So, the term “race card” then meant the same thing it does now (demagogic appeals to racial solidarity). What’s your point?
Er, if you’re waiting for yourself to provide that fourth example (or, for that matter, replace the third example you did provide with a term that has, in fact, changed from one meaning to another), complaining to the rest of the board won’t help.
Sorry to bump this thread but I just couldn’t resist. Here is my definition of Cultural Marxism:
Cultural Marxism is colloquially known as “multiculturalism” or, less formally, Political Correctness.
Through the use of “Critical Theory” developed by the marxist philosophers of the Frankfurt School and held sacrosanct by the idealists of the “New Left”, indoctrinated Cultural Marxists utilize social class criticism to undermine “capitalist” bourgeois culture. The overarching goal is to reduce the cultural dominance of the “middle-class” in favor of the proletariat, a group that is seen as being more amenable to economic marxism.
In practice cultural marxists criticize the major cultural institutions of a society as being “racist” or “sexist” in order to undermine them and cause internal divisions within them. The ultimate goal is to turn a unified and functional culture into a dysfunctional and fractured one. They do this in the belief that such disorder will finally bring about Marx’s fabled “proletarian revolution”.
Well, that makes sense.
In other words, now it is like “Political Correctness,” nothing more than a glib dismissal thrown out by people who don’t like a topic or the direction of a discussion, based on a vague reference to an historical phenomenon that no longer exists.
Laugh it off, Mod Boy, but you’ll be first up against the wall when the Cultural Marxist Revolution comes!
Well, I won’t be holding my breath for an event that has already come and gone with less of a ripple that a feather falling into the ocean on a windy day. 
Cultural marxism (CM) refers to marxist type critique, moralism, and utopic idealization applied to cultural as opposed to class (e.g., instead of proletariat vs bourgeois, cultural marxists focus on victim versus cultural supremacist; instead of a communist utopia, they strive for a culturally “inclusive, diverse” utopia; their focus on “social justice” is cultural, race, or ethnic based, not class based.) PC merely refers to social taboos, typically established by the left; there’s an overlap between PC and CM, as the latter utilize PC, but the two are conceptually distinct. The difference is comparable to that between “morality” and “Islam.” As for “multiculturalism”, there are senses in which it’s basically cultural marxism by another name, but there are also senses in which it means something different such as the converse of assimilationist policy. Like PC, multiculturalism can be used as a means of achieving the CM utopia (e.g., by deconstructing national characters), but it is not CM, except when it is.
:dubious: That’s as much as to say that political correctness has “proletarian revolution” as its goal, which is entirely too ludicrous an idea to be taken seriously, and you fucking know it.
Nor does either equate to multiculturalism.
That has nothing to do with “proletarian revolution” either, of course.
:rolleyes: That VDARE piece by Paul Gottfried actually refers to the Southern Poverty Law Center as a “leftist vigilante group.” 'Nuff said, and less said the better.
So, basically, it is nothing more than a defunct academic exercise, the name of which is still waved about by crusaders from the Far Right to try to poison the well of any discussion in which they have too few facts, so they must wave the “Marx” boogeyman around, (even though he had nothing to do with it), to taint the discussion.
Basically, “cultural Marxism” is simply a bad mindset that libels the person for whom it is named by misapplying some eponymous ideas in totally inappropriate contexts, much like “social Darwinism.” And, as noted, the former is now not even pursued much in academia, remaining in the language only as an insult by people who need a handy code word for “bad” that does not get them branded as rude for using the words they would prefer to use.
While I’m sure it’s as dead as a canned sardine in academia, on the Intertubes “social Darwinism” is a phrase I still encounter people arguing for, as signifying a good thing.
Yes, but there’s “Marxism” in it, so it’s at least 30% more scary. Abloogybloogywoo !
Actually, the whole thing’s a mistranslation of "cultured Marxism." Workers of the world, would you care to discuss Baroque-era art and design?
My point was pretty simple and spot on topic: the term can have descriptive content. Let’s take the case of “fascist” as an example. “Fascist” can just mean “bad” in which case it has no content or context (think: “liberal fascism”) or “fascist” can mean “someone who embraces a political philosophy which values (whatever was characteristic of Spanish, Italian, Austrian, etc. fascism)” in which case it has content and context, even if the term is uttered with a sneer. Or as is the case more often, the term can be used as a pejorative to smear people who embrace a political philosophy which is thought to shares some fascist like characteristics (e.g., a value of hierarchy) or it can be used to describe political philosophies that reasonably resemble fascism (e.g., Pinochet’s’s Chile).
The same holds for “cultural marxist.” The point again is that there is a neutral usage of the term. Whether it meaningfully describes a contemporaneous movement is a separate issue, which we can discuss in the yet created thread: “Do cultural marxists still exist?”
Yes, but there’s only one – usage in reference to the long-gone academic school that called itself that.
Start that thread if you like, but the answer is no. In fact there never was such a movement, only a school.
Interesting comparison. I tend to treat serious discussions of actual fascism, (authoritarian governement, cultic leader, appeal to (often imaginary) “racial” superiority, etc.) with sufficient respect to engage in those discussions. On the other hand, people who use “fascism” as a mindless synonym for “bad,” (Islamo-fascism, Femi-nazis, fascist police, etc.), announce themselves to be less than capable of carrying out a serious discussion, resorting as they are to simply throwing out mis-applied meaningless phrases with no current relevance.
Similarly, if someone wanted to discuss the philosophies of a few now dead academics who embraced “cultural Marxism,” I might choose to participate in those discussions in the same way that I would discuss Athenian Democracy or other long departed social trends, but people who spout claims about “cultural Marxism” in the present tense simply render any further discussion moot, since they are merely abusing the term as a synonym for “bad” while pretending that the entire movement had not died out several decades ago.
Actually political correctness does have a marxist goal at its heart and here is the proof: “white trash”. It is perfectly acceptable to for anyone anywhere at anytime to openly label people as “white trash”, the term appears in the MSM frequently and leftist columnists and commenters use it with reckless abandon. Contrast that phrase with a similar disparaging phrase for blacks, hispanics, asians, or any other group and the hypocrisy is apparent. This is cultural marxism in action.
Racism is real, racism exists in every ethnic group and it is directed outward at every other ethnic group. Marxists, however, only recognize and act upon racist action coming from the “bourgeoisie” (in modern America the white “middle-class”) and they simultaneously deny the existence or relevance of racism directed toward the bourgeoisie. And it goes well beyond the hypocrisy of “political correctness”, look at Affirmative Action and Hate Crime Laws, these are clear examples of institutionalized racism against a specific segment of the population. Cultural Marxism is thriving, even if it goes by some other name among some other group of people. To parapharase Shakespeare: marxism by any other name smells just as rotten 
I don’t care much about your nonsense theory, but please don’t abuse Shakespeare like this.
:dubious: And how is that supposed to lead to proletarian revolution?!