Why Political Correctness (Cultural Marxism) Must End!

[Oerwinde]

 

 

And why is Marxism bad?

It advocates for bloody revolution to steal the property of others to enforce poverty.

What do you think is the link between equity and poverty?

People respond to incentives. If you penalize hard work, ambition, and innovation by redistributing the wealth generated by such, and incentivize those who aren't hard working, ambitious, or innovative by giving him the fruits of the others work, you eventually get people who see no point in working. If the society isn't productive and the wealth at the top redistributed to the bottom, you get poverty across the board. So the only options are to enforce work through force, or allow free capitalism.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

The Alt-Right is just another lazy attempt to categorize anyone outside the mainstream rightwing as i see very little in common between catholic monarchists and american neo-nazis.

Well, maybe look harder then. The common element is their longing for a return to a past they see as better, characterized by blind discipline, nationalism (with or without racialist tints), little tolerance for deviation from the social norms, political authoritarianism in diverse forms, etc. It's important to note that this representation of the past may or may not be accurate, but accuracy is less important than the feels from romantizicing the past.

 

In short: reactionarism. The necessary and sufficient condition to be considered part of the alt-right.

 

 

Conservatism in general is like that. You want to preserve a past that possibly didn't even existed to begin with.

 

Preserving something that has never existed sounds like an oxymoron to me.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

And why is Marxism bad?

It advocates for bloody revolution to steal the property of others to enforce poverty.

What do you think is the link between equity and poverty?

People respond to incentives. If you penalize hard work, ambition, and innovation by redistributing the wealth generated by such, and incentivize those who aren't hard working, ambitious, or innovative by giving him the fruits of the others work, you eventually get people who see no point in working. If the society isn't productive and the wealth at the top redistributed to the bottom, you get poverty across the board. So the only options are to enforce work through force, or allow free capitalism.

I realise (and so does Marx) that communism is only doable with non-selfish humans, which are a work of fiction. I previously already explained what I believe to be practically applyable everywhere where people feel t is right to do.

 

But see how much more civilised your criticism now is? Before, it was barley scraping the surface, now it is viable criticism of an idea

Edited November 13, 2016 by Ben No.3

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

Wasn't i clear? It changes, and has historically changed, depending what the current political standards are at place.

wait, what? You lost me there... Are you seriously saying that Marx and Mussolini both followed the same ideology only in different times?

 

No.

 

As the etymology of the word describes, it is the voicing of an opinion that goes against the current political dogma. In the 80's and 90's it was fit to call it a form of fascism because of the conservatives in the US enforcing moral purity everywhere. Today it is political incorrect to go against equality.

Isn't going against equality against the very foundation of the US? "That all men are created equal, that they have been endowed by their creator with with certain unalienable rights" and so on.... Going against equality is a much more serious issue than the overuse of political correctness

 

 

What you think qualifies for equality has nothing to do with what political correctness is.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

The Alt-Right is just another lazy attempt to categorize anyone outside the mainstream rightwing as i see very little in common between catholic monarchists and american neo-nazis.

Well, maybe look harder then. The common element is their longing for a return to a past they see as better, characterized by blind discipline, nationalism (with or without racialist tints), little tolerance for deviation from the social norms, political authoritarianism in diverse forms, etc. It's important to note that this representation of the past may or may not be accurate, but accuracy is less important than the feels from romantizicing the past.

 

In short: reactionarism. The necessary and sufficient condition to be considered part of the alt-right.

 

 

Conservatism in general is like that. You want to preserve a past that possibly didn't even existed to begin with.

 

Preserving something that has never existed sounds like an oxymoron to me.

 

 

Well, we are all dreamers after all, no matter the political inclination. Some other people are dreaming of futures that will never exist either.

[HoonDing]

Marx & Mussolini were both cucks.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

 

Wasn't i clear? It changes, and has historically changed, depending what the current political standards are at place.

 

wait, what? You lost me there... Are you seriously saying that Marx and Mussolini both followed the same ideology only in different times?

 

No.

 

As the etymology of the word describes, it is the voicing of an opinion that goes against the current political dogma. In the 80's and 90's it was fit to call it a form of fascism because of the conservatives in the US enforcing moral purity everywhere. Today it is political incorrect to go against equality.

Isn't going against equality against the very foundation of the US? "That all men are created equal, that they have been endowed by their creator with with certain unalienable rights" and so on.... Going against equality is a much more serious issue than the overuse of political correctness

 

What you think qualifies for equality has nothing to do with what political correctness is.

I think "equality" in this context means that all humans regardless of gender, race, social class, religion, personal beliefs, past, sexual orientation and identity and whatever other differences there might be should be considered equal, but please do explain to me what your definition is

[Ben No.3]

Marx & Mussolini were both cucks.

i agree with you on Mussolini being an a$$, not on Marx though. I explained my view pretty detailed, so mind to share yours? Edited November 13, 2016 by Ben No.3

[Ben No.3]

Also, am I the only one wondering why "dangerous ****" is a tag to this thread?

[algroth]

 

 

 

 

 

Wasn't i clear? It changes, and has historically changed, depending what the current political standards are at place.

wait, what? You lost me there... Are you seriously saying that Marx and Mussolini both followed the same ideology only in different times?

 

No.

 

As the etymology of the word describes, it is the voicing of an opinion that goes against the current political dogma. In the 80's and 90's it was fit to call it a form of fascism because of the conservatives in the US enforcing moral purity everywhere. Today it is political incorrect to go against equality.

Isn't going against equality against the very foundation of the US? "That all men are created equal, that they have been endowed by their creator with with certain unalienable rights" and so on.... Going against equality is a much more serious issue than the overuse of political correctness

 

What you think qualifies for equality has nothing to do with what political correctness is.

I think "equality" in this context means that all humans regardless of gender, race, social class, religion, personal beliefs, past, sexual orientation and identity and whatever other differences there might be should be considered equal, but please do explain to me what your definition is

 

I'll bite the bullet.

 

So... Equality is an ideal the US constitution stands for, which has unfortunately not yet been reached because still to this day Western society is tipped to the favour of some minorities over others, largely for standing prejudices, discrimination and so on. Political correctness is an attempt to forcefully correct this on a social and systemic level, but it is rather more like throwing a mantle over the tensions that still exist between minorities. Political correctness is not equality so much as it is a means to reach to it, and thus you can certainly address and attack this approach without standing against the notion of equality.

Edited November 13, 2016 by algroth

[Blarghagh]

 

 

 

And why is Marxism bad?

It advocates for bloody revolution to steal the property of others to enforce poverty.

What do you think is the link between equity and poverty?

People respond to incentives.

 

This goes against all recent research on employee productivity, though. This seems to have been true in the industrial age where everyone did algorithmic tasks and everyone worked to survive, but a significant chunk of that has been replaced by technology with more to come. Incentives for heuristic tasks, especially for people who live comfortably, have been shown to decrease employee productivity and motivation enormously. Rewards in these situations work well, but only if people don't know they're coming. Nobody's yet figured why, but for western middle class or higher the wisdom of "people need incentives" doesn't hold true.

[Ben No.3]

TrueNeutral, you just gave me a bag full of arguments thank you

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wasn't i clear? It changes, and has historically changed, depending what the current political standards are at place.

 

wait, what? You lost me there... Are you seriously saying that Marx and Mussolini both followed the same ideology only in different times?

 

No.

 

As the etymology of the word describes, it is the voicing of an opinion that goes against the current political dogma. In the 80's and 90's it was fit to call it a form of fascism because of the conservatives in the US enforcing moral purity everywhere. Today it is political incorrect to go against equality.

Isn't going against equality against the very foundation of the US? "That all men are created equal, that they have been endowed by their creator with with certain unalienable rights" and so on.... Going against equality is a much more serious issue than the overuse of political correctness

 

What you think qualifies for equality has nothing to do with what political correctness is.

I think "equality" in this context means that all humans regardless of gender, race, social class, religion, personal beliefs, past, sexual orientation and identity and whatever other differences there might be should be considered equal, but please do explain to me what your definition is

I'll bite the bullet.

 

So... Equality is an ideal the US constitution stands for, which has unfortunately not yet been reached because still to this day Western society is tipped to the favour of some minorities over others, largely for standing prejudices, discrimination and so on. Political correctness is an attempt to forcefully correct this on a social and systemic level, but it is rather more like throwing a mantle over the tensions that still exist between minorities. Political correctness is not equality so much as it is a means to reach to it, and thus you can certainly approach and attack the notion of political correctness without standing against the notion of equality.

Fair point! Here is the problem with political correctness as I see it:

 

What PC should be:

A moral boundary that socially punishes those who oppose equality of people based on racism, sexism, etc.

 

What it has become:

A censorship that is overprotective and tries to make everyone happy, but in doing so only creates confusion and doesn't really help.

 

So, I'd say PC is a good idea, only it has been extremely overused and thus lost its power.

[Blarghagh]

TrueNeutral, you just gave me a bag full of arguments thank you

 

Highly recommend "Drive" by Daniel Pink as a nice starting point. He sums up and points to a lot of research regarding intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and how they affect algorithmic and heuristic tasks differently.

 

I like to think that the reason Marxism off-shoots haven't worked is because they started from points where everyone's poor. Now people being under the poverty line is seen as a problem, not the standard so it's possible that western civilisations could make it work. The real test will be once a country or larger area decides to adopt the "basic income" idea. If that doesn't work, going steps further won't either. For all my cynicism and snark about current society, I wholehearedly believe we can solve it and we shouldn't be held back because "it sounds like this, and that didn't work before".

[Zoraptor]

WHAT is "cultural Marxism" even supposed to mean? Has anyone here actually read Marx?

 

The people who use the phrase almost always haven't read Marx.

 

TrueNeutral gave you the practical answer, ie it's a convenient label for internet arguments, the theoretical answer is that 'cultural marxism' sees everything in culture as being equal in the same way as economic marxism sees everybody in economics as being equal, with the inevitable consequence being that everything is devalued. While it describes an actual phenomenon the label itself is pure politics. Marxism is used because it's a 'bad' word that vaguely describes the process.

 

Overall it's... pretty stupid. If you're worried about culture being dumbed down then I think the inevitable conclusion has to be that it's popular culture doing most of it. And popular culture is essentially capitalist. A few goateed fedora wearers going to see somebody's Menstrual Artwork is not going to end Western Civilisation.

 

Of course some people manage to combine mass media and marxism as factors which is where you get 'jews are turning goy stupid with mass media because jews love making money, and marxism' type conspiracies.

[algroth]

The issue I see with that distinction is that it is very easy for the former to fall into the latter. If there is any aspect to which I'd think political correctness is positive is in helping to advance a neutral and equitative vision of the law and government to all minorities regardless of race, gender, ideology, beliefs, nationality, class and so on. But when it applies to society and interpersonal relationship/contact, that's when things go awry. To my mind, part of why this happens is not least because the system acts as a terrible barometre to what is and is not a form of discrimination. Calling a man "black" instead of "African American" regardless of context is not being racist, and yet in the eyes of many advocators of political correctness, it is so: by ignoring the context however you cannot take into account the tone in which it was spoken, who it was spoken to, to what purpose... You are chastised for using the word "black". And yet again, going to the Zizek videos, how do we know there are not people who feel offended by the term "Native American"? If they do, should we disallow it, and change it for something further out there and likely just as arbitrary? Maybe some "Native Americans" prefer to be called Indians, as with the example in that video. You can't establish a system with which to police every use of one such term or another, to do so is to further feed a barrier of "respect" that is at once illogical and alienating.

 

Edit: Was responding to Ben here.

Edited November 13, 2016 by algroth

[Ben No.3]

 

WHAT is "cultural Marxism" even supposed to mean? Has anyone here actually read Marx?

 

The people who use the phrase almost always haven't read .

I did... But mainly about Marx, not of himself... Poor writing skills imo, not very interesting to read

 

CLARIFICATION: I by no means consider myself an expert on Marx, I only have a rough idea. but I do think I've read more than the average user around here

Edited November 13, 2016 by Ben No.3

[Ben No.3]

Responding to algroth

 

I completely agree with you. And to be honest, I have no idea what to change. But it seems to work... At least over here, we only stop people from being actually racist, sexist, etc... We even make fun of Americas extreme political correctness. But honestly don't know what we are doing differently, but I do know that it works.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Ben No.3

[Ben No.3]

 

TrueNeutral, you just gave me a bag full of arguments thank you

 

 

Highly recommend "Drive" by Daniel Pink as a nice starting point. He sums up and points to a lot of research regarding intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and how they affect algorithmic and heuristic tasks differently.

 

I like to think that the reason Marxism off-shoots haven't worked is because they started from points where everyone's poor. Now people being under the poverty line is seen as a problem, not the standard so it's possible that western civilisations could make it work. The real test will be once a country or larger area decides to adopt the "basic income" idea. If that doesn't work, going steps further won't either. For all my cynicism and snark about current society, I wholehearedly believe we can solve it and we shouldn't be held back because "it sounds like this, and that didn't work before".

We two will get along excellently

[algroth]

Responding to algroth

 

I completely agree with you. And to be honest, I have no idea what to change. But it seems to work... At least over here, we only stop people from being actually racist, sexist, etc... We even make fun of Americas extreme political correctness. But honestly don't know what we are doing differently, but I do know that it works.

Same here, really (I'm from Argentina). Political correctness is mostly an American issue and, by consequence, an internet issue. The rest of the world seems unencumbered by it, really.

[Guard Dog]

 

Ben this whole "cultural Marxism" sounds like a made up term to me. Marxism is an economic theory. It doesn't really translate to social mores. The countries that practices the economics of Marx were just garden variety totalitarian states. But then they would have to be because who in their right minds would practice Marxist economics voluntarily.

I'm happy that we can have a civilised debate on this subject

As a person that is generally more in favour than against Marx, let me try to answer that. First of all, some historical background: Marx created his theory during the time of the industrial revolution. It was a time of extreme class division between wealthy and poor, an extreme injustice towards the poor. 16 work hours a day with little pay and no security whatsoever was common. Insurance or workers rights were unheard of. So, in this situation there comes Marx. And he is against this injustice and comes up with something he considers a better system. Now, extreme circumstances create extreme opinions, and so he created the idea of communism and the absence of such things as say private property.

Now, I agree with you that Marx concrete ideas are not viable. They are to extreme, and for them to work they'd require "better" humans (and Marx even admits pretty much exactly this) without any sense of egotistical motivations. But that doesn't mean that the underlying thought is bad. Now, I like to refer to "everyone according to his abilities, to everyone according to his needs". It basically means that everyone contributes as much as he can to society, and everyone is given as much as he needs by society. And to be honest, if Marx would have been around in for example today's Germany, I think he probably would be quite happy and would not have come up with similarly extreme thoughts. BUT as I said, I still support the underlying thought. And to realise especially the second part (everyone is given as much as he needs), you need government intervention to protect workers rights or society. I'm not saying all capitals is bad (that's a ridiculous claim), but I'm saying a fusion of the two is great, something we in Germany would refer to as "social market economy".

 

Free market is great! But society should do two things:

1. Give everyone as much as he needs, so I heavily support such things as free healthcare, free education (both school and university), good welfare and so on (I'm also a supporter of guaranteed basic income, an idea where everyone gets a small number of money every month regardless of everything; the money is to assure a certain standard of living for everyone)

 

2. Every member of society needs to contribute as it is necessary to support the system in place: basically means high taxes

 

I'll come back to this... pressed for time right now

[Meshugger]

I live in a country that had it's version of political correctness.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization

 

 

However, from the political scene following the post-1968 radicalisation, the Soviet adaptation spread to the editors of mass media, sparking strong forms of self-control, self-censorship and pro-Soviet attitudes. Most of the élite of media and politics shifted their attitudes to match the values that the Soviets were thought to favor and approve.

Only after the ascendancy of Mikhail Gorbachev to Soviet leadership in 1985 did mass media in Finland gradually begin to criticise the Soviet Union more. When the Soviet Union allowed non-communist governments to take power in Eastern Europe, Gorbachev suggested they could look to Finland as an example to follow.

 

 

 

The Finnish political cartoonist Kari Suomalainen once explained Finlandization as the art of bowing to the East without mooning the West.

 

Growing up in that time period and having access to foreign TV-channels was surreal at times. Especially when it came to the news.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Meshugger

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

 

Wasn't i clear? It changes, and has historically changed, depending what the current political standards are at place.

wait, what? You lost me there... Are you seriously saying that Marx and Mussolini both followed the same ideology only in different times?

 

No.

 

As the etymology of the word describes, it is the voicing of an opinion that goes against the current political dogma. In the 80's and 90's it was fit to call it a form of fascism because of the conservatives in the US enforcing moral purity everywhere. Today it is political incorrect to go against equality.

Isn't going against equality against the very foundation of the US? "That all men are created equal, that they have been endowed by their creator with with certain unalienable rights" and so on.... Going against equality is a much more serious issue than the overuse of political correctness

 

What you think qualifies for equality has nothing to do with what political correctness is.

I think "equality" in this context means that all humans regardless of gender, race, social class, religion, personal beliefs, past, sexual orientation and identity and whatever other differences there might be should be considered equal, but please do explain to me what your definition is

 

You are confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. The former is freedom, the latter is oppression. In the US we have true equality of opportunity. Anyone can go to college. Anyone can start a business, anyone can become anything the want to be, or at least try as hard as they wish to. Not everyone is willing to do what it takes, and even doing it is no guarantee of success. 

 

The latter by necessity reduces everyone to the lowest common denominator. There is no motivation to work harder, innovate, invent, or anything. It will get you nothing the guy sweeping the floor doesn't get and he didn't have to work near as hard for it. 

 

As you an Marx pointed out we need superior human being who don't want. We're humans, not ants. It's a great system but it's not for humans. 

[Darkpriest]

 

 

 

 

And why is Marxism bad?

It advocates for bloody revolution to steal the property of others to enforce poverty.

What do you think is the link between equity and poverty?

People respond to incentives.

 

This goes against all recent research on employee productivity, though. This seems to have been true in the industrial age where everyone did algorithmic tasks and everyone worked to survive, but a significant chunk of that has been replaced by technology with more to come. Incentives for heuristic tasks, especially for people who live comfortably, have been shown to decrease employee productivity and motivation enormously. Rewards in these situations work well, but only if people don't know they're coming. Nobody's yet figured why, but for western middle class or higher the wisdom of "people need incentives" doesn't hold true.

 

 

Where and when? Cause I see a different type of data in my last two global companies... one I even oversaw partly an HR function... Everything revolves around incentives, not every incentive has to be monetary though.

 

There are two ground frame works, discipline, and motivation - motivation is BUILT around various incentives. You can't have someone continously motivated, if he is not being rewarded, and those rewards are the incentives. Not every reward is monetary, some respond to leadership type incetives, others recognition, etc... you could write a Ph.D paper around it.

 

 

There was also a topic of free market in the health care... a complete free market in the healthcare won't work. health is not car or orange juice, where you can easily compare various elements of the product, you also as a customer do not decide when you get ill, so you do not plan ahead for a certain type of expenditure. There needs to be some regulation, but before you'll get there, you need to estimate what's the value of a human life/wellbeing in a given society and that's not an easy discussion and even harder field to get some good quantifiers that you could use for some economic models... Some years ago, I've been into this when i finished my Masters and put for some materials for Ph.D. I've found an interesting concept of QALY (quality adjusted life years) as a form which could be used. Did not follow the health care economics since then. Perhaps it was somewhat refined or something better theory wise came up in the meanwhile.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wasn't i clear? It changes, and has historically changed, depending what the current political standards are at place.

 

wait, what? You lost me there... Are you seriously saying that Marx and Mussolini both followed the same ideology only in different times?

No.

 

As the etymology of the word describes, it is the voicing of an opinion that goes against the current political dogma. In the 80's and 90's it was fit to call it a form of fascism because of the conservatives in the US enforcing moral purity everywhere. Today it is political incorrect to go against equality.

Isn't going against equality against the very foundation of the US? "That all men are created equal, that they have been endowed by their creator with with certain unalienable rights" and so on.... Going against equality is a much more serious issue than the overuse of political correctness

What you think qualifies for equality has nothing to do with what political correctness is.

I think "equality" in this context means that all humans regardless of gender, race, social class, religion, personal beliefs, past, sexual orientation and identity and whatever other differences there might be should be considered equal, but please do explain to me what your definition is

You are confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. The former is freedom, the latter is oppression. In the US we have true equality of opportunity. Anyone can go to college. Anyone can start a business, anyone can become anything the want to be, or at least try as hard as they wish to. Not everyone is willing to do what it takes, and even doing it is no guarantee of success.

 

The latter by necessity reduces everyone to the lowest common denominator. There is no motivation to work harder, innovate, invent, or anything. It will get you nothing the guy sweeping the floor doesn't get and he didn't had ve to work near as hard for it.

 

As you an Marx pointed out we need superior human being who don't want. We're humans, not ants. It's a great system but it's not for humans.

YES!!! But it is no binary choice... It's not either communism or capitalism. We should combine the best of two worlds. Wouldn't you say? A free market, but with enogh regulations to disable the creation of an extreme two class system. laws that protect workers. Equality of education as in free schools and universities. Free healthcare. Welfare for those who lost their jobs. And again, all of this embedded in a free market. Edited November 13, 2016 by Ben No.3