Exposing Cultural Marxism

Not long ago I had an opportunity to hear Dr. Jefrey Breshears talk to the Georgia Tea Party about “The Origins of Cultural Marxism and Political Correctness.”  Although, as a student of social change, I have some knowledge about these matters, his presentation was so masterful that I saw many things from a new perspective.

Before I continue, I must disclose that Jefrey is a friend of mine.  More particularly, he has been a history professor at Georgia State and Kennesaw State Universities.  He is also the founder and guiding light behind the Areopagus, a Christian study organization.

Although Jefrey and I disagree about some things, most notably religious issues, I have learned to respect his intellectual honesty and devotion to moral causes.  He not only wants to promote Christianity, but to make the world a better place for us all.

To this end, he has sought to uncover the Marxist roots of contemporary progressive beliefs.  Most Americans are not aware that talk of “compassion” is actually a disguised effort to usher in a communist utopia.  The idea is to discredit the present to make room for a fictional future.

Dr. Breshears dealt with far too many aspects of cultural Marxism to be discussed within this short column, but let me mention two.  Each concerns intellectuals who are largely unknown to the public, but who laid the groundwork for what many people now think.

The first is the Italian communist journalist Antonio Gramsci.  Writing back in the 1920’s, he became aware that Marx’s predictions about the proletarian revolution were not coming true.  Ordinary workers were not rising up to support a socialist insurgency.  Most were happy to be left alone, as long as they had good-paying jobs.

Gramsci did not believe that this would change and so he sought another avenue to social transformation.  He decided that the change agents would have to come from the middle class.  If these folks could be converted to the communist cause, they would use their skills to promote it.

But how could this be achieved?  Why, by educating them in socialist orthodoxies.  And how could this be accomplished?  By taking over the schools and mainstream media.  In case you haven’t noticed, this is exactly what occurred in the United States and Europe.

As a college professor, I can attest to the fact that most of my colleagues are dedicated to advancing “progressive” ideals.  This is what they teach; it is the criterion they use to decide whom to hire.  Furthermore, because they also indoctrinate future teachers, it is what is largely taught in K-12.

As you may also realize, most journalists are imbued with neo-Marxism.  They too, despite the many failures of communist regimes, are convinced that only extreme egalitarian ideals can rescue us from the alleged oppression and discrimination inherent in capitalism.

Nowadays neo-Marxism is often labeled “social justice,” but it is just old wine in new bottles.  The same goes for “sexual liberation.”  This was the brainchild of Herbert Marcuse.  He argued that unless people are freed from bourgeois sexual repression, they can never be happy.

The real goal, however, was to disorganize society so completely that it would be vulnerable to a communist takeover.  Once people could no longer depend upon secure family attachments, they would be ripe for control by centralized authorities.

Today we see this attitude represented by the radical feminists.  Although they say their goal is to allow women to live up to their potential, their means of doing so is by destroying the commitments between husbands and wives and parents and their children.

The consequences of this cultural upheaval can be seen in the proliferation of divorce, cohabitation, and unwed parenthood.  Yet despite propaganda to the contrary, anyone who believes this development has increased our store of personal happiness is badly mistaken.

Cultural Marxism has been a disaster.  Dr. Breshears reminder of its roots is therefore a necessary corrective.  Unless we understand how our values have been subverted, we are unlikely to defend them.  If so, the path to ruin will be paved with the broken bottles of neo-socialist snake oil.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University