The argument runs as follows. In the 1950s the West was going well. But a group of European Marxists (the Frankfurt School) had developed a new strategy. Instead of relying on a class war to win power they would instead begin a long march through the institutions. The 60s student rebellion gave these cultural Marxists their opportunity and they began to win influence in the institutions. This has then led to Western decline.
This theory of decline does have its merits. It refers to something real that did have seriously negative consequences in the West. It's worth understanding the particular theories generated by the Frankfurt School and how they influenced university life in particular from the 1960s onward.
But there are problems with the theory as well. And a major problem is the timing. The theory suggests that things were basically OK in the West until the 1960s. I don't think that's true and I'll give just one bit of evidence for that in a moment. Apart from this, the theory also suggests that the liberalism which dominated the West up to the 60s was also OK and that it was only when Cultural Marxists subverted this liberalism that things went wrong. That seems to me to let Western liberals off the hook and to discourage the kind of rethinking of liberal orthodoxy that needs to take place.
So what is some evidence that things were going seriously wrong before the 1960s? In 1941, when the Axis powers were triumphant in Europe, there was a conference of liberal Anglicans in Malvern, England. Led by the Archbishop of York and 23 bishops, these Anglicans wanted to lead "the ordering of the new society" which they were sure would emerge following the war.
How did they envisage this new society? Most notably, they were keen to build a European Union:
After the war our aim must be the unification of Europe as a cooperative commonwealth
There were also debates about dropping the importance of the mass in favour of social activism and of switching from private ownership of property. But what is really noteworthy are the speeches about how the old order must be swept away in favour of a completely new society - and this new society was envisaged in modern liberal terms.
Anyway, in 1942 an even more significant conference took place of American Protestant church leaders. This occurred in March around the time that the Japanese were invading Java (in other words, when the Axis powers were still predominant). 375 representatives of 30 denominations met together at Ohio Wesleyan University. What did they decide?
It was their view that the U.S. should lead the way in creating an international system of government. Here are some of the post-war policies they favoured:
- Worldwide freedom of immigration
- A world government of delegated powers
- Elimination of all tariff and quota restrictions on world trade
- International control of all armies and navies
The ultimate aim to be achieved was the following:
a duly constituted world government of delegated powers; an international legislative body, an international court with adequate jurisdiction, international administrative bodies with necessary powers, and adequate international police forces and provision for enforcing its worldwide economic authority.
So the question to be asked is this: did the churches really need to marched through and captured by cultural Marxists? Or had they already reached a point of post-nationalism under the influence of liberalism as early as the 1940s?
I think it's clear that the rot had already set in. Liberalism had already done the job by the 1940s - there was no need for the cultural Marxism of the 1960s to swing the churches.
There were Communists before the 1960s, and some of them were influential? Who knew!
ReplyDeleteThis might interest you ...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.angryharry.com/esCulturalMarxismAndFeminism.htm
Anon,
ReplyDeleteThere's a good case that the form that modern left-liberalism takes has been significantly influenced by cultural Marxism.
But to see feminism as being the product of cultural Marxism doesn't work. Feminism, after all, predates Marxism and by the time that cultural Marxism came around the long first wave of feminism had already come and gone.
Good post. It just shows that the 1960's wasn't went it went to hell. It already was hell, they just couldn't see it.
ReplyDeleteLike a frog boiled in the pot slowly but surely and the next thing one knows, *bam* the frog is dead and long gone.
Modern enlightened liberalism (a twisted secular religion and ideology) is centuries old. Not decades but centuries.
I think when people state cultural marxism as being the essence of modern feminism, they mean second wave and beyond, not first wave. In other words, the dominant feminist analysis about structural sex differences being used by the "sex in power" to exploit the "sex not in power" -- basically switching the bourgeoisie for "men" and the proletariat for "women", and switching the "means of production" to the "means of reproduction" and so on. The result isn't "Marxism", obviously, because Marxism is an economic analysis based on economic class, but it borrows from Marxist-style thinking and transposes it to the realm of biological sex and sexuality, using a Marxist-style power analysis, albeit with non-economic categories. This is different from old first wave feminism.
ReplyDeleteYes the institutions needed marching through.
ReplyDeleteThe cultural Marxists win by taking things over more than by creating them. The paymaster of the American left, the Ford Foundation, was not created by a radical leftist but it has become a tool of radical leftists.
That there was "liberalism" before cultural Marxists or that there was "feminism" before cultural Marxism means little if these movements were taken over.
And they were. The great project of 21st Century liberalism, both right and left, is white genocide by mass immigration and forced integration. (Supplemented by affirmative action and the destruction of white family life and white men.) This is a radical change.
Brendan's comment seems to make sense
ReplyDeleteYes, variants of feminism existed prior to the 1960s but they were not as aggressive.
There were plenty of other things that were wrong before the 1960s. Bolshevism for one.
ReplyDeleteThat things were not wrong then in the same way that they are now after the cultural Marxist takever does not mean that things were all good.
Whites collectively have no value in Christianity. The Jews are the sacred people; the white race can be eliminated. (If you consult Jews who see themselves as collectively innocent victims of evil whites, "can" becomes "should".)
This became an active issue at latest early in the 20th Century, before World War One, when white countries seemed strong enough to hold down the rest of the world while Christianity converted it. At that point, seeming opportunity made the innate tendency of Christianity to dispense with the white race an active threat. The Catholic Church in particular firmly defined itself as a (or rather the) world religion and not a white or a European religion.
Even so, Vatican II represented radical change.
Which Pope would not have been willing to dispense with the white race, which is not mentioned in the Bible, in return for a European or preferably a world government which they assumed would have a Christian character?
ReplyDeleteBrendan,
ReplyDeleteI agree that some of the language and concepts employed on the left can be linked to some of the thinkers of the Frankfurt School.
Even so, there was a Marxist feminism going all the way back to Engels in the 1800s and then later Kollontai in the early 1900s. Even Trotsky made some Marxist feminist analysis.
Second, a significant part of the theoretical groundwork of second wave feminism was made by Simone de Beauvoir, who was an existentialist rather than a cultural Marxist.
Anon,
I think you'd be surprised by how aggressive and radical first wave feminism was. It lasted a long time (80 years) and pushed for the same kinds of things that modern feminism has.
It had different wings, but there were first wave feminists who wanted to abolish sex distinctions; who promoted "free love" in place of the family; who promoted career in place of love; who believed that women should be supported by the state to raise "their" children rather than by husbands; who saw men as the enemy; and who thought that an independent lifestyle should take precedence over family roles.
And there was the same cooling of relationships between men and women and the same disruption to family relationships: the birth rate fell and marriage rates for upper class, tertiary educated women slumped.
The great project of 21st Century liberalism, both right and left, is white genocide by mass immigration and forced integration.
Yes, but when was that policy formally decided on in Australia?
It was decided on in a fateful cabinet meeting in 1942 (after the fall of Singapore and the arrival of American troops in Australia).
So, again, you can't pin the blame for this on Cultural Marxism. Regular Marxism bears some of the blame (for internationalising the left) but the liberal establishment was also ready to adopt this policy.
As an ex-Liberal I'd have to agree you're right that Western Liberalism already had the seeds of its own destruction; although a lot of what you discuss looks more like Fabian socialism - did the Fabians call themselves Liberals, then?
ReplyDeleteI guess the thing about Cultural Marxism is that it destroyed all the things about Liberalism that right-Liberals enjoyed, and it destroyed the possibility of a Conservative/Liberal balance. The pre-60s society was one with a lot of usually-unstated but still active conservative/traditional norms. The vision of Cultural Marxism is of a boot stamping on the face of traditionalism, forever - though they had to wait until the '90s to fully realise their dream.
A right-liberal like me was pretty comfy in a conservative society with liberal influences. Growing up in Northern Ireland in the '80s, Liberalism did not seem the main threat - there was the USSR to nuke me and the IRA to bomb me. I was more liberal than most people I knew. Going to Oxford University in '91 I was hit by student Leftism in the first flowering of Political Correctness, and I did see that something was wrong, but it was only the New Labour takeover in 1997 that made it clear that traditional British society was being deliberately swept away. And due to the media/BBC cover-up in the first 6 years of New Labour, their Mao-style cultural revolution only became clear years later.
I still think that for the West, a healthy Western society needs a Liberal element as well as a Traditionalist element. That can seemingly only be achieved if Traditionalism can (re)gain the same strength Liberalism has had. Otherwise we are mostly going to die out.
The great project of 21st Century liberalism, both right and left, is white genocide by mass immigration and forced integration.
ReplyDeleteYes, but when was that policy formally decided on in Australia?
It was decided on in a fateful cabinet meeting in 1942 (after the fall of Singapore and the arrival of American troops in Australia).
Say what now? That's not what the government says:
"After the outbreak of hostilities with Japan, Prime Minister John Curtin reinforced the philosophy of the 'White Australia' policy, saying 'This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race'."
The government says the major steps in admitting non-Europeans weren't taken until 1966 and 1973, and "An increase in the number and percentage of migrants from non-European countries did not take place until after the Fraser government came into office in 1975."
Is that not true?
PS, I went to school in Australia in the mid-1970s, and there wasn't a single non-white kid in the school. If they were getting rid of the white race as a deliberate matter of policy, that policy wasn't in practical effect yet.
ReplyDeleteIs that not true?
ReplyDeleteNo, it wasn't true.
I've seen the cabinet records. There was a decision made in 1942 to switch from an Anglo nation to a multiethnic one. That doesn't mean that the intention back then was to have mass non-European immigration. One of the architects of the new policy, Arthur Calwell, remained strongly opposed to non-European immigration. But the Cabinet spoke openly about America as a multiethnic nation and as a model for Australia's development.
The initial step was to open up Australia to mass immigration from diverse European sources from the 1950s to the 1970s, which then led to the idea of Australia as a multicultural nation and the opening up of Australia to mass non-European immigration from the 1980s onward.
If the decision in 1942 was to open up Australia to mass immigration from diverse European sources, and there was no intention to have mass non-European immigration, then the decision in 1942 was clearly not "white genocide by mass immigration and forced integration."
ReplyDeleteTurning Australia into a "non-Anglo" nation is not the same thing as white genocide.
From what I am gleaning from an internet search, Arthur Calwell wanted to increase Australia's population after the war primarily through emigration from the UK - he did not even want Greeks or Italians, and he deported Malayan, Indochinese and Chinese wartime refugees as soon as he could. In short, I am not seeing, at least that early in the game, that the Australian government even wanted a non-Anglo nation, much less a non-white one.
From the wiki article on Calwell (emphasis added):
ReplyDeleteIn his 1978 biography of Calwell, Colm Kiernan wrote: "Was Calwell a racist? All Australians who upheld the White Australia policy were racist in the sense that they upheld a policy which discriminated against coloured migrants... Calwell never denied the discriminatory reality of the laws: 'It is true that a measure of discrimination on racial grounds is exercised in the administration of our immigration policy.' But he did not consider himself to be superior to any Asian." Calwell also said in Parliament: "I have no racial animosity." Kiernan further says: "Calwell had many friends among the Chinese community in Melbourne. This would have been impossible if he had been prejudiced against them. Anthony Wang, the first Chinese councillor of the City of Melbourne, has acknowledged Calwell's support and friendship. He liked the Chinese people so much that he learnt Mandarin in which language he could converse."
Kiernan is correct to observe that until the 1950s virtually all Australians supported the White Australian policy, that Calwell's views were entirely within the political mainstream at that time, and Calwell believed himself to be free of personal prejudice against people of other races. This is reflected by Calwell's comments in his 1972 memoirs, Be Just and Fear Not, in which he made it clear that he maintained his view that non-European people should not be allowed to settle in Australia. He wrote: "I am proud of my white skin, just as a Chinese is proud of his yellow skin, a Japanese of his brown skin, and the Indians of their various hues from black to coffee-coloured. Anybody who is not proud of his race is not a man at all. And any man who tries to stigmatize the Australian community as racist because they want to preserve this country for the white race is doing our nation great harm... I reject, in conscience, the idea that Australia should or ever can become a multi-racial society and survive."
(Bravo! No politician would ever say that today. Sure doesn't sound like a suicidally self-loathing white hater, does he?)
Anon,
ReplyDeleteNo, but the problem was that Calwell believed that Australia should be made a heterogeneous nation through mass immigration.
Calwell wanted Australia to be multiethnic and heterogeneous because he thought that it was a matter of social justice to accept diversity.
Yes, he drew the line at admitting non-Europeans. But he was foolish in thinking that you could successfully hold this line once the principle had taken hold that it was a moral thing to aim at diversity and heterogeneity.
Let me put this more simply.
Calwell thought that the existence of Anglo-Australia was immoral because it wasn't inclusive and diverse enough. As a matter of social justice he wanted it transformed through mass immigration from diverse European sources.
But 20 years later people used the same principles to attack the new "white Australia". It too was now thought immoral because it wasn't inclusive and diverse enough. As a matter of social justice it had to be transformed through mass immigration from diverse, international sources.
Calwell had helped to establish the very principle by which a globally diverse Australia was inevitable - even if he personally baulked at the idea of non-European immigration.
Frankly, the sources I can easily find simply do not support your claims.
ReplyDeleteCalwell believed that Australia should be made a heterogeneous nation through mass immigration.
The sources I can find say he wanted primarily UK immigrants.
Calwell wanted Australia to be multiethnic and heterogeneous because he thought that it was a matter of social justice to accept diversity.
The sources I can find say he wanted immigration for strategic reasons - so Australia could defend itself better. This makes perfect sense in the context of the Fall of Singapore.
Calwell thought that the existence of Anglo-Australia was immoral because it wasn't inclusive and diverse enough.
Just not seeing that - and it is certainly not evident from the quote from his memoirs. Do you have some other source to the contrary?
The sources I can find say he wanted primarily UK immigrants.
ReplyDeleteFrom 1943 onwards the focus was on non-British sources of migration.
It's true that the public were told that there would be 9 UK migrants for every 1 non-UK migrant. But that was for public relations.
In one year in the 1940s the numbers were exactly the other way around: 9 non UK migrants for every 1 UK migrant.
Anon, why not use the sources I linked to? There's heaps of information there about the shift of policy from 1943 onwards.
Do you have some other source to the contrary?
Well, there's this:
In newspaper articles, speeches made as president of the Victorian Labor Party during the 1930s, and later after election as federal member for Melbourne in 1940, Calwell's deep concern for social justice was invariably linked with the creation in Australia of an ethnically mixed society through large-scale immigration.
...in a confidential note addressed to Chifley in 1944 he wrote of his determination to develop a heterogeneous society
The sources I can find say he wanted primarily UK immigrants.
ReplyDeleteFrom 1943 onwards the focus was on non-British sources of migration.
It's true that the public were told that there would be 9 UK migrants for every 1 non-UK migrant. But that was for public relations.
In one year in the 1940s the numbers were exactly the other way around: 9 non UK migrants for every 1 UK migrant.
Anon, I've posted a new item on this topic with some sources you should read:
http://ozconservative.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/when-did-australia-turn.html
Here's one of the quotes from the post:
In newspaper articles, speeches made as president of the Victorian Labor Party during the 1930s, and later after election as federal member for Melbourne in 1940, Calwell's deep concern for social justice was invariably linked with the creation in Australia of an ethnically mixed society through large-scale immigration.
...in a confidential note addressed to Chifley in 1944 he wrote of his determination to develop a heterogeneous society