is a childish conspiracy theory in this regard. The real cause of Identity Politics was the black civil rights of Barbara Smith – the Boston woman who pioneered that movement. She was not part of The Frankfurt School. That’s the conspiracy.
You have miss read Sandlin’s article entirely. He is not saying Cultural Marxism is communist in the traditional sense at all. Rather, he is pointing out that cultural marxism, of the Frankfurt School and the later Post Modernists, is at odds with tradtional Western Culture. This is an obvious observation from simply reading their own writings, hardly a conspiracy. They are clearly out in the open about their philosophy and goals. Sandlin is writing from a traditional Western Christain perspective. To you to point out the divisions among some of those “thought leaders” of the Frankfurt School and others actually gives greater credibility toward the points Sandlin was making.
Finslly! I’ve heard of some Christian Reconstructionists of the libertarian brand being called “cultural Marxists” and I was confused by that. But it is true in a great sense with the exception that they don’t want to use the state as the plow that breaks up Authority. They use libertarian philosophy as the wedge instead. They want to level the state as much as the family and the church. I don’t know if it is rightly called cultural Marxism but it is some type of a cultural heresy (or doctrinal error) within the new Reconstructionists.
Thanks, Jerry. Yes, that movement has become a tragedy and embarrassment.
Pingback: Who’s That Back-Door Funding the Southern Baptists These Days…(And WHY)? | 7 Times Around the Jericho Wall
Pingback: The Progressives’ March Toward God’s Judgment - Sovereign Nations
Pingback: A Tale of Two Racisms | P. Andrew Sandlin
Pingback: The New Dem Destroy Target: Obama! - Conservative T's
Pingback: The New Dem Destroy Target: Obama! - Republican Win Daily
I noticed the list of forces restricting our freedom didn’t include oppressive government laws and regulations. It is frightening to watch the hypocrisy of the modern left who espouse the cultural Marxist philosophy while they attempt to undermine the United States Constitution, the very document that guarantees them freedom.
Pingback: Postmodernity, Simply Explained – Christian Culture
Pingback: Advent: Peace or Conflict? – Christian Culture
Pingback: The Marxism in the Mayhem – Christian Culture
Pingback: The Marxism In The Mayhem
Pingback: Political Insurrection Versus Creational Insurrection – Christian Culture