Marxism has adapted and is now more dangerous.
It has been translated from economic to cultural terms. [Text
The Origins of Political Correctness”]here.] “Political correctness” is really Cultural Marxism. Thought-control, in my opinion, is more abhorrent than property-control, especially when it’s so subtly and transformatively hostile to Catholic Christianity.
Paul Gottfried (via David Gordon’s review) is particularly
insightful.
The managerial state wishes to weaken, if not cripple altogether, any social group not under its control. The favored minorities who benefit from multiculturalism depend entirely on the state for their enhanced position: strengthening them weakens those who might prove recalcitrant to the state’s domination. A majority culture not created by the state is in a position effectively to resist its absolute mastery; hence the state claims that the historically dominant culture is but one of many competing groups, enjoying no privileged status. As a result, civil society loses its independent status and becomes totally subject to the state’s power.
To secure its position, the managerial state imposes an ideological orthodoxy. This in effect becomes the state religion and nonbelievers fare no better than heretics customarily do. Gott-fried questions "an association that has been made since the pioneering research of Max Weber and Ernst Troeltsch between secularization and modernization.
Never one to stifle intellectual diversity of ideas, I should also highlight some
criticism of Gottfried’s take.
According to Prof. Gottfried this shift from economics to culture means the death of Marxism, because Marxism is an economic theory. He claims that the views of the no-longer extant communist parties on women and family life resembled those of pre-Vatican 2 Catholics. On this point I disagree with prof. Gottfried. Though Karl Marx never propagated sexual promiscuity, homosexuality and other “alternative” lifestyles, it should be noted, however, that Ludwig von Mises in his 1922 book
Socialism pointed out – correctly I think – that
Socialism demands promiscuity in sexual life because it consciously neglects the contractual idea:
“Free love is the socialist’s radical solution for sexual problems …] The family disappears and society is confronted with separate individuals only. Choice in love becomes completely free. Men and women unite and separate just as their desires urge.”
The Socialist paradigm, which entails the deliberate neglect of any contract or moral principle that does not serve the current political objectives of the State, results in both the expansion of sexual liberty and the disappearance of economic liberty. Economic liberty and prosperity cannot exist unless people are true to their promises and the assumed set of moral rules by which partners are bound within a certain culture. Consequently, Socialism leads to the disappearance of all forms of partnership. Nothing is left but the individual and the State.
In order to fight Cultural Marxist Statism, there need to be individuals whom are willing martyrs to its threatened force, viz. job-firing and character-assassination. We have to
unapologetically defy the “good-intentions” of its supporters in public and even suffer the consequences if we must, for that’s the only way to inspire others to do likewise, lest the PC-movement keep silently proceeding without opposition. However, when I say that individuals must rebel, I don’t mean that their battles can be waged completely alone. They will require strong support from integrated communities, the greatest obstacle to Marxism, i.e., groups of further individuals whom are going to stand by and defend subjects of the latest public reputation-lynching. And why not Catholic ones? I contend that Cultural Marxism is idolatry; it’s simple heresy – heresy which ought to be carefully expelled from the values of our Church.
