Maybe it's not Capitalism or Liberalism

[Speaker to Animals]

LOL that definition was written by a cultural marxist.

A lot of the war going on is meme warfare and manipulation of normies.

[StCapps]

LOL that definition was written by a cultural marxist.

Straight up. Had to be, the spite leaps through the screen.

[Speaker to Animals]

The big problem with your OP is that you set capitalism and liberalism as two opposing ideologies when, in fact, they are basically the same thing. Capitalism is the preferred economic model of liberalism. Liberalism invented capitalism. Liberalism is just the Enlightenment ideals as they have evolved over the course of several centuries. Liberalism prefers a capitalistic economy of some kind, some form of democratic government, and some level of liberalization of freedoms (what we call human rights such as freedom of speech, etc). For a long, long time here in America, the battle between what we called left and right was essentially a battle between two groups over who was more liberal than the other.

I am trying to paint liberalism here in a way that proponents see it. Just to be charitable, these people generally see it as equivalent to maximizing freedom and opportunities for all participants in society.

The battles we had between the turn of the twentieth century and very recently involved fights over which aspects of liberalism should be maximized and which should not be maximized. Democrats wanted to liberalize one set of things (morals) whereas republicans wanted to liberalize another set of things (economics). The reason libertarians, in my opinion, are just apex liberals is that they seek to maximize the entire Enlightenment program no matter the damage to society.

But you saw this thing begin to unravel on the so-called left pretty early. They were always enamored with Marxism. It slowly crept into their entire political discourse over the generations. By the 1960s, cultural marxism was the main avenue with which the political insurgents infiltrated the democratic party without having to openly fly their colors. Now most democrats subscribe to cultural marxism even though they don't want to publicly identify as marxists (though that's exactly what they are now). You saw the split in the democratic primary when the larger voting bloc realized they were played by the liberals and the entire process was rigged for Hillary Clinton from the start. Go watch the video of all of them walking out of the convention in disgust. That was huge and few people realize how monumental that moment will be remembered when that same voting bloc tries to take over the DNC or forms their own party somehow at some point in the future. The liberals are actually the minority of the democratic voting base, though they still maintain a grip on the power structure of the party. It cannot possibly last.

I followed the first three paragraphs of that post perfectly and agree with them completely.

You lost me when you started with Marxism. I have to admit I still don't understand this cultural Marxism thing.

I agree again that there was a reaction to Hillary Clinton being rigged by the power elite. (But are you saying this is about Cultural Marxism?)

I googled Cultural Marxism and I got this.

Cultural Marxism generally refers to one of two things:
1.First — extremely rarely — "Cultural Marxism" refers to the general application of the Frankfurt School's Marxist ideology to the social sciences.
2.Second — in common usage in the wild — "Cultural Marxism" is a snarl word used to paint anyone with progressive tendencies as a secret Communist. The term alludes to a conspiracy theory in which sinister left-wingers have infiltrated media, academia, and science and are engaged in a decades-long plot to undermine Western culture. Some variants of the conspiracy alleges that basically all of modern social liberalism is, in fact, a Communist front group.

This conspiracy theory hinges on the idea that the Frankfurt School wasn't just an arcane strain of academic criticism.[note 1] Instead, the Frankfurt School was behind an ongoing Marxist plot to destroy the capitalist West from within, spreading its tentacles throughout academia and indoctrinating students to hate patriotism & freedom. Thus, rock'n'roll, Sixties counterculture, the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, homosexuality,[1] modern feminism, and in general all the "decay" in the West since the 1950s are allegedly products of the Frankfurt school.[2] It's also the work of the Jews.[3][4]

Try this:

[Speaker to Animals]

I think Jordan Peterson is a good avenue for the average normie who is still an actual liberal to understand what has happened to the left. Peterson is trying to preserve liberalism and the Enlightenment project. I don't agree with his politics at all, but we have a common enemy, and at least hearing it from a fellow liberal could help normies like DrY make sense of what is happening right now.

[Martin Hash]

Peterson speaks for OWG liberals, which I'd say are the majority of the people on this forum.

[Speaker to Animals]

Another good one:

[Speaker to Animals]

One more:

[DrYouth]

Thanks.
It's going to take me a bit to get through the material...
I'll post again when I have.

[DrYouth]

I got through the first half hour of the Jordan Peterson piece.
I am completely following his arguments.
I think he has identified a real threat in the culture and a serious problem in the education system.

His definition of Cultural Marxism is making sense to me.

I can now look at the Wikipedia entry from the lens you are.
A powerful reframe.

It's why I keep coming back to this forum.

I see that STA feels Peterson is only a first step for getting liberals to STA's level of Cultural Marxism clarity ... so I will check out his material next.

Wish me luck.

[DrYouth]

Another good one:

No argument here.

Still following the narrative.

This is a powerful critique... it follows seamlessly on Peterson's argument.