A Critical Analysis of Artistic Marxism


What is Cultural Marxism? Cultural Marxism is a Neo-Marxist

construction that applies Marxist ideas, like that of class struggle

to things such as gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. As I will

argue in this essay, not only is Cultural Marxism counter to the goals

of Marxism, it is riddled with logical fallacies.


Cultural Marxism is born out of the ideas of Marxism, however, it can

exist independent of more orthodox Marxist ideas. Some Cultural

Marxists are indeed Marxists, while other are not. However, the ones

that are not have been influenced by Marxist ideas. This raises the

question of whether is it fair to call this Marxism, when it can exist

largely independently of orthodox Marxist ideas. The Marxist influence

is still significant, regardless, tho’. And I am unaware of a better

term. Let us now examine cases of Cultural Marxism.


The modern (Western) feminist movement is a largely Cultural Marxist

one. Orthodox Marxists analyses the struggle of the proletariat (the

workers) against the bourgeoisie (the owners of the means of

production). Marxists place an unusual amount of importance on the

economy. Marx himself even thought that much of the way our culture

is, is due to the economy. He believed Christianity was a most fitting

religion due to our “mystical” economy. [1] Marxist Feminist looks at

the class struggle of women versus men instead of, or in addition to,

that of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (if the former, then it

would be less accurate to call it “Marxist Feminist”, but one could

probably still consider it “Cultural Marxism”). They believe, that

because men are dominant in the position of the bourgeoisie, they must

be more “privileged”. They do not believe that one can be sexist

towards men, because of this. Of course, this is a most fallacious

conclusion. The feminists of the Cultural Marxist kind even oft have

the belief that all forms of bigotry will cease to exist

post-capitalism. These feminists believe that for sexism, racism, etc.

to be significant it must be “systematic”. The former sentence is

a much too kind representation of their beliefs, actually. Most of

these feminists believe that it is not even sexism if it is not

“systematic”. This seems to be the dominant belief. Now, ask yourself

the question: would it be significant if a women were to murder an

innocent men based only on their sex? The Marxist feminists would not

consider this sexism. This is a case of people redefining words for

their political gain. Sexism is discrimination based on sex. It would

be absurd to claim women can not discriminate against men based on

their sex, so, the Marxist feminists, in their jargon, have redefined

the word sexism to mean “systematic” sexism. With this definition they

can tell people to look at who is dominant as the bourgeoisie, and

then have them ask themselves, “could there be systematic sexism?”.

And the answer they tend to come up with is no. Alas, even this is not

true. Even in a patriarchal society there can be systematic sexism

towards men, let alone non-systematic sexism. Men can indeed be

self-hating and actually despise their own sex and therefore,

discriminate on other men because of their sex.


I think it is important before continuing to ask: is our society

patriarchal? I would still disagree with the Cultural Marxist

feminists if it was, but I still think it is a question worth asking.

I do believe that, in some ways our society is patriarchal, in other

ways, I think it is matriarchal. Men are dominant as bourgeoisie,

which, being influenced by Marx, is very significant to the Marxist

feminists. This leads them to ignore other areas of society, though.

Child-rearing is a field dominated by women. Feminists tend to see

this as the evil patriarchy oppressing them. It is a quite common

case, that for 18 years the mother is the main authority in someone’s

life. For 18 years, most people are living under a matriarchy. Men are

also often treated as rapists, in general. Around children men are

looked upon with particular suspicion. By noting these things, I am

not claiming to be horribly oppressed, however, I do think these

things are significant in this discussion. When men are dominant in a

field Cultural Marxists tend to assume this must be when due to some

sort of sexism, when a field is dominated by women, it is often seen

as “equality”. Occupational therapy is a female dominated field. [2]

Perhaps, it is simply that case that female and males tend to choose

different career paths? School teaching is yet another

female-dominated profession. Of course, Marxist feminists might argue

that positions of power are usually taken by men. I would argue being

a school teacher is quite a position of power.

And even if it were so that women were not in positions

of power, if it was by choice, then it would not be oppressive.


I will offer, what is perhaps, a quite controversial idea: bigotry is

born out of irrationality. Cultural Marxists like to point out Negro

slavery in the US as an example of economy-based bigotry. If this is

so, one should ask oneself, “why is there still bigotry?”. I do not

think US slave owners created bigotry. What they did do is exploit the

concept as an excuse for slavery. Racism persists because of beliefs

quite similar to those of the Cultural Marxists. Marxist feminist

et al. like to condemn men for the acts of some, this

over-generalization leads to sexism. This is a disturbing parallel to

how Adolf Hitler hated Jews based on the actions of some Jews. Looking

at this rationally, one can come to the conclusion that, although,

there might be bad people of X biological group, it does not mean that

all people in X group are bad. However, the hypocritical Cultural

Marxists dismiss their sexism and say it is justified because of men

oppressing them. Alas, bigotry will never end if we go on like this!


Another example of hypocritical Cultural Marxist ideas: left-wing

ethnic nationalism. White nationalism is usually denounced as being

“racist”, however, American Indian Nationalism and Black Nationalism

are treated much less critically. Black Nationalism may be a better

example of Cultural Marxism, though. Once again, Cultural Marxists

redefine a word — this time, racism. They say racism has to be

systematic for it to be so. Cultural Marxists claim things such as

“affirmative action” is not racist because whites are “privileged”,

etc. This blatant racism is not often criticized, though, else one be

deemed a “racist”.


These Cultural Marxist tendencies discussed previously actually hurt

their worker’s movement. Previously, the Left has been much more

concerned with economic exploitation, but they now seem much more

concerned with racial and gender-based exploitation. By having

such policies as excluding “cis” men from feminist circles, the Left

is creating a divide among the working class, instead of uniting them,

and therefore, being self-destructive. It’s clear that if you really

want a proletariat movement, you shouldn’t support the mainstream