The Western Left took into account the experience of the Soviet Union and did not immediately begin to abolish private property and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. They took on arms "cultural Marxism", developed by the Frankfurt School, and establish "cultural hegemony."
To begin with, after the collapse of the USSR and the actual transition of China to capitalist rails, the history of Marxism and its variations in the world has not ended. On the contrary, in Europe and in the Anglo-Saxon world, socialist parties have quite strong positions, and sometimes form governments.
For example, socialists - in power in France, Italy, are part of the pro-government coalition in Germany. In the UK, the Laborites were in power for 13 years in a row - from 1997 to 2010. As of 2013, there were generally 15 left governments in Europe, although there were fewer of them to 2016. Presidents of the European Commission from 1999 to 2014 were representatives of the leftist camp: Italian Romano Prodi and Portuguese Jose Manuel Barroso. The latter since his student years was one of the leaders of the Portuguese Communist Workers' Party, whose official ideology was Maoism. In the European Parliament, the Socialists have the second largest faction, and until recently they had a majority. Speaking of the United States, the Democratic Party has taken a serious leap to the left in recent decades.
The revival of the left ideology is also discussed in the Western press. In particular, in an article for World Affairs "New Communism: the Revival of a Utopian Mistake" (2012), Alan Johnson notes this as a threat, especially for idealistic youth. In the article for The Guardian, "Why Marxism is on the rise again" (2012), the socialist, Stuart Jeffries, writes that for young people, Marxism is no longer associated with Stalin's camps, and adds: "Of course, there is no direct line from the Communist Manifesto to the Gulag."
Undoubtedly, the Western Left has taken into account the experience of the Soviet Union and does not immediately begin to abolish private property and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. They took on arms "cultural Marxism", developed by the Frankfurt School, and establish a "cultural hegemony" for Antonio Gramsci. But in order to understand the logic of these processes, it is necessary to recall what exactly Marxism is, and make a short digression into history.
The key aims of Marxism are set forth in the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" (1848) of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, which it would be nice to refresh in the memory of our fellow citizens.
- Destruction of private property.This is what is most known, but in fact is not the only goal of Marxism.
- Destruction of the family."Destruction of the family! Even the most extreme radicals are indignant at this vile intention of the Communists ... You Communists want to introduce a community of wives! The entire bourgeoisie shouted to us in chorus. There is nothing more ridiculous than the highly moral horror of our bourgeoisie about the alleged official community of wives among the Communists. Communists do not need to enter the community of wives, it existed almost always. "
- Destruction of the concepts of "fatherland" and "nation"."The Communists are reproached, as if they want to abolish the fatherland, nationality. The workers do not have a fatherland. They can not take away what they do not have. "
- Destruction of religion."We will be told ..." communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes religion, morality, instead of renewing them ... The communist revolution is the most decisive break with inherited property relations from the past; it is not surprising that in the course of her development she decisively breaks with ideas inherited from the past. "
As we see, Marxism is not limited exclusively to the economy, but is a complex ideology that claims to be inclusive and a "comprehensive revolution" in public relations. The ultimate goal of Marxism can be considered the creation of a "new man" and a new social "community" - a utopian society where people would be absolutely equal and free from everything from exploitation, moral norms, family ties, duties to the state, etc. Is such freedom and equality really good for humanity? The question is rhetorical.
With common goals, the Marxists disagreed in the tools: some we know as moderate, others as radical ones. The latter prevailed in Russia. In Europe, however, they were more inclined to gradual changes and a "creeping revolution."
One of the key ideologists of 20th century Marxism, the Italian Antonio Gramsci, visited the USSR in 1922-1924, met with Vladimir Lenin and saw the resistance that the policy of the Bolsheviks evoked in still patriarchal popular masses.
Disappointed in the Soviet project, Gramsci developed his own theory of "revolutionary transition" - the theory of cultural hegemony. It consists in first preparing a social ground, changing the outlook of the broad masses, making the ideology of Marxism, literally, the "people's religion," and then establishing its communist paradise.
The Soviet scientist Sergei Kara-Murza describes this theory in this way: "According to Gramsci, both the establishment and the undermining of hegemony is a" molecular "process. It proceeds not as a clash of class forces, but as an invisible, in small portions, a change in thoughts and moods in the minds of each person. Hegemony relies on the "cultural core" of society, which includes a set of ideas about the world and man, about good and evil, beautiful and disgusting, about the multitude of symbols and images, traditions and prejudices, knowledge and experience of many centuries. While this core is stable, in society there is a "persistent collective will", aimed at preserving the existing order. The undermining of this "cultural core" and the destruction of this collective will is a condition of the revolution. The creation of this condition is a "molecular" aggression into the cultural core. It is not a prophecy of some truth that would make a revolution in the mind, a kind of insight. This "a huge number of books, brochures, magazine and newspaper articles, conversations and disputes, endlessly repeating."
The main actor in the establishment and undermining of cultural hegemony Gramsci considers the intelligentsia, or, in modern slang, the leaders of thoughts, who must articulate the "correct" messages. Not only the proletariat, but also various "oppressed groups" are becoming their executors: "They are not only economically depressed but also women, ethnic minorities and many criminals," he writes in Prison Notes.
Gramsci concludes his work as follows: "The cultural plan will be mainly negative, it will reduce to criticism of the past and to obliterate the old and to destroy it, and the plan for positive construction will be outlined in very" general outlines, "which at any moment it is possible (and necessary) to change so that the plan responds to the newly created economic structure. "
The theory of Gramsci was perceived by Marxists in the West and found continuation and development in the so-called Frankfurt school, among whose ideologists were the Hungarian revolutionary Gyorgy Lukacs, the German philosopher Max Horkheimer, later joined psychologist Erich Fromm, sexologist Wilhelm Reich, sociologists Theodore Adorno and Herbert Marcuse. In 1933, after the seizure of power by the Nazis, the founders of the school were forced to move from Germany to the United States, where they developed their activities.
The main scientific direction of the Frankfurt School was the so-called critical theory, with the help of which, from the standpoint of Marxism and Freud's psychoanalysis, according to Gramsci's instructions, literally all the "old" that existed in the West and that constituted the core of Western culture was subjected to methodological criticism.
The key objects of criticism were, for example, the following concepts.
Family Institute, and not just a family, but a traditional Christian family headed by a father. Theodore Adorno in his work "Authoritarian Personality" comes to the conclusion that education in such a family leads to fascism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and has become one of the factors of the Holocaust. In return, it is proposed to break the distribution of gender roles in the family through the matriarchal and androgynous theories (the latter obliterates the differences in sexes and asserts "interchangeability").
Christianity. In addition to the Adorno book mentioned above, we will also mention the work of Erich Fromm "Dogma about Christ". In it, he analyzes Christianity "on molecules" from the standpoint of Freud's psychoanalysis. Fromm turns out that Christianity is nothing more than an "old myth about a rebellious son, an expression of a hostile attitude toward the father." Although this sounds less aggressive than Adorno's attempt to tie Christianity to fascism.
Sexual morality. It was the representative of the Frankfurt School, Wilhelm Reich, with his book “The Sexual Revolution” introduced the term put in its title and was an active advocate of liberation from sexual morality. Recall that at the dawn of the USSR, the Bolsheviks also defended “free love”, an active supporter of which was the revolutionary and Soviet diplomat Alexander Kollontai. It all ended with the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and the rapid closure of the experiment.
Next came Herbert Marcuse, who with his works "Eros and Civilization" and "One-Dimensional Man" simultaneously asserted the "pleasure principle" and "great rejection" of the dominant values of Western civilization in all its varieties. All this in the complex had a huge impact on the popularization of Marxism among the rebellious western youth 1960. Marcuse himself becomes a cult figure for them. During the Paris uprising 1968, students carried banners with the inscription: "Marx, Mao and Marcuse."
In the work "One-Dimensional Man," he develops Gramsci's thesis about "oppressed groups" as the engine of revolutionary change-instead of the proletariat: "However, under the conservative majority of the people, a layer of underprivileged and outsiders, exploited and persecuted by representatives of other races and colored, unemployed and disabled ".
It is in various "oppressed groups" that the Marxists have since seen the main engine of the revolutionary struggle against the system. These groups are feminists, representatives of national, sexual, religious and other minorities.
And now we will return to 2016 and look at the positions that the leftist parties in the West are advocating today.
- Multiculturalism.It is the socialist parties that are the main adherents of the idea of reducing the barriers for migrants and refugees from the countries of the third world. Such a policy is very pragmatically connected with the fact that the leftists themselves are in favor of broad assistance to the "needy" from the budget, and these migrant workers are mainly migrants. When inviting migrants, the left creates an electoral base that guarantees them votes in elections.
Multiculturalism also fulfills the strategic goal indicated in the Communist Manifesto: the destruction of the concepts of "nation" and "homeland." Inviting migrants and setting up ethnic minorities against their own state, society from a single monolith turns into a heterogeneous mix, and its parts no longer have a sense of duty and love for the state in which they live.
- Tolerance and political correctness.It was Herbert Marcuse who was the first to use "tolerance" as an instrument of struggle in the work "Repressive Tolerance." He writes: "Thus, tolerance, which frees, must mean intolerance to right movements and tolerance to left movements. As for the scope of this tolerance and intolerance, it must concern both actions and discussions, and propaganda, both deeds and words. "
The Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, whom the USSR once exchanged for Luis Corvalan and now resides in the UK, believes that political correctness is worse than Leninism: "There are laws about hate speech - the language of hatred, something like article 70 of the Soviet Criminal Code, on which I was tried. "The language of hatred" declared any mention of racial differences or sexual inclinations. You have no right to admit the obvious facts. If you mention them publicly it's a crime. "
- Rights of LGBT people.This item is also mandatory in the programs of Western socialists. First of all, it is aimed at the final destruction of the family, which, we recall, is one of the key goals of the Communist Manifesto.
When same-sex marriages are legalized, the connection between enjoyment and the birth of a child is broken. These processes are already virtually unrelated. Thus, the next logical step is the question: why partners in a marriage should be, in fact, two?
The Washington Times quotes the well-known Russian LGBT activist Masha Gessen: "The struggle for same-sex marriage, as a rule, includes untruth about what we will do with marriage when we reach the goal. This is elementary: the institution of marriage should not exist! "At the same time, she notes that she herself has three children with five parents. "I do not understand why you can not have five parents legally," she says.
The education of children in same-sex families is, in fact, a great social experiment, which had not yet taken place in the history of mankind. And such experiments on children with unpredictable consequences are absolutely immoral, although they are very typical for Marxists.
- Radical feminism.Another item on the left agenda. Quoted above, Vladimir Bukovsky, who worked as a neurophysiologist in the United States, recalls: "This is the first time I've encountered this in 1983 or 1984. I was going to my laboratory, and two girls were coming down the steps. I held the door for them. They looked at me with contempt and said: "Men's chauvinistic pig." I understood nothing and was very surprised. I told my colleagues, they began to laugh: "So it's from the University of Berkeley. From there go all the left radical movements. This is some new fashion - feminists, they say that when we, men, behave with a woman as a woman, we humiliate her. "
- Early sexual education of children.This point is also typical of Marxists. The founder of the Frankfurt School, Hungarian revolutionary György Lukács, who was acting in 1919. People's Commissar of Education of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, introduced a course of radical sexual education for Hungarian schoolchildren. His colleague Wilhelm Reich in the book Sexual Revolution also actively advocates the "rights" of children and adolescents in the sexual sphere: "In 1928, when I founded the Socialist Society for Sexual Research and Sexual Counseling in Vienna, rights of children and adolescents in the sexual sphere. Politicians drove us out of their organizations, as we defended the rights of children and adolescents to natural love. "
Today, sexual education of children provides, in particular, teaching homosexuality as norms, and even the imposition of the idea of "gender identity", that is, that a child can change his gender when he "feels" that he is not a girl, but a boy, and vice versa. It is clear, at an early age, children are very susceptible, so the increase in the number of sex-change operations is not the least due to this.
It is curious that in Aldous Huxley's anti-Utopia "Beautiful New World", the sexual education of children and "free love" were mandatory elements of the "anti-utopian" device.
- Transgendered.So, actually, the phenomenon is called when a man thinks that he is actually a woman, and vice versa. It would seem that they should consider themselves, but the left advocates even that such transgender people can use all the "services" provided for their "true" sex. We are talking, for example, that a man who considers himself a woman has the right to visit women's toilets, and to challenge this right is intolerant.
CNN columnist John Sutter, specializing in the description on the CNN website, on the theme of "social justice," in his blog (May 2016) suggests a "toilet revolution". He writes: "But do you know what else is absurd? The idea that Sheffield (a transgender) or someone else should choose a male or female toilet at all. This is not a binary gender world. People do not fit into the patterns of "M" and "F". It's time for our public latrines to display it. A fair way to do this is to desaggregate latrines on the basis of gender, and this means the elimination of male and female marks in favor of latrines with the mark "All floors."
Not surprisingly, Sutter further compares the struggle of transgender people for their rights with the struggle for black rights in 1960 and gays in 1980.
- Unconditional income.The concept of unconditional income provides that every citizen gets the right to a guaranteed monthly income, regardless of whether he works or not. Similar experiments are already taking place in some cities in the Netherlands, Germany, Canada and Finland. In June 2016 held a referendum on unconditional income in Switzerland, but was defeated. In the country's parliament, the idea also found no support, and virtually all parties except the "left-green" voted against.
These are the key positions on which the neo-Marxists are today.
Separately note that the mainstay of Marxism in the West are universities. In an article for The Financial Times, "Political Herd Thinking Harms Universities" (2016), John Kay cites survey data among US and UK professors, from 60 to 90% of whom adhere to left-liberal views. Political commentator Dinesh D'Souza writes that "there are more Marxists at the faculties of American elite colleges than in all of Russia and Eastern Europe combined," and talks about the influence of leftist teachers on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in their student years. Even in Australia, they are outraged by the activity of Marxist teachers (Andrew Bolt. "We pay for teaching Marxist policies." - Herald Sun, 2014).
Such a "policy" of universities can not but affect students. In the poll of Franco Luntza (February 2016) among Americans from 18 to 26 years, the most "humane" economic system is socialism - 58%, capitalism - 33% and communism - 9%. The survey conducted by the Harvard Institute of Politics (April 2016) among young people aged 18 to 29 years, gives slightly different results: 52% for capitalism and 41% for socialism (among those who vote in elections). It is curious that socialism, as a rule, is more supported by 18-20-year-olds (41%), Democrats (50), voters Clinton (54), Hispanics (38) and African Americans (39%). That is, the rate of Gramsci and Marcuse to play on the feelings of the "oppressed groups" is still working now.
Of course, as a reaction to the above phenomena, there is also opposition. First of all, it is the growing popularity of the right in Europe, the referendum in the UK regarding the withdrawal from the EU (in particular, because of Brussels' refugee policy) and the success of Donald Trump in the United States, which made it a fight against political correctness, tolerance and migrants. But in general the ideas of "cultural Marxism" penetrated quite deeply into the minds of people and, according to Gramsci, have become here and there a "people's religion". At the same time, many adherents of the ideas of "cultural Marxism" do not even realize their Marxist origin.
Of course, all of the above does not mean that the rights of minorities do not need to be protected or do not seek equality. But if you attach the same "offended" minorities to social assistance, you are actually harming them, for life on state aid leads to degradation. It is better to teach these people to earn. Or, if you emphasize that any dismissal from the work of an African American or a Muslim is the basis for a claim to a court, they will soon cease to be recruited, which, again, will only hurt them. Or if you tell homosexuals or transgender people that their condition is an occasion for pride, and not for understanding yourself, it is also more to the detriment of them. Socialists want to become nannies for all, so as not to offend someone's "feelings." And the doctor to help, sometimes needs to hurt. This is the essence of common sense. If the task is to really help, and not use someone for their own purposes.