(Part 2) Best political & governmental books according to redditors

Jump to the top 20

We found 4,286 Reddit comments discussing the best political & governmental books. We ranked the 1,701 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.

Next page

Subcategories:

Political ideologies books
International & world politics books
Political science books
US political science books
Elections & political processes books
Politics & government books
Public affairs & food policy books

Top Reddit comments about Politics & Government:

u/ChickenDelight · 496 pointsr/todayilearned

If you can read a 1,000+ page book on a political campaign, What It Takes goes into Bob Dole's early life in detail. The book is about everyone running in the 1988 Presidential election, and almost certainly the best book you will ever read about what makes people become successful politicians and what a major election campaign is really like.

Anyway, back to Dole. It wasn't just his hand that was injured in WWII, his whole body was mangled. There were several years where he was bedridden and likely suicidal afterwards, and he was generally expected to stay that way and die within five, maybe ten years. The surgery on his shoulder that turned his arm into a pen cup was an extremely risky, experimental procedure when he had it done, and it was basically as a last ditch effort.

Then he spent a few more years relearning how to do every basic task you take for granted, and went to law school, where he learned everything by memory because he had no way to take notes. Then he was a small-town lawyer who got into politics.

I'm not a fan of his politics or his weird third-person self-reference affectation, but he has an incredible backstory.

u/EllieZPage · 260 pointsr/pics
u/palmfranz · 135 pointsr/worldnews

> Conservatives tend to value hierarchy

They don't just value it — hierarchy is the common factor between all conservative movements since the French Revolution.

Read the Reactionary Mind. The author goes through hundreds of years of conservatism, comparing & contrasting different movements. Many of them wouldn't get along, especially in terms of economics, social politics, governance, etc. And yet they all agree on one thing:

> Hierarchy is the natural state of society.

Now, exactly who is on top, and why they're up there... well, the different movements would argue about that too.

EDIT: clarification, thanks to u/RicketyFrigate

u/kaiwanxiaode · 103 pointsr/worldnews

Then there is this book about Australia. Silent Invasion: China's Influence in Australia

u/[deleted] · 75 pointsr/youtubehaiku

Well one may mistake you for a terrorist one day... So if you dont give a shit about other people maybe you should give a shit about your self.


Or at the very least read a fucking book: https://www.amazon.de/Senate-Intelligence-Committee-Report-Torture/dp/1612194850

E: You cant even excuse yourself as to poor to buy the book here is a pdf: https://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/sscistudy1.pdf

u/dodo_byrd · 61 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Cultural Marxism is not an invention of the paranoid right. It's a school of thought developed by left-wing Marxists and named by them as such because it describes the application of their own theory to culture rather than economics. Whether you agree with the movement or disagree with the movement, saying that it's not a movement, or that William Lind created a fictitious movement in 1998, is absurd. You are either misinformed or lying. Below is a list of sources drawn exclusively from professors and scholars practicing cultural Marxism in which they use the term to describe the Frankfurt- and Birmingham-descended schools of thought.

  1. Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450
  2. Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014 Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC, near my house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg
  3. "Culutral Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144 Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".
  4. "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093
  5. "Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artifacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd

    The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

    -Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.

  6. For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."

  7. You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology. I hope that this brief survey amply demonstrates that Cultural Marxism is a term created and actively used by progressive scholars to describe the school of thought that first developed at Frankfurt and Birmingham to apply Marxism to cultural studies

    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4
u/thats_not_a_feeling · 61 pointsr/books

Allow me to pitch a related book with a somewhat different angle on the..topic:

How Nonviolence Protects the State, By Peter Gelderloos

Despite the title it is the most rational discussion on "violence" that I have ever seen, going into great detail on how often the cries for pacifism within various politcal movements are at the very least hypocritical if not downright dangerous to the lives of many people.

(Gelderloos was heavily involved in the movement attempting to shut down the School Of The Americas, a training facility for south american "allies" that specialized in torture)

It goes into great detail on some of the political whitewashing in the last few centuries, in particular regarding MLK and Gandhi.

Its a well sourced booklet and ive yet to read a coherent rebuttal of the claims Gelderloos makes(oh have I looked)

edit:

here it is, for FREE:-D yay anarcho-something!

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state

u/Williamfoster63 · 44 pointsr/OutOfTheLoop

He wrote a whole book (or, well, a collection of essays and other stuff chronicling his lifelong anarchy support): http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Anarchism-Noam/dp/1904859208

He's one of the most well known anarchist thinkers.

u/Jebist · 30 pointsr/politics

Check out "The Reactionary Mind" by Corey Robin. All this hate and lawlessness are completely in line with conservatism throughout history. They will stop at nothing to preserve their status in the hierarchy. https://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-Conservatism-Edmund-Burke/dp/0199959110

u/Hortler_Frozen · 29 pointsr/australia

This is but one of several attempts to soften public perception before a more aggressive stance take place. China plans 100 years ahead in many aspects, while our government rarely plans beyond an election cycle.

A good read for those interested in some of Chinas tactics.

https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/1743794800/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_c_d8LlDbKVATNPD

u/penpractice · 27 pointsr/TheMotte

>They don't want territorial expansion

The fact that they steal so much and spy so much indicates that it's possible they haven't formally expanded due to a practical reason and not an ethical reason. Yet they're already heavily influencing Africa and, more frighteningly, Australia. The Chinese influence and population in Australia and New Zealand is rising so fast (already 5.6%) that military invasion would be a amateurish blunder; they're already getting what they want at a slow and steady pace.

u/gec_ · 25 pointsr/TheMotte

I do think you're romanticizing and overestimating the extent to which other countries have a coherent 'natural' ingrained ethnic/national identity by so rashly describing
> Nowhere else in the world is your identity conferred through bureaucracy

I mean, read a book like The Discovery of France that talks about the mapping of France and construction of the French national identity by the government. Up to WWI, the majority of the population wasn't even fluent in French, all the little villages had their own dialects. Spain still has smoldering independence movements and unique languages besides Spanish, from in Catalonia to the Basque region. Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson is another great book that talks more broadly about the beginnings of the concept of nationhood, tying it in Europe to the rise of the printing press which enabled a national language for the first time.

And you mention India, which probably wouldn't even be a unified country if it weren't for the conquest under the British empire and subsequent independence. India is culturally and ethnically divided in the extreme, up to and including their caste system.


Not to mention the great success and relative stability of very divided multi-ethnic societies in countries such as Switzerland or Singapore in the first world. Many of these peoples have a longer shared history than the ethnic groups in the United States do, but I don't see why that makes a huge difference in terms of the strength of identity. In either case, the memory of that shared history has to be constructed anew for each generation. Our shared history up to this point is more than enough to serve as a basis to construct national identity on; these days few Italians or Irish descendants of immigrants have any other primary identity than 'American'. Imagining a shared national community such that it is a primary identity isn't easy but the American government has played a large part with mandatory public schools and other measures. Bureaucracy is a large part of forging national identity, no doubt, your mistake is thinking that this is isolated to America.


So your description of America as

> not a serious country

on these grounds says more about your unique antagonism to it than anything else. If America is particularly notable on these grounds it is that as a relatively young nation compared to many of these older countries, our national identity ambiguities and contradictions stand out more. You're doing a negative version of American exceptionalism, which I think is just as incorrect.

u/LetsSeeTheFacts · 20 pointsr/EnoughTrumpSpam

> we really need to get to the bottom of whatever pathology is causing this

The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin

> Tracing conservatism back to its roots in the reaction against the French Revolution, Robin argues that the right is fundamentally inspired by a hostility to emancipating the lower orders. Some conservatives endorse the free market, others oppose it. Some criticize the state, others celebrate it. Underlying these differences is the impulse to defend power and privilege against movements demanding freedom and equality. Despite their opposition to these movements, conservatives favor a dynamic conception of politics and society--one that involves self-transformation, violence, and war. They are also highly adaptive to new challenges and circumstances. This partiality to violence and capacity for reinvention has been critical to their success.
>
> Written by a keen, highly regarded observer of the contemporary political scene, The Reactionary Mind ranges widely, from Edmund Burke to Antonin Scalia, from John C. Calhoun to Ayn Rand. It advances the notion that all rightwing ideologies, from the eighteenth century through today, are historical improvisations on a theme: the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back.

u/bigjince · 19 pointsr/blog

You should check out this book: How Nonviolence Protects the State

it's a polarizing book, but an insightful and thought-provoking one at that.

u/Mol-R-TOV · 18 pointsr/ChapoTrapHouse

I think it's more like a neoconservative sub in the sense that neoconservatism, when it's really effective, is to present right-wing or far-right positions as the true "left" position. A lot of the people there would've been big Christopher Hitchens fans during the Iraq War and so on, and they do still think very highly of him. I've also seen the "Euston Manifesto" get shared around there which is an old neocon document from the mid-2000s. Basically the argument was that the parts of the left that opposed the war had betrayed its principles and fallen into "moral relativism" and all these right-wing tropes. Today this kind of tendency also rewords the main right-wing positions of the time (cracking immigrants over the head with clubs, transphobia, etc.) as left-wing positions.

If anyone here is British they might be familiar with Nick Cohen. It's like "I'm on the left guys really but why is the left apologizing for MILITANT ISLAM???" Stupidpol is Nick Cohen-esque:

https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Left-How-Lost-its/dp/0007229704

u/hammertime84 · 17 pointsr/AskTrumpSupporters

This book covers the topic pretty exhaustively and finds many are motivated by factors other than religion...foreign occupation for example:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400063175/103-6875448-6296639?v=glance&n=283155

Do the ones covered by that book count?

u/ShadowLiberal · 16 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

To be fair, he's hardly the only one.

In 1969 someone wrote a book called The Emerging Republican Majority that correctly predicted coming Republican dominance due to demographic changes. And the book was quite right when you look at presidential contests. From 1968 to 1988 Republicans won 5 out of 6 presidential elections. And the 1 they lost (Carter, 1976) they only narrowly lost.

In 2004 someone wrote a book called The Emerging Democratic Majority, making much the same prediction based on demographic changes. Sure Bush later won reelection that year, but the exit poll numbers only reinforced the author's point about how the GOP was losing in growing demographic groups, and hence likely to struggle more at winning elections.

These kinds of demographic changes DO NOT mean it's impossible for one party to win the white house however. Only that until demographics or voting behavior starts changing significantly that one party will struggle more at winning national elections.

To say that demographics mean Democrats will control the government for the next 4 or however many decades goes too far.

u/spays_marine · 15 pointsr/Documentaries
u/iwasthere22 · 13 pointsr/StreetFights

> FUCK TRUMP

There's a book that was just released, written just for you! Check it out on amazon!

u/johnpoulain · 13 pointsr/Defenders

I only just realised, the Police plot

Madina: "The CIA committed torture!"

CIA/DHS/Police: "do you have evidence?"

Errrm: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Senate-Intelligence-Committee-Report-Torture/dp/1612194850

u/BornSlinger · 12 pointsr/australia

Silent Invasion is something I've been slowly making my way though. Old mate Huang is referenced in the index more times than Japan...Shall we send tissues along with our baby formula?

u/pig_department · 12 pointsr/europe

Here's the explanation of Alexander Macris (@archon on twitter) on why that's bullshit:


Cultural Marxism is not an invention of the paranoid right. It's a school of thought developed by left-wing Marxists and named by them as such because it describes the application of their own theory to culture rather than economics. Whether you agree with the movement or disagree with the movement, saying that it's not a movement, or that William Lind created a fictitious movement in 1998, is absurd. You are either misinformed or lying.

Below is a list of sources drawn exclusively from professors and scholars practicing cultural Marxism in which they use the term to describe the Frankfurt- and Birmingham-descended schools of thought.

  1. Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

  2. Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

    Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC, near my house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg

  3. "Culutral Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144

  4. "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093

    Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".

  5. "Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artifacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd

    The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

    Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.

  6. For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."

  7. You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.

    I hope that this brief survey amply demonstrates that Cultural Marxism is a term created and actively used by progressive scholars to describe the school of thought that first developed at Frankfurt and Birmingham to apply Marxism to cultural studies.



    credit: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4
u/BuildAutonomy · 11 pointsr/Anarchism

Pacifism as Pathology by Ward Churchill

How Non-Violence Protects the State by Peter Gelderloos - PDF

Deacons For Defense are one of several groups of armed black Americans during the civil rights movement.

Orgasms of History

from riot to insurrection more of the theoretical side than history

See also: general strikes and the riots that accompanied them. The history of the labor movement, which is full of strikes that became riots. The timeline of the civil rights movement, in that it was only after the riots began that meaningful civil rights legislation began to be adopted, and even MLK knew that the only reason they were giving him a seat at the table after calling him a communist etc... was because of the riots forcing them to deal with the non-violent moderates of the movement and make concessions.

u/danshil · 11 pointsr/CanadaPolitics

This is a bit of a personal conspiracy theory, but may be related to the degree that Russia interferes with Latvia:

I have Latvian friend who speaks glowingly of Latvian mythology and culture, and out of curiosity I browsed to the Latvian mythology Wikipedia page following a chat with her. I read through it, and was struck by how much it focused on the idea that Latvia's national myths are a very recent phenomena. Like, I'm somewhat familiar with the work of Benedict Anderson, but this was a Wikipedia page with a tone that was just out of keeping with what I usually come across.

I have the oddest suspicion that the page has been edited by pro-Russian agents.

u/Veganpuncher · 9 pointsr/PoliticalScience
u/buckwheatstalks · 8 pointsr/NewOrleans

Ah, the ol' conservative tactic of accusing others of the thing that they're guilty of.

  • "Criticizing white people is the REAL racism!"
  • "Black Lives Matter is a hate group!"
  • "I'm being CENSORED!!!!!"

    The Reactionary Mind has more examples from the past 300 years
u/wamsachel · 8 pointsr/Anarchy101

haha, instead of asking us, read what he was to say on anarchism

u/SipthatTing · 7 pointsr/unitedkingdom

He basically makes his money from critiquing the left. He wrote this book back in 2007 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Whats-Left-Lost-Liberals-Their/dp/0007229704


Literally "what happened to the left", and hes been cashing those "i don't like the left" checks for like 10 years at this point.


That said, hes not wrong, corbyn needs to go

u/kormer · 7 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

The book that originated the theory.

This should be mandatory reading for any aspiring political analyst. Too many people read the book and concluded that since demographics would allow democrats to win no matter what, they could abandon the center and push whatever the base wanted without consequence. Trump unfortunately is the consequence of not reading the book more closely.

u/eaturbrainz · 6 pointsr/politics

>Unless you can qualify this statement with an actual source of information it is only an opinion.

I did mention that there's an entire book of source. Don't bother with the Amazon reviews, just read it. Get it out of the library if you don't want to pay money.

u/sadrobotsings · 6 pointsr/todayilearned

Maajid on Twitter today acknowledged that, although he coined the term, Nick Cohen was really the grandfather of the concept. He published a book on the subject in 2007 called What's Left.

u/axolotl_peyotl · 6 pointsr/conspiracy

I complete understand where you're coming from.

Let me clarify my position a little bit: the presence of thermite is not the big issue here.

My point is that Jones is trumpeting this explanation as the sole reason for the towers' collapses, and this theory has heavily infiltrated the 9/11 truth movement.

The big issue here is that something unconventional brought down those towers...they fell way too fast and completely.

That's why those of us with inquisitive and skeptical minds have been searching for alternate explanations for how they fell...and mostly because of Jones the thermite theory has been unfortunately embraced by many.

You've created a false dichotomy (perhaps one of the reasons Jones is doing what he's doing): you seem to think that if we don't believe Jones then we must be on the side of the US Govt.

That couldn't be further from the truth!

I'm a regular here, and you should know that by my questioning Dr. Jones, I am not questioning the 9/11 Truth Movement as a whole.

Since the only PHD I have is in armchair conspiracy theories, I'm clearly not qualified to question the science of his thermite findings, though I can read the many skeptical individuals who are scientists and who question his results.

However, I can comment on the bigger picture, because Jones' history with the "cold fusion" story should raise huge red flags as to his motivations with the whole thermite thing. Again, watch the film Heavy Watergate to understand what I'm talking about.

Since you seem ready for this information, I can't recommend this book enough.

Once you get past the seemingly implausible premise and look at the actual evidence, this theory becomes frighteningly plausible.

This is the theory /r/conspiracy should be talking about, not Jones and his red herring.

u/FrischeVollmilch · 6 pointsr/edefreiheit

> Außerhalb der Rechten Argumentation hat dieser Begriff keine Verwendung

Weshalb die Linken den Begriff so sehr fürchten, dass sie ihn mit allen Quellen aus Wikipedia gelöscht haben und nun auf einen Artikel der sich mit Verschwörungstheorien befasst verweisen.

Kultureller Marxismus ist real.

Dazu ein Text aus dem Anfang der GamerGate Zeit. 26 Sept 2014 https://twitter.com/archon/status/515729906521890817

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4

> # Sorry, But Cultural Marxism is Not an Invention of Right Wing Paranoids.

> Cultural Marxism is not an invention of the paranoid right. It's a school of thought developed by left-wing Marxists and named by them as such because it describes the application of their own theory to culture rather than economics. Whether you agree with the movement or disagree with the movement, saying that it's not a movement, or that William Lind created a fictitious movement in 1998, is absurd. You are either misinformed or lying.

> Below is a list of sources drawn exclusively from professors and scholars practicing cultural Marxism in which they use the term to describe the Frankfurt- and Birmingham-descended schools of thought.

> 1. Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

> 2. Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

> Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC, near my house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg

> 3. "Culutral Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144

> 4. "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093

> Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".

> 5. "Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artifacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd

> The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

> Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.

> 6. For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."

> 7. You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.

> I hope that this brief survey amply demonstrates that Cultural Marxism is a term created and actively used by progressive scholars to describe the school of thought that first developed at Frankfurt and Birmingham to apply Marxism to cultural studies.

u/naraburns · 6 pointsr/TheMotte

Well, the all-caps titles here are panel titles, the names quoted are panelists and the stuff quoted after their names are generally presentations or, at best, working paper titles. A lot of it probably doesn't exist anymore, outside the pages of these programs. I don't know where you could find an archive of these programs outside of the personal files of people who attended these things, except perhaps in a special collections department somewhere or maybe the NWSA archives. University libraries are gold mines but finding out what they even have can be tricky, and getting access to it can, too.

The books are a bit easier, often they are available on Amazon. Marxism and the Oppression of Women is still in print, as is The Proper Lady and the Woman Writer. Patriarchal Precedents is not, and so you can guess that it shows up less in the gender studies curriculum today.

I personally would be very interested in minutes from the panel entitled "BUILDING FEMINIST THEORY," since it was a discussion including Sandra Harding (now at UCLA), Mary O'Brien (who founded the Feminist Party of Canada), and Nancy Hartsock (who authored a book subtitled Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism), and they were talking about

> how feminist theory should reconstitute progressive politics in general--not just "women's issues"--while also transcending the limitations of Marxism.

There's just so much to unpack there--obviously it's pretty silly to aim at "transcending the limits" of Marxism if one does not feel limited by it, and one would not feel limited by it were one not a somewhat conscientious adherent! And indeed feminist theory has in many ways reconstituted progressive politics in general since the 1980s. So it's very, very frustrating to me when people make these sweeping claims about what is or is not "influential" as if they have any real idea where ideological trends come from. Almost everything we think is the result of someone making a concerted effort to get lots of people to think that thing, but it is usually someone who has long since been forgotten (or memory-holed), and it is almost always an irrelevant academic before it is a politician who gets their name put into the books. Maybe it has always been thus; I sometimes wonder if we would be quite so cognizant of Aristotle, had there not been an Alexander the Great.

Anyway, I am rambling. If you have a particular thing you're looking for, pay a visit to a quality university library--state libraries might do in a pinch, but universities are the real repositories of knowledge. Inter-library loan is a researcher's best friend, second only to a good special collections librarian. Amazon is sometimes helpful also, though certain texts have gotten remarkable pricey over the years, I've found!

u/easy_pie · 6 pointsr/ukpolitics

A list of sources that talk about 'cultural marxism' from academics that have literally nothing to do with conspiracies, that I found while looking into it:

  1. Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

  2. Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

    Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg

  3. "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144

    Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".

  4. "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093

  5. "Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artefacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd

  6. The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

    Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.

  7. For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."

  8. You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.
u/aaaymaom · 6 pointsr/ukpolitics

for those not familiar- dont listen to this guy

read it for yourselves, then look back at this guys comment

Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

"Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093

Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd

The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies"

"Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology

u/LordDz · 6 pointsr/todayilearned

Under the book cover there is a "Listen".
It's mostly just him ranting about the left and how silly they are for having triggered words and how awesome Trump is.
https://www.amazon.com/Triggered-Left-Thrives-Wants-Silence/dp/154608603X

u/Kekkonshiki · 6 pointsr/tucker_carlson

This was an amazing overview. I need to read his book.

I think this is the one he refers to:
Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump Post Hill Press https://www.amazon.com/dp/1642930989/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_awdo_t1_uJf.BbABPDKE2

Spez: link

u/pbrand · 6 pointsr/geopolitics

> In terms of trade, China treats Australia far better than the US treats Canada.

Australia, however, is paying a price for that in other realms, especially political. I'd very much recommend reading https://www.amazon.com/Silent-Invasion-Chinas-Influence-Australia/dp/1743794800

If you want to read an article about the book, NPR just recently covered Hamilton: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/627249909/australia-and-new-zealand-are-ground-zero-for-chinese-influence

edit: if you don't have a counterargument, don't downvote me. That's cowardice and very un-/r/geopolitics of you.

u/WaitingForGabbo · 6 pointsr/askphilosophy

Uberto Eco's Ur-Fascism is a popular piece on fascism if you haven't read it already.

With regard to nationalism, Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities is a major book on the subject and has often been translated into new languages because of the threat of rising nationalism there as was the case with it's Hebrew translation.

Others might be able to give some more suggestions.

u/justinmchase · 6 pointsr/politics

He wrote a book called On Anarchism:
http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Anarchism-Noam/dp/1904859208

Which I read and can confirm: he's an anarchist. Not marxist collectivist statist at all.

u/Illin_Spree · 5 pointsr/Socialism_101

Democratic socialism is a type of socialism informed by democratic and egalitarian values and critical of authoritarian structures that can be characterized as "dictatorships". From this perspective, socialism is not just about a change in government and government policy, but a transformation towards greater political democracy as well as democracy in the workplace (socialists used to use the term 'industrial democracy' as a shorthand for this). Higher levels of literacy and lower levels of poverty move this process (towards greater worker participation and liberty) along. And since socialism relies on democracy and requires democratic norms, a society where worker speech and organization are systematically controlled and restricted cannot qualify as socialist.

To quote one of my links below
>According to Ralph Miliband in Socialism for a Sceptical Age, three core propositions define socialism: (1) democracy, (2) egalitarianism, and (3) socialization or public ownership of a predominant part of the economy

As for Sanders, the way he uses 'democratic socialism' is more akin to European 'social democracy' which has evolved over the years into a ty[e of philosophy of government in the context of capitalism and liberal democracy. If we look at videos of Sanders from the 80s we see there was a period where he was more of a 'democratic socialist'. Sanders stuck with that self-identification (maybe out of habit), but it's fair to say his politics today are solidly 'social democratic'.


For background see

https://jacobinmag.com/2017/08/democratic-socialism-judis-new-republic-social-democracy-capitalism

http://www.dsausa.org/toward_freedom/

https://www.marxists.org/archive/miliband/1985/xx/beyondsd.htm

http://ouleft.org/wp-content/themes/wpremix3/images/21stCenturySocialism.pdf

https://thenextsystem.org/economic-democracy

https://thenextsystem.org/toward-democratic-eco-socialism-as-the-next-world-system

For book length treatments, see

https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Sceptical-Age-Ralph-Miliband/dp/1859840574

https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Past-Future-Michael-Harrington/dp/1611453356/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=MZEMAZZY4S7VZXTCNE62

I'd also reccomend Mike MacNair's Revolutionary Strategy

u/pigcupid · 5 pointsr/todayilearned

There's really no question about it. He has been an anarchist his entire life.

But to your second point, I can remember a conservative teacher complaining to the class about teaching Chomskian grammar, because she found his politics offensive, but couldn't discard his linguistic work.

u/psycho_trope_ic · 5 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

You are free to live in a voluntarily entered into governing structure that does provide this service as an AnCap or other NAP-following anarchist, you just can not force the unwilling to pay for your preferences (and consistently claim to be an AnCap or other NAP-following anarchist).

I think the book Polystate might give you some ideas in this regard.

u/BenV94 · 5 pointsr/LabourUK

He was behind this in the early 2000s when he thought that the Left was becoming toxic, especially after Iraq.

http://eustonmanifesto.org/the-euston-manifesto/

Essentially a manifesto that says universal values should be upheld instead of relative oppressor/victim politics and the politics of anti-imperialism.

He also wrote the book 'What's left'.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Whats-Left-Lost-Liberals-Their/dp/0007229704

This book was a critique of modern double standards in leftists which excuse Islamists, horrible dictatorships and other nasties in the name of anti-imperialism. His principle is that someone like Putin should be opposed, and not supported because he is an enemy of the USA. Same with people like Chavez, Iran, Hamas, Hesbollah and so on.

A few months ago he made a 2 minute video in a spectator column on why he 'left the left'. Critizing Corbyn, though mostly his politics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQQw5T2T94M

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/09/why-ive-finally-given-up-on-the-left/

u/KaliYugaz · 5 pointsr/TrueReddit

> It always sets off alarm bells to see Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, Prof. Weinstein, and Hirsi Ali get lumped in with conservatives - even though all of these people are liberal, and most are very liberal.

Conservatism by definition is the defense of hierarchy against leftist movements. The main political split in Western societies is between those who think hierarchical domination should be minimized or abolished, and those who believe it is natural, inevitable, and glorious. If they are defending an ethnic, gendered, or economic hierarchy of any kind, then they are doing conservative politics.

u/Peen_Envy · 5 pointsr/Ask_Politics

If you are interested in more the function of politics rather than its subject matter of policy, then here is a decent list of foundational texts to get you started:

On theory:

The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers


Democracy in America


On Campaigning:

What it takes


Game Change


Campaigns and Elections- American Style


On Legislating/Governing:

Congress- The Electoral Connection


Party Politics in America


Political Polarization of American Politics


Interest Group Politics


Obviously this is quite a bit to read- but renting or using library resources will soften the blow to your wallet.

If I have misread your question, and you are interested in policy rather than politics, more recommendations can be provided depending on both your political persuasion and your specific interests.

PS: Assumed you meant American politics. If not- can provide other texts.

u/adiabatic · 5 pointsr/slatestarcodex

They have an incentive to. It seems to be working.

Also, this passage, I'm told, got a standing ovation at the end of it:

> But now we are being tested again by a new wave of immigration larger than any in a century, far more diverse than any in our history. Each year, nearly a million people come legally to America. Today, nearly one in 10 people in America was born in another country; one in 5 schoolchildren are from immigrant families. Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. Within 5 years, there will be no majority race in our largest State, California. In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States.

u/MelissaClick · 5 pointsr/freebsd

Source: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4

----

Sorry, But Cultural Marxism is Not an Invention of Right Wing Paranoids.


Cultural Marxism is not an invention of the paranoid right. It's a school of thought developed by left-wing Marxists and named by them as such because it describes the application of their own theory to culture rather than economics. Whether you agree with the movement or disagree with the movement, saying that it's not a movement, or that William Lind created a fictitious movement in 1998, is absurd. You are either misinformed or lying.

Below is a list of sources drawn exclusively from professors and scholars practicing cultural Marxism in which they use the term to describe the Frankfurt- and Birmingham-descended schools of thought.

  1. Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

  2. Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

    Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC, near my house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg

  3. "Culutral Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144

  4. "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093

    Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".

  5. "Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artifacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd

    The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

    Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.

  6. For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."

  7. You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.

    I hope that this brief survey amply demonstrates that Cultural Marxism is a term created and actively used by progressive scholars to describe the school of thought that first developed at Frankfurt and Birmingham to apply Marxism to cultural studies.
u/blackstar9000 · 5 pointsr/atheism

I thought I'd add this to the little research pool you've got going: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Bombing <PDF>. The author, Robert Pape, has elaborated on his findings in the book Dying to Win, which is well worth reading. Pape was one of the earliest researchers to address the topic by looking at the full battery of modern suicide terrorism campaigns, and his conclusions have largely been born out by subsequent research, like that of the Flinders study.

To anyone who's really delved into the available research, I don't think there's any doubt that suicide bombings are largely a response to a political situation, one characterized by an imbalance of power.

u/rapscalian · 5 pointsr/IRstudies

The obvious example that comes to mind is Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.

Another excellent book is Michael Mazarr's Unmodern Men in the Modern World: Radical Islam, Terrorism, and the War on Modernity.

You may also be interested in some of the Islamic perspectives:

u/hashtagpls · 5 pointsr/Sino

Text:

By Steven WardMay 4 at 7:00 AM

On Tuesday, the Washington Examiner reported the State Department’s policy planning staff, led by Director Kiron Skinner, is “preparing for a clash of civilizations” with China. Skinner’s office is composing what it calls “Letter X” — styled after George Kennan’s “X Article” that laid out an argument for containing the Soviet Union during the first years of the Cold War.

The Examiner’s description of the State Department’s thinking contains remarkable details. Skinner describes great power competition with China as “a fight with a really different civilization and a different ideology, and the United States hasn’t had that before.” China “poses a unique challenge … because the regime in Beijing isn’t a child of Western philosophy and history.” The Cold War constituted “a fight within the Western family,” while the coming conflict with China is “the first time that we will have a great power competitor that is not Caucasian.”

[No, China and the U.S. aren’t locked in an ideological battle. Not even close.]

Skinner is right that “you can’t have a policy without an argument underneath it.” But the argument that seems to be informing U.S. China policy is deeply flawed and dangerous.

Has the United States never competed with a great power whose ideology or civilization was dramatically different from ours?

Skinner’s claim that China is the United States’ first ideologically distinct great power competitor is wrong. For one thing, it is not at all clear that such an ideology is central to Sino-American competition. For another, this mangles history. Nazi Germany is an obvious counterexample. The Soviet Union is a second. Skinner has written extensively on President Ronald Reagan, who would be surprised to learn that American competition with the U.S.S.R. — the “evil empire” — did not involve ideological differences.

To Skinner, the Cold War did not constitute a conflict of civilization because it took place within the “Western family.” She takes her cue from Samuel Huntington’s ideas about the “clash of civilizations.” But those ideas do not stand up to scrutiny. The concept of “civilization” lacks empirical support. Also, the enterprise of classifying countries according to dominant civilizations ignores the variety and contingency of identities, treating some as fixed or natural while erasing others. Nor is it clear that Russia was ever understood (or understood itself) as a fully Western or European nation.

Fortunately, Skinner offers a further clue about what she means. China, she notes, is the first great power competitor that the United States has faced that is “not Caucasian.” In the end, the argument is not about ideology or civilization. It is about race. China — unlike Russia — is not predominantly white, and thus must be dealt with differently.

Before World War II, Japan came to believe it wouldn’t be treated equally in world politics because of Western racial attitudes.

But the claim that the United States has never faced a non-Caucasian great power competitor is also wrong. Japan before World War II was a great power rival and was understood as racially different.

u/The_Inertia_Kid · 4 pointsr/LabourUK

I keep coming back to Nick Cohen's What's Left when these things crop up. Some on the left have a big blind spot when it comes to the behaviour of others on the left, preferring to believe that their innately moral nature means that any reports of misdeeds must surely be propaganda of the right.

Plenty on the left supported Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq prior to 1991, as he was seen to be a pan-Arab socialist standing up to American neocolonialism. The fact that he massacred tens of thousands of Kurds was merely incidental.

Corbyn has banged on and on about how great Venezuela is, when it's wildly corrupt, funds FARC terrorism, and is now pretty close to becoming a totally failed petro-dictatorship.

This is just another example.

u/bobweiszsucks · 4 pointsr/NewOrleans

The Reactionary Mind by Corey Robin

u/BigBirdy6 · 4 pointsr/The_Donald

check out the reviews for this pile of shit book. Cannot believe she is even considered a so called 'journalist'

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/cr/0553447556/ref=mw_dp_cr

u/checkdemdigits · 4 pointsr/books

what it takes: the way to the white house

just the most incredible, enjoyable study of politics and what makes a person great.

If you enjoy talking about politics, or find elections interesting, your world view will be made so much wider by this book.

I'm sure no-one else will have heard of it, so here are links to:

the rather short wiki

the amazon page with excellent reviews

the goodreads page with more reviews

the author discussing the book on cspan

u/happinessmachine · 4 pointsr/Physical_Removal

Post a pasta, recieve a pasta, shill. Educate yourself:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4
Cultural Marxism is not an invention of the paranoid right. It's a school of thought developed by left-wing Marxists and named by them as such because it describes the application of their own theory to culture rather than economics. Whether you agree with the movement or disagree with the movement, saying that it's not a movement, or that William Lind created a fictitious movement in 1998, is absurd. You are either misinformed or lying.

Below is a list of sources drawn exclusively from professors and scholars practicing cultural Marxism in which they use the term to describe the Frankfurt- and Birmingham-descended schools of thought.
Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450
Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC, near my house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg
"Culutral Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144
"Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093

Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".
"Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artifacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd
The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf
Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.

For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."

You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.
I hope that this brief survey amply demonstrates that Cultural Marxism is a term created and actively used by progressive scholars to describe the school of thought that first developed at Frankfurt and Birmingham to apply Marxism to cultural studies.

Frankfurt School Cultural Marxism is Based in Jewish Mysticism
https://murderbymedia2.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/1417900885468.png

The Frankfurt School and Its Legacy
http://www.morveninstituteoffreedom.com/FrankfurtSchool.pdf

Critical Theory (Cultural Marxism) and Jewish Thought
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/theology/events/2013/critical-theory-and-jewish-thought.aspx

Satan's Secret Agents: the Frankfurt School and Their Evil Agenda
http://www.darkmoon.me/2013/satants-secret-agents-the-frankfurt-school-and-their-evil-agenda/

Fallen Jews, Critical Theory, and Cultural Marxism
https://originsofleftism.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/notes-fallen-jews-critical-theory-and-cultural-marxism/

Bill Whittle on the Narrative: Political Correctness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrt6msZmU7Y

The Spread of Cultural Marxism to Latin America
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7Reb9wvTzg

The Triumph of Cultural Marxism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk9CWm0W4Q4

Cultural Marxism
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism

Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M

Erich Fromm, Judaism and the Frankfurt School
http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina%20Folder/kell24.htm

Freud, The Frankfurt School, and the Kabbalah
http://www.conspiracyschool.com/blog/holiness-sin-freud-frankfurt-school-and-kabbalah#.VGsgXIeRk7B

Frankfurt School
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

Frankfurt School of Social Research
http://jettandjahn.com/2010/10/frankfurt-school-of-social-research/

The Frankfurt School & Cultural Marxism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghx3d1GiAc0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkcy7256tBM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG6TcYfpQOg

The Frankfurt School of Social Research and the Pathologization of Gentile Group Allegiances
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/chap5.pdf

Frankfurt School - Satanic Judaism in Action
http://www.henrymakow.com/frankfurt-school-satanic-judaism-in-action.html

The History of Political Correctness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acjIw7cVc2k

How a Handfull of Marxist Jews Turned Western and U.S. Culture Upside Down
http://davidduke.com/how-a-handfull-of-marxist-jews-turned-western-and-us-culture-upside-down/

The Jewish Frankfurt School and the End of Western Civilization
http://www.dailystormer.com/the-jewish-frankfurt-school-and-the-end-of-western-civilization/

The New Dark Age: The Frankfurt School and "Political Correctness"
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/921_frankfurt.html

Who Stole Our Culture?
http://www.wnd.com/2007/05/41737/

Sabbatean-Frankist Roots of the Frankfurt School
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBfT0pi0cMs

u/h4qq · 4 pointsr/religion

Awesome work! This is pretty cool.

I'm pretty sure you might have heard of the following book: "Dying To Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" by Robert Pape. If not, I highly recommend it :)

http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/1400063175

u/whiskeysquared · 4 pointsr/reddit.com

Nearly all religions (except most Eastern religions) breed violence (The Bible is a very violent piece of prose). Religious terrorists are from any faith. Draw a picture of Mohammed get killed by Muslim extremists, have an abortion here you get bombed by Christian extremists. Over generalization in the media makes it seem that ALL Muslims wish to kill innocent children with ball bearings and explosives... Not true. Muslim extremists, that's their gig. And the current situation now isn't primarily a religious struggle, it's a political one: http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/1400063175

Also, we must look at the fact that America is the country that radicalized these groups with the coup in Iran. Read a book by Stephen Kinzer, it will be clear. Also look into atheism, it gets you away from these theologically sticky issues altogether.

u/privatezebra · 4 pointsr/IAmA

In short, yes. This is largely due to the fact that they only read books that are prescribed by the program, and they do not do outside research. For example, two books that began to change my views on terrorism and DHS in general were Blowback: the Costs and Consequences of an American Empire, and Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.
http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Costs-Consequences-American-Empire/dp/0805062394
http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/1400063175

Most of my classmates do not understand the principle of Blowback (unintended and usually unwanted consequences of a sinister action), which the CIA coined due to their meddling secretly in other governmental affairs around the world in the mid 1950s. When you truly understand why we were attacked, and when you actually read quotes of why they say they attacked us, it fits into this idea of blowback.

I had a teacher in my very first class on homeland security tell us we were attacked simply because we were free, and they hated freedom. That sadly could not be farther from the truth, however mainstream media and many educators of our day push this idea.

I hope that answers your question!

Edit: grammar

u/MilerMilty · 4 pointsr/neoconNWO

It's probably considered racist by many, especially those left of centre, but according to this article in 2016 it was the fourth most read book in the top 10 US colleges so you cucks can blow me.

https://www.amazon.com/Clash-Civilizations-Remaking-World-Order/dp/1451628978

u/Religious_Redditor · 4 pointsr/Ask_Politics

There are two main things that conservatives hate about globalism: (1) its penchant for centralizing power at the global level and (2) the premise that all cultures are of equal value.

Conservatives hate #1 because we believe that government functions best/legitimately at as local a level as possible. We distrust the consolidation of power that happens under nationalist/globalist regimes because it is inefficient and likely to be used to trample on people's rights. Local institutions are more accountable to, and better able to solve the unique problems of, the community they represent.

We hate #2 because we love the social and political values we've inherited from our forefathers. These values are under threat by elitist global institutions that push foreign values on unsuspecting peoples.

You may be interested in The Clash of Civilizations by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington.

u/GeneticsGuy · 4 pointsr/Conservative

You're still failing to respond... still waiting for an intelligent and rational argument here. Let me recommend you a book, because it is exactly what is going on to you.

What makes this even funnier is how you aren't even an American, just a sad troll.

u/satanic_hamster · 4 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

Socialism/Communism

A People's History of the World

Main Currents of Marxism

The Socialist System

The Age of... (1, 2, 3, 4)

Marx for our Times

Essential Works of Socialism

Soviet Century

Self-Governing Socialism (Vols 1-2)

The Meaning of Marxism

The "S" Word (not that good in my opinion)

Of the People, by the People

Why Not Socialism

Socialism Betrayed

Democracy at Work

Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA (again didn't like it very much)

The Socialist Party of America (absolute must read)

The American Socialist Movement

Socialism: Past and Future (very good book)

It Didn't Happen Here

Eugene V. Debs

The Enigma of Capital

Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism

A Companion to Marx's Capital (great book)

After Capitalism: Economic Democracy in Action

Capitalism

The Conservative Nanny State

The United States Since 1980

The End of Loser Liberalism

Capitalism and it's Economics (must read)

Economics: A New Introduction (must read)

U.S. Capitalist Development Since 1776 (must read)

Kicking Away the Ladder

23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism

Traders, Guns and Money

Corporation Nation

Debunking Economics

How Rich Countries Got Rich

Super Imperialism

The Bubble and Beyond

Finance Capitalism and it's Discontents

Trade, Development and Foreign Debt

America's Protectionist Takeoff

How the Economy was Lost

Labor and Monopoly Capital

We Are Better Than This

Ancap/Libertarian

Spontaneous Order (disagree with it but found it interesting)

Man, State and Economy

The Machinery of Freedom

Currently Reading

This is the Zodiac Speaking (highly recommend)

u/SupriseGinger · 4 pointsr/worldnews

If you really want to know about our role in torture you could read the complete Senate report on it

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1612194850/ref=oh_aui_i_sh_in_o0_img?ie=UTF8&psc=1

u/stuffmikesees · 4 pointsr/TrueReddit

>So where did nationalism come from? Most historians view nations as “imagined communities” and that many of their traditions were “invented”

Yeah, they're called that because of the book written in 1983 by Benedict Anderson called Imagined Communities, which coincidentally is where essentially all of the ideas outlined in this post come from without any form of citation.

The book is actually quite good. You all should just read that if you're interested.

u/bluecalx2 · 4 pointsr/LibertarianSocialism

The first one I read was Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, which was a great introduction. It's short and very easy to get into. You can read it in an afternoon. It's actually from a speech he gave, so you can probably find the audio online for free and listen to it instead if you prefer.

But his best book, in my opinion, is Understanding Power. It's more of a collection of essays, speeches and interviews, but it really shaped my understanding of the world better than any other book I have read. I can't recommend this book enough.

If you're more interested in libertarian socialism, in addition to Understanding Power, read Chomsky on Anarchism. He presents the theories in very clear language, instead of being overly theoretical.

If you're more interested in his writings on US foreign policy, also read either Failed States or Hegemony or Survival.

Enjoy!

u/4-Vektor · 3 pointsr/ShitAmericansSay

Ben’s at it, too. With FACTS and LOGIC!!!!1!!11!

>Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth Paperback – June 14, 2010

>Brainwashed is the explosive exposé of the leftist agenda at work in today's colleges, revealed by firebrand Ben Shapiro, a recent UCLA gratudate, syndicated columnist, and one of today's most exciting new conservative voices, who's been on the front lines of the battle for America's young minds. This book proves once and for all that so-called higher education continues to sink lower and lower into the depths of liberal madness as close-minded professors turn their students into socialists, atheists, race-baiters, and sex-crazed narcissists.

u/geargirl · 3 pointsr/socialism

The first and hardest concept to grasp is that socialism is only an economic system. It is often conflated with the political system, communism, but both are very broad. Wikipedia's article is actually very good for an overview.

The question that neturally arises from an overview of socialism is, "well, how would we implement this so we can enjoy [insert level of quality of life]?" And that is a very involved discussion.

I've also found that Michael Harrington's Socialism: Past and Future to be a good read, but I'm sure there are others here that could recommend better books.

u/IChooseFeed · 3 pointsr/politics

If you have not read it yet and is interested, The Senate Intelligence Commitee Report on Torture is worth reading.

u/Spanky_McJiggles · 3 pointsr/news

You can read all about it here

u/tomtomglove · 3 pointsr/AskTrumpSupporters

that's one way to understand nationalism. here's the most influential book ever written on nationalism: https://www.amazon.com/Imagined-Communities-Reflections-Origin-Nationalism/dp/1784786756

u/Seifuu · 3 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

By my appraisal, in the US, it's largely


a) Jingoism trussed up as international policy.


US Americans are, culturally, one of the most nationalist and patriotic people. Because it is cultural, many Americans are unaware of it and assume that citizens of other countries are just as nation-focused.


Something that's important to understand is that the jigsaw puzzle of sovereign nation-states is largely a modern invention. It was pushed by land-owners and empiricists to further the strength of existing "nations" (like the UK) and give them justification for colonial holdings/future cultural imperialism (like Japan).


So, this is generally where fear of "Globalists wanting one world government, etc etc" comes from. People have been conditioned to believe in a competitive, invidious world state that really only came about in the last couple centuries and that, I might add, runs counter to the idea of a nation-state (which is a unity of people based on economic, territorial pragmatism, regardless of cultural differences, etc.). "Suppression of traditional cultural identities" refers to things like gay marriage, the non-denominational holiday greetings, etc. which are all White Christian culture finally being forced to give up its top position (which is why many non-discriminatory modern nationalists call for "White America").


b) An inherent feature of modern economies being blamed on the scapegoat of globalism


Basic, academic consensus economic theory teaches us that it is better to participate in a global market - allowing certain countries to produce or trade goods for which they are better equipped (i.e. bananas coming from tropical regions).


However (and this is the same fear as the one of automation), in the US, those benefits go to private businesses and then the government is supposed to tax those businesses and distribute those taxes as benefits to the people (oversimplification, I'm sure). Since businesses at that scale seemingly exist solely for profit, their structure requires them to try to avoid taxes and maximize income. Large businesses will continue to pour resources into successfully finding/squeezing through tax loopholes (because they're basically in a spending race against the US government) and smaller businesses might see modest expansion tethered by increased taxation.


In Western economies, that's basically the existing plutocracy increasing its capital aka "the rich get richer". Which is a natural consequence of the US economy in which the more capital you have, the more capital you can get. It's as true domestically as it is internationally - wealth disparity in the US was worse in the early 20th century, when isolationism was popular.


Reading this comic might give you a clearer picture on the rationale behind US populism. You'll notice the fear of international influence (China), the lack of belief in international regulatory or diplomatic solutions to exploitative business practice (moving of labor/production), and the mindset that any benefit to the existing hegemony is taboo. Not to say that there weren't/aren't legitimate grievances with this specific trade agreement, but they're muddled by omen.


It's Manichean us vs them, the USA vs other countries, the poor vs the rich - which pretty much defines populism. You can only have a group by defining who is and isn't part of the group - and if you make it "common sense" to act in the "group's best interests", then everyone who acts against your group must be acting against your best interest (rather than acting in their own interests, or to prevent negative consequences of your group's actions). Never stopping to ask if your group is actually acting in its own best interest or if those interests were even rationally defined in the first place.


Of course, that's also how things like FDA and EPA regulation got implemented. I'm not sure exactly where the line is between "slaughterhouse sanitation policies reduce risk of disease" and "the Chinese are coming to take my land and the Muslims are coming to kill us all". I think it's to do with significant, measurable risk vs nebulous potentiality.

u/suekichi · 3 pointsr/chomsky

This interview is transcribed in the book Chomsky on Anarchism.

u/working_class_shill · 3 pointsr/WayOfTheBern

>that the Washington Post is a "CIA front" (that's some real Alex Jones shit right there)

LMAO

https://www.amazon.com/Journalists-Hire-How-Buys-News/dp/1944505474

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

Love how thinking the government can put propaganda into media is akin to believing in aliens.

Wow

u/The_Old_Gentleman · 3 pointsr/badeconomics

>It seems to me that the gist of conservatism relies on two things, (1) mistrust of a priori (utopian) reasoning and revolutions, (2) and trust in incremental changes by past experiences and wisdom.

If you one day feel like challenging this conception of yours, i recommend taking a look at the book The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin by Corey Robin.

u/murphysclaw1 · 3 pointsr/neoliberal

if you're not excited by Biden, go dig out What It Takes: The Way To The White House and read his chapters. Also it's the best book ever written.

warning: may result in write-in votes for Gary Hart

u/soxy · 3 pointsr/books

A) You should wallow in pity about how nothing has changed since 1972.

B) If you want more HST I recommend The Rum Diary or Hell's Angels.

C) If you want more politics I recommend Game Change which was about the 2008 election and was pretty great if not overly shocking or if you really want to get deep into something try the 1,000 page opus about the 1980 election What It Takes

u/saladatmilliways · 3 pointsr/slatestarcodex

> This is rationalism?

Reading people who have object- and meta-level views you may disagree with? Yes. I wouldn't hesitate to read The Emerging Democratic Majority if I were interested in their methodology as opposed to just a couple of soundbites that I heard repeated elsewhere in the blogosphere when the book first came out.

u/jazzper40 · 3 pointsr/samharris

The Dems did abandon the white working class, or at the very least were in the process of doing so. I will give no specific policy evidence for this but will give an underlying truth. We had the emerging Democratic majority. We had "the jobs arent coming back mantra", we had the deplorables, we had record immigration(both legal and illegal), we had proposed amnesties for illegals, we had identity politics coming out of our ears, we had race and ethnic baiting. All this with an eye on the electoral advantage to the Democrats. All this to ensure the soon to be Dem Majority. Even if you disagree with the above I think you have to admit the emerging Democratic Majority had some influence on how Dems had been playing politics recently.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Emerging-Democratic-Majority-John-Judis/dp/0743254783

u/IrrigatedPancake · 3 pointsr/reddit.com

But it's not one, it's a lot more than one, and their families and friends get very upset. Then they start killing solders in retaliation. Suddenly they are the new enemy. It compounds on itself until regular Americans or regular Europeans are targeted.

Dying to Win by Robert Pape is a good book about this.

If you want to go on some humanitarian mission to Afghanistan, then you go do it, but I don't want to pay for the damage that's being done.

u/jonasbomb · 3 pointsr/atheism

Suicide bombing actual has its origins in the Tamil Tiger movement which is a secular movement. Dying to Win: The strategic logic of suicide terrorism explains this well. It turns out that suicide bombers are typically rational actors that have developed a weapon that is incredibly effective against democracies. (http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/1400063175)

u/Lav1tz · 2 pointsr/CanadaPolitics

British author and journalist Nick Cohen wrote about this in 2007 in his book What's Left?: How the Left Lost its Way: How Liberals Lost Their Way Where he discusses this unholy alliance came to be of the left and the Islamist far right.

The left have become so rabidly anti-US/West that they have adopted the idea of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend". They have abandoned their core principles and will make bedfellows with those that are antithetical to their world view and goals. This is how you have British Labour protesters marching shouting "We are all Hamas" or have an ostensibly progressive organization to combat fascism named Unite Against Fascism have an Islamist Fascist serving on the board...

A principled left would be supporting Arab intellectuals, journalists, authors, professors, feminists, trade unionists, Marxists, etc. Instead we have the left supporting the far right Islamist movements in these parts of the world i.e. Hamas, Hizbollah, etc.

u/Santero · 2 pointsr/ukpolitics

I know the author splits opinions, but Nick Cohen's book What's Left? really is an excellent deconstruction of the Corbyn-style left in Britain. It's never been more relevant than now, I read it recently and it's spot on in many of it's arguments and insights.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Whats-Left-How-Lost-its-Liberals-Their/0007229704

u/Double-Down · 2 pointsr/LabourUK
u/NateRoberts · 2 pointsr/Kossacks_for_Sanders

source: http://coreyrobin.com/2016/02/27/why-you-should-never-listen-to-the-pundits/

...in case anyone wants to sign up for Corey's email updates—they're a goldmine (he's the author of The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin)

u/Prince_Kropotkin · 2 pointsr/EnoughCapitalistSpam

> I've met plenty of conservatives who don't see anyone as inferior.

It's not usually explicit, that specific people are inferior. But the ideology believes that the "better" people should control the lessers in various spheres in society. Great related book here: https://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-Conservatism-Edmund-Burke/dp/0199959110

> nowadays you won't see anyone on National Review or so implying someone is less worth.

https://newrepublic.com/article/131583/national-reviews-revolt-masses

u/CynicalYetOptimistic · 2 pointsr/politics

She is pressing charges on the grounds of battery which is basically touching.

Let's be honest here, she was being aggressive and repeatedly ignoring calls to stop touching Trump. Corey grabbed her arm, stopped her, and moved past her. Would anyone in their right mind say, that's battery and actually press charges? Even Piers Morgan is calling her on her bullshit.

She is releasing a book in June. Either she is pushing this beyond what it should be or someone else is pushing her to do it in order to try and smear Trump.

Her new book

u/MeCatChing · 2 pointsr/conspiracy

https://vgy.me/28PP8n.jpg

How sadly disingenuous that Richard Gage continues to lead the gullible into an endless maze to cover up the classified technology that dustified the World Trade Center.

CONSIDER THE 9/11 BIBLE

https://vgy.me/rdJ9xg.jpg

Words from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, in the Gospel of Matthew, were found by a firefighter in March 2002, under the Tully Road, a temporary truck route that covered the last remnants of the south tower. The pages of the Bible in which they were printed had fused to a chunk of steel as the World Trade Center turned to dust in mid-air, to be found only months later.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evildoer. On the contrary, whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go two with him. Give to the person who asks you for something, and do not turn away from the person who wants to borrow something from you.”

The fabric of the human mind is flexible, but the strings of credulity can only stretch out so far, and then incredulity settles in. The image above depicts an artifact residing in the 9/11 Museum of an open Bible fused to a hunk of steel wreckage, with some of the steel overlapping the pages after it was softened by a type of directed energy. How could this happen and not have burned the paper yet the result can clearly be seen?

The autoignition point of paper has a range of from 440 – 470°F, depending on the type of paper. Steel melts at 2500°F. How then, did this artifact of Bible pages become “fused” with steel, without the paper combusting into a blackened mass of ashes?

Revisit that day, and remember all the images of showers of paper floating down through the air and scattering all over the sidewalks and streets, when the towers were destroyed. These papers were intact and surely not burned. What process was at work that could turn steel and concrete towers to dust, and yet not affect paper?

A process used in directed energy technology can cause a dissociation and alteration of the molecular structure of metal, to fuse with combustible objects and appear as if the materials melted together, but with no discernible evidence of heat or combustion.

So evidently, a technology exists which can accomplish those results, the results seen in the Bible papers fused to the steel. This is not a miracle, other than this technology being able to appear miraculous to most people.

Very much related to this anomalous artifact in the 9/11 Museum, is another one found in the ruins of an almost forgotten and seldom mentioned building which was immediately destroyed on the morning of 9/11.

St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox church, just across the street from the south side of the South Tower, or WTC-2. When retrieval of the relics in the church was undertaken in the following days, only a few pieces survived and one find was called a miracle. “The great miracle, was the recovery of an icon of St. Spyridon. The silver around the icon had melted, but the paper icon had not been burnt.”

https://vgy.me/toY1uh.jpg

This discovery was one of the church’s most holy relics, and it was declared a miracle because the silver onlay applied to a paper icon of St. Spyridon had “dustified”, leaving the paper intact and unscorched. The melting point of silver is 1,763°F.

The best collection of evidence making the case for a directed energy technology at work and used as a weapon on 9/11, can be found at the website of Judy Wood, Ph.D - and in her landmark book: ”Where Did The Towers Go?”.

A copy of the book is available at The Library of Congress.

https://lccn.loc.gov/2010916516

Or, you have the option of purchasing a copy from Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Towers-Evidence-Directed-Free-energy-Technology/dp/0615412564

This download is the Foreword and book review of "WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?" by Eric Larsen, Professor Emeritus at John Jay College of Criminal Justice 1971 - 2006 (35 years), plus the Author's Preface.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Where%20Did%20The%20Towers%20Go%20-%20Dr%20Judy%20Wood.pdf

u/asker43 · 2 pointsr/thewestwing

For Enjoyable Political Science stuff, I would suggest A More Perfect Constitution by Larry Sabbato.
For the best election reading, go for [What It Takes] (http://www.amazon.com/What-Takes-Way-White-House/dp/0679746498/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371747306&sr=1-1&keywords=what+it+takes) by Richard Ben Kramer.

u/-absolutego- · 2 pointsr/ShitPoliticsSays

>For some reason they went absolutely insane when he won.

I can't speak to why the base lost their minds in such a drastic fashion (outside of just regurgitating the hysteria they get from the media), but the party leadership is losing it because Trump winning put a pretty big dent in the whole Demographic Destiny idea that they've been building up for the last 15 years. They honestly thought by now they'd be ruling a 1 party state in all but name, at least at the federal level.

You can track the Democrat strategy of silent approval of increasing illegal immigration and doing everything they can to appeal to ethnic minorities to riiiight around the time this trash was published.

u/IncipitTragoedia · 2 pointsr/philosophy

Great list! Regarding the question of violence, I would add How Nonviolence Protects the State and Pacifism as Pathology because your list seems a slightly one-sided.

u/AirGuitarVirtuoso · 2 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

Honestly, I haven't come across a ton of good textbooks explaining the basics of IR theory. The Wikipedia page is a pretty good starting point for the big theoretical schools.

Neorealism and Its Critics is also a modern classic on IR theory you'd read in most college or graduate level IR courses. Waltz's Theory of International Relations is also a seminal text. Sam Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" Article and Book were both extremely important to recent thinking on IR.

u/dassudhir · 2 pointsr/india

As the world gets more homogenised, people facing a loss of identity seek kinship with people with shared values. You can see this with radicalised Muslims. In Indian students associations in American universities.

The Clash of Civilizations is a great book if you want more information. Some parts of it have been discredited, some are outright racist, but the central premise still stands.

u/Sheiwn · 2 pointsr/Conservative

Jimmies have been maximum rustled. If anyone wants to gift a liberal family member or friend in college, check out check out Ben Shapiro's book Brainwashed. Excellent read.

u/mcfleury1000 · 2 pointsr/Libertarian

Well, we found bin Laden so I'd say that it wasn't a failure.

There's a whole report on it:

https://www.amazon.com/Senate-Intelligence-Committee-Report-Torture/dp/1612194850

Pretty dry reading tho.

u/Fatkungfuu · 2 pointsr/worldpolitics

https://www.amazon.com/Spygate-Attempted-Sabotage-Donald-Trump/dp/1642930989

There you go, I've gone down this road too many times with people who are too entrenched in their beliefs. If you think the Obama admin was capable of something like that I encourage you to check it out, if not then I will never be able to sway you.

u/Psyk0Tripp · 2 pointsr/conspiracy

If you're really interested. That should get you up to speed.

https://youtu.be/cs6MaloWMpg

Check out his channel

Dan Bongino has been great and ahead of this more than any other that I have come across.

He's got a few books. This one is his latest

Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1642930989/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_5ZiWDbCDFCZC8

u/realityhacker55 · 2 pointsr/saraba1st

那只是你在牆内不清楚而己。中國的長手伸入美國,歐洲的例子已報導很多了。 他們对西方世界的核心價值和生活方式巳形成侵蝕。以後再鍵接一些有関中國統戦部海外活動的報導。

舉個例子就好: 你知道為什麼澳洲今天這麽反華嗎?讀一讀這本2018的書就知道:

Silent Invasion: China's Influence in Australia
https://www.amazon.com/Silent-Invasion-Chinas-Influence-Australia/dp/1743794800

u/Disaster_Area · 2 pointsr/politics

http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Anarchism-Noam/dp/1904859208

The link will take you to a book of his. The book is about his personal anarchist views.

u/saqwarrior · 2 pointsr/Anarchy101

I thought you were talking about this book, which I refer to as "my Bible."

u/bubbalicious26 · 2 pointsr/inthemorning

Yeah, I was just thinking out loud. The heart attack gun was the first thing I thought of when I saw the news and given his background.

Thanks for the recommended article. I also pre-ordered his book on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Journalists-Hire-How-Buys-News/dp/1944505474

u/jscoppe · 2 pointsr/funny
u/ovadbar · 2 pointsr/Libertarian

Zach Weinersmith wrote a whole ebook on this http://www.amazon.com/Polystate-Thought-Experiment-Distributed-Government-ebook/dp/B00IM5EM7W. I think when it was mentioned to him how libertarian his book was he didn't really understand why that was said.

There are different types of libertarianism (http://www.learnliberty.org/playlists/schools-of-thought-in-classical-liberalism/) but it is basically it is biased off of the "Non-aggression principle".

u/kpmcgrath · 2 pointsr/worldbuilding

Edit: this should be in the SF thread. Whoops!

I'm trying to stretch some political-setting muscles in a setting I have stewing on this topic. It's tiring to have the same old political systems - a huge and awesome part of the Radch series, for exampe, was the unique take on fascist imperialism. I'm fascinated by polystate political systems, and hope to create an imperial metastate with a subordinate representative democracy of client substates as a sort of constrained version of Weinersmith's model. Vast diversity, under a technically united political system that does what it can to keep all of humanity under a united front.

Humanity can be united front but still exceptionally diverse. I hope to have genetic subspecies (adaptation to new environments like superearths, acoustic planets, or low-gravity asteroids) and political diversity with monarchies, communes, corporate syndicates, and theostates all tied loosely together under Imperial control.

u/usdvdates · 1 pointr/trump

I doubt he was born in the US but it really doesn’t matter at this point. Trump is erasing everything Obama did while in office so it’s almost like it never happened anyway. Just like to bring up the birth thing to trigger people like you.

u/WestCoastHumanist · 1 pointr/politics

Those fawning reviews on Amazon are something else! I can't shake the suspicion that the Trump's pay people to buy the book and post reviews written by the Trump PR team.

https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/154608603X/ref=acr_dpx_hist_5?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=five_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

>The thing that I love about the Trump family is their honesty. The bad reviews come from liberal haters that had once claimed that they were the party of love and acceptance. They were that party, until the the truth was told about how they want socialism. I don’t know about anyone else but when the truth is told by people like Donald Trump Jr. people on the left get very angry. Sometimes the TRUTH hurts. If anyone as an adult can’t handle the TRUTH, they are ignorant cry babies. Go cry somewhere else while the TRUMP family saves our great country. Donald Jr. is a great man with honesty and integrity . Thank you for the TRUTH!!

u/TrollaBot · 1 pointr/HailCorporate

Analyzing gnzlgrc

  • comments per month: 32.7 ^I ^have ^an ^opinion ^on ^everything
  • posts per month: 2 ^lurker
  • favorite sub AskReddit
  • favorite words: country, three, three
  • age 0 years 11 months
  • profanity score 0.8% ^Gosh ^darnet ^gee ^wiz
  • trust score 101.2% ^tell ^them ^your ^secrets!

  • Fun facts about gnzlgrc
    • "I am fucking terrified of mass Muslim immigration into the western world."
    • "I am enjoying reading them and the crazy cat people to rational people is lower than I initially thought."
    • "I am applying for jobs that don't call back."
    • "I am not producing any money."
    • "I am with him on every aspect he describes on this book."
    • "I am still a monster."
    • "I am churning the hell out of it ;) I understand."
    • "I am pretty sure those businesses have the "card fee" well integrated on their business plan."
    • "I am using it for the double cash back promo on your first year offer they have."
    • "I am trying to say is that it is highly likely that Schwab will reject your application."
    • "I am still angry about it."
u/Briguy24 · 1 pointr/politics
u/btwn2stools · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

Look into Ben Shapiro's book Brainwashed. His strategy was to speak conservatively while in class, but would write his exams as if he were far left / socialist. His exams were graded anonymously so teachers couldn't single him out.

u/dimaswonder · 1 pointr/AskEurope

Oh, my goodness gracious, there are literally thousands of articles on Google on this, dozens of books by conservative intellectuals on how leftists, starting with boomers, took over American college campuses and stymy careers of conservative academics.

They've successfully brainwashed generations of students - I was one until I got out into the real world.

If you're so lacking in intellectual curiosity, here are some suggestions:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2014/05/01/higher-education-has-a-strong-leftist-bias-but-not-enough-for-one-prof/#ecf1e2576d7c

"A good many educators take seriously the idea that teaching is a political activity and accordingly feel justified in using their classrooms as platforms for spreading their social, economic, and philosophical beliefs. They want to act as “change agents” who will improve the world.

Most of those educators have been imbued with a leftist cast of mind – hostile to capitalism, private property, and anything that stands in the way of their utopian visions of a just society brought about through government power. Instances like the recent ones at UC Santa Barbara (where a professor physically attacked a student who was peacefully protesting abortion) and Eastern Connecticut (where a writing professor went off on a rant about how evil Republicans are) are pretty common."

https://www.leadershipinstitute.org/Writings/?ID=2
"Leftist Control on Campus

Overwhelmingly leftist faculty.
Overwhelmingly leftist administrators who actively suppress conservative activities and refuse to address grievances from students who suffer persecution for their conservative beliefs.
Leftist domination of most student government associations.
Leftist domination of "student courts" which decide issues regarding student government actions and persecute students for activities in behalf of conservative principles.
Leftist Indoctrination on Campus

Large numbers of courses presented that explicitly in their catalog descriptions push leftist ideology, but no balance of conservative principles offered in the curriculum.
Indoctrination of students in class by faculty who promote socialist ideas and other leftist priorities.
Leftist faculty using their class time to preach politics instead of teaching the topic at hand.
Faculty who express in class blatant contempt of conservative ideas.
Assignment by faculty of one-sided textbooks and readings which systematically push leftist ideas and denigrate or ignore conservative ideas.

Leftist domination of almost all official campus newspapers, which are funded by taxpayers, compulsory student fees, or unwitting donors to the colleges and universities.
Large numbers of leftist student organizations, supported by major, national leftist organizations.
Leftist monopolies of most journalism faculties.
Programs which present overwhelmingly leftist off-campus speakers to the students.
Overwhelmingly leftist speakers provided to speak to graduates and their families at graduation ceremonies.

College and university libraries packed with leftist books and magazines but few if any books or publications which promote conservative principles.
Compulsory freshman orientation programs and "sensitivity training" designed by leftists to undermine traditional values.
Mandatory seminars for students on how to have "safe sex" with little or no mention of the possibility or merits of abstinence or marriage.
Enforced diversity in every area except for the adherence to or the teaching of conservative principles."

https://townhall.com/columnists/danieldoherty/2011/11/19/avoiding-leftist-indoctrination-at-american-colleges-and-universities-n797669

"One of the greatest dilemmas facing American students today is the perennial threat of leftist indoctrination on college campuses. In recent years, institutions of higher learning – which have historically been places for enlightened thought and dissenting opinions – have increasingly become breeding grounds for radical liberalism. College courses, which are often taught by biased professors who espouse leftist ideology, fail to adequately challenge undergraduate students and often leave many of them woefully unprepared for the real world."

Some full books:

https://www.amazon.com/Brainwashed-Universities-Indoctrinate-Americas-Youth/dp/1595559795

https://www.amazon.com/Indoctrination-Lefts-Against-Academic-Freedom/dp/1594031908

u/NonHomogenized · 1 pointr/socialism

Most of the suggestions in this thread are specifically socialism from a marxist perspective. I think you might find Socialism: Past and Future by Michael Harrington an engaging and insightful read on socialism from another perspective.

u/Rhianu · 1 pointr/socialism

It isn't just right-wing talking heads, though. In the book "Socialism: Past and Future," by Michael Harrington, there is an extensive analysis of all the different kinds of Socialism, and Michael Harrington himself acknowledges that even Socialists have difficulty defining exactly what Socialism is, and he was a Socialist.

http://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Past-Future-Michael-Harrington/dp/1611453356

u/play_a_record · 1 pointr/socialism

Michael Harrington's Socialism: Past and Future is an excellent primer (though it assumes some familiarity with the topic and players at hand). I don't know that there can be a "best" book on socialism, but that's generally what I recommend to friends.

Harrington isn't primarily concerned with picking apart capitalism here, and it won't serve as a refutation of Friedman if that's what you're looking for -- it stays basically within the bounds of what the title suggests -- but it's a well-written, valuable read nevertheless.

u/Str8DonLemon · 1 pointr/politics

They do. But look to the FBI and IG's report which confirms everything I am saying. Dan Bongino did a good job of cataloging all public releases from the FBI in his book. The obama admin engaged in textbook crime and they are getting a pass. They shouldn't. Not to mention a constitutional crisis. 4th Amendment violations.

​

https://www.amazon.com/Spygate-Attempted-Sabotage-Donald-Trump/dp/1642930989

u/ThisExchange · 1 pointr/rant

>that’s why they’ve denuclearized like 3 separate times now right?

How many times did they denuclearize in the last 50 years?

>Trade wars with our allies is objectively one of the fastest ways to piss off our allies. Guaranteed.

I don't care about our allies if they can't handle reciprocal tariffs. Same way they can't pay their shares of NATO or rise up to the Paris Climate Accord they all agreed to

>Trump winning the RNC isn’t a measure of his political negotiation skills. That’s just appealing to the largest portion of the stupidest population in the country.

So if it was so easy why didn't 16 of the RNC candidates do it after being in politics their whole lives? Your logic is only consistent in that it's completely inconsistent.

>Blaming Obama by citing a quote. Neato.

Correct, a quote where Obama claims that there's no way to rig an election, right before he flip flopped and began accusing Trump of rigging an election. Who was in control of the intelligence at the time Trump was still a candidate? (hint: It was Obama)

>If that were even remotely true, start your own investigation. You could have done that at any point in the last 2 years, that it hasn’t happened should tell you that they can’t. But that would require logic.

Why would Trump do that when he can wait for Mueller to come out with the report finding Trump didn't collude, and then start doing his own investigations? Meanwhile while Trump has come out on top of you clowns every time, there have been people doing that investigation. Although I know how people like you work, and you'll simply refuse to accept new facts that go against your views.

https://www.amazon.com/Spygate-Attempted-Sabotage-Donald-Trump/dp/1642930989

Oh and there's a sequel coming up

https://www.amazon.com/Exonerated-Failed-Takedown-President-Donald/dp/1642933414/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=EJCR20TMJYACQC2EJFGQ

Oh look that same ex-secret service member who wrote the books on the collusion between the Obama admin and foreign/domestic intelligence also has a daily podcast where he covers these same topics. Bet you will never allow yourself to listen to it

lol


u/867-5309NotJenny · 1 pointr/politics

> I'm familiar with this popular understanding of what nationalism is but I'm saying it doesn't really line up with scholarship on the ideology and it's history. Read Nationalism by Anthony D. Smith or Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson in order to get a basic introduction to the subject as they're usually among the standard college textbooks used in relevant courses. I've said this elsewhere in the thread but nationalism at it's most base level is a belief in the existence of nations, nation states and the concept of self-determination. A nation is an amorphous political concept that can be based on a large number of things from a perception of shared ethnicity to shared geography to shared history. The basis for the creation of a nation is known as national identity. Practically every country in the 21st century , professes a national identity and when a country does this it is known as a nation state (the wikipedia article for this concept is fairly narrow as it focuses on states that tie national identity to ethnicity and all but ignores civic nationalism and to some extent left wing nationalism )

None of this is about how the word is used in a socio-political sense though. And there is a very good argument that the popular view is the current correct view of the word's meaning.

> The United States is a nation state as...

I agree with most of your 2nd paragraph, but I would argue that for most people it's an expression of American Patriotism.

> Nationalism is further reinforced by national symbols ... ...Thus displaying any kind of flag associated with a nation (state or otherwise) is a display of nationalist sentiment.

Or patriotic sentiment.

> With that out of the way let's go back to the Olympics. I stated that the modern Olympic games themselves were founded upon nationalism and the belief that athletic competition offered a healthy outlet for duking out national rivalries as an alternative to conflict.

Agree.

> hat is why the Olympics themselves are an orgy of national symbolism from the Parade of Nations, the fact that athletes represent their nations at all instead of themselves, the playing of national anthems at medal ceremonies, etc. etc.

Agree

> With all that in mind rooting for your nation's athletes at the Olympics is an expression of nationalist sentiment.

Disagree. Most people who participate in and watch the Olympics are more than ready to acknowledge when their country isn't the best at something, and when other countries do well. That's Patriotism when they root for their team under those circumstances.

> Here's a couple of articles I was able to find on the subject after a two second Google search since I don't feel like digging up old academic articles. Hell, here's the perspective of a Communist (i.e. someone who actually rejects nationalism since they believe in the dismantling of all states and national identities).

All three are opinion pieces. The Vox one is actually talking about patriotism, but has fallen into the Nationalism/patriotism 'synonym trap'. Communist countries officially reject nationalism, but in practice are just as nationalistic as every other country.

> Nationalism in and of itself has absolutely nothing to do with blind loyalty to a particular government although chauvinistic nationalism does indeed manifest itself that way.

Not completely blind, but it does encourage unhealthy behaviors towards others. That behavior isn't implied in patriotism.

> In fact nationalism isn't contingent on the existence of a nation-state

Correct. Post WWI there was a lot of nationalism from ethnic and cultural groups that hadn't had their own country in centuries. However, gaining a country was their goal. A good example actually is post-colonial Africa.

> government and doesn't even necessarily advocate for one.

Actually, they always do eventually.

> Just look at the history of Black nationalism in the USA of which only a few strands (known as Black Separatism) advocated the creation of an African American state.

One would argue that the factions not advocating for separate statehood were actually patriots.

​

u/bg478 · 1 pointr/politics

I'm familiar with this popular understanding of what nationalism is but I'm saying it doesn't really line up with scholarship on the ideology and it's history. Read Nationalism by Anthony D. Smith or Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson in order to get a basic introduction to the subject as they're usually among the standard college textbooks used in relevant courses. I've said this elsewhere in the thread but nationalism at it's most base level is a belief in the existence of nations, nation states and the concept of self-determination. A nation is an amorphous political concept that can be based on a large number of things from a perception of shared ethnicity to shared geography to shared history. The basis for the creation of a nation is known as national identity. Practically every country in the 21st century , professes a national identity and when a country does this it is known as a nation state (the wikipedia article for this concept is fairly narrow as it focuses on states that tie national identity to ethnicity and all but ignores civic nationalism and to some extent left wing nationalism )

The United States is a nation state as, like most every other modern country, it has a national identity. The key however is in defining what American national identity is. Trump and many of his followers likely understand American national identity to be rooted in whiteness and Christianity while most other Americans understand American national identity as being rooted in a form of civic (not ethnic) nationalism which embodies a shared sense of republican (not the political party but the system of government) ideals and essential freedoms. This is bolstered by a shared national culture that manifests itself in things like Thanksgiving which is based on and celebrates a national myth and was established with the express purpose of fostering a common national culture. Celebrating Thanksgiving is literally participation in American national identity and therefore an expression of American nationalism.

Nationalism is further reinforced by national symbols for example flags and national anthems. The concept of every nation (not only nation-states but stateless nations like the Ainu as well) having a flag is something something that emerged concurrently with the notion of nationalism because the newly emerging nations needed symbols to tie their identities to. Thus displaying any kind of flag associated with a nation (state or otherwise) is a display of nationalist sentiment.

With that out of the way let's go back to the Olympics. I stated that the modern Olympic games themselves were founded upon nationalism and the belief that athletic competition offered a healthy outlet for duking out national rivalries as an alternative to conflict. That is why the Olympics themselves are an orgy of national symbolism from the Parade of Nations, the fact that athletes represent their nations at all instead of themselves, the playing of national anthems at medal ceremonies, etc. etc. With all that in mind rooting for your nation's athletes at the Olympics is an expression of nationalist sentiment. But don't take my word for it! Here's a couple of articles I was able to find on the subject after a two second Google search since I don't feel like digging up old academic articles. Hell, here's the perspective of a Communist (i.e. someone who actually rejects nationalism since they believe in the dismantling of all states and national identities).

Nationalism in and of itself has absolutely nothing to do with blind loyalty to a particular government although chauvinistic nationalism does indeed manifest itself that way. In fact nationalism isn't contingent on the existence of a nation-state or government and doesn't even necessarily advocate for one. Just look at the history of Black nationalism in the USA of which only a few strands (known as Black Separatism) advocated the creation of an African American state.

As far as patriotism goes it's a tricky question but while not every display of patriotism is nationalism the vast majority are as they acknowledge the existence of or loyalty to a nation or nation-state and more often than not incorporate national symbols such as flags. Remember that a nation is not solely the government but the amorphous political body of individuals who share some common identity so when professing to "love a nation" someone could just as easily be talking about the people as opposed to the government.

u/gayotzi · 1 pointr/AskAnthropology

Not totally accurate, but if you’re looking for popular science/entertainment that’s somewhat anthropology related.... Kathy Reichs is a board certified forensic anthropologist and has written a lot of books. They (she) are what the TV show Bones was based on.

Stiff by Mary Roach is a good one

For nonfiction, and if you’re interested in things highly relevant politically now, these are some incredible works on immigration.

Becoming Legal
They Leave Their Kidneys in the Fields

I’m pretty sure this author is a sociologist, but still a great book. imagined communities

u/screwdriver2 · 1 pointr/politics

Ironic, since Noam Chomsky apparently considers himself an anarchist, and wrote a book called, "Chomsky on Anarchism."

http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Anarchism-Noam/dp/1904859208/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324305240&sr=8-1

u/cristoper · 1 pointr/PoliticalPhilosophy

There's also a collection of some of his writings/interviews on libertarian socialism: Chomsky on Anarchism.

And his essay: Notes on Anarchsim

u/GirlNumber20 · 1 pointr/conspiracy

They never shut down Operation Mockingbird. Great book on the subject.

>Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, a former editor for the German main daily newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), has first hand knowledge of how the CIA and German Intelligence (BND) bribe journalists to write articles free of truth, facts, and with a decidedly pro-Western, pro-NATO bent or, in other words, propaganda.

u/infocom6502 · 1 pointr/conspiracy

seems like taxpayer money was wasted buying the physical copies off the market. now the few remaining copies have crazy asking prices like $1000 .

or in some cases no copies at all:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Journalists-Hire-How-Buys-News/dp/1944505474/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

I'm not coming up with ebooks. nada. https://www.smashwords.com/books/search?query=+Ulfkotte+

If there was an ebook published there would be no price manipulation by depleting inventory; too many electrons in the universe.

If anyone finds a link to an ebook of above (either in german or eng) please post it on this thread. thx

u/TheNameisCyrilFiggis · 1 pointr/The_Donald

I haven't read this book yet (it's on my Amazon wishlist), but Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys the News looks like it covers this very subject.

u/MarkdownShadowBot · 1 pointr/ShadowBan

Hi /u/netpres, you're not shadowbanned, but 4 of your most recent 100 comments/submissions were removed. They may be removed automatically by spam filters and not necessarily by human moderators.


Submission in australia, "David Attenborough says air travel should be more expensive to fight climate change", 1pts (10 Jul 19)





Comment (1pts) in photoshopbattles, "PsBattle: Solar System Chocolates!", (09 Apr 19):

> Did you get them from the Rhiga Royal in Okaka, Japan? They taste really good as well as look great :-)





Submission in PoliticalDiscussion, "If you think IPCC says we're all doomed, you're getting warmer", 1pts (17 Oct 18)





Comment (1pts) in books, "Is this active censorship? - A recent and troubling example...", (09 Jan 18):

> It looks like Amazon.de has the book for sale in English: https://www.amazon.de/Journalists-Hire-How-Buys-News/dp/1944505474/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1515499862&sr=8-1&keywords=Journalists+for+Hire






^^Bot ^^here. ^^My ^^home ^^is ^^at ^^/r/CommentRemovalChecker ^^- ^^check ^^if ^^your ^^comments/submissions ^^have ^^been ^^silently ^^removed!

Help us expose and stand up to social media bias and censorship!

u/CVLT · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

I would like to find some more justification for it as well. I'll be looking and I'll post here if I find anything good.

I'm just about to dig into reading Polystate. I really think this is where the future is heading.

u/TheNarcissisticIdiot · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

> No. There are a range of goals (because AnCap is an umbrella term) but none of them are 'stateless' corporate-oligarchy since corporations are themselves branches of the state we are against. Something like a polystate is closer to what you describe but is not anarcho-capitalist in nature (or conception).

You don't think your system is total corporate tyranny, but it is.

> nature has oppressed you

Well look who doesn't have a clue what the other person believes.

> There are numerous volumes of text on why a state is unlikely to rise from Anarcho-Capitalism

So? There are many more that explain why it would.

> Who advocates for this particular acronym in the broader AnCap community?

David Friedman.

> Except that what we are advocating for is freed markets, not 'capitalism'. Though I would say I have no problems with capital accumulation.

Private owns of the means of production is capitalism. If you advocated for freed markets, you'd be a mutualist.

u/Liberty_Scholar · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

The author actually is an AnCap... based on his writing this eBook.

u/billy_tables · 1 pointr/unitedkingdom

Starting? It started with the SWP. As usual it's not mainstream, but it's not new either.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Whats-Left-Lost-Liberals-Their/dp/0007229704/

u/Madz3000 · 1 pointr/exmuslim

> It is bad for the world. The US is fucking amazing, Europe is spineless and China doesn't give a fuck.

True

> Unfortunately, I think the US' golden age is over, and the world doesn't know what its got, until its gone.

You might be right, but I think this is a matter of popular perception. The US golden age as far as the US being loved does seem to be waning. As far as it's influence and power is concerned I think it's still strong. Much of the anti-Americanism (and anti-westernism) in the world is due to conspiracy theories but also partly to blame on leftists and I am a leftist/liberal just so you know.

This anti-NATO protest in Chicago is one example of what I mean.

I recommend watching this interview with the British journalist Nick Cohen:
Part 1 & Part 2 on his book "What's Left: How the Left Lost its Way"

At least Tony Blair doesn't have the western liberal guilt that many have...

Another part to the perception of western decline not just American is the rise of other big economies like China, India and Brazil.
Osama Bin Laden even said something like "we have to bleed the Americans". GW Bush's war strategy was forceful and huge in order to show American power but it was too expensive and hurt the economy. Exactly what Bin Laden wanted.

Obama is also part of this perception because of the way he talks. He wants to end American exceptionalism, which sounds like a fair thing to do but is ultimately a dangerous thing. He doesn't seem to me to believe that America is a leader in the world anymore.

> Politics still is a dirty game, and it has to be. The US and the UK can easily be called terrorists. They have done horrible things, and it sounds Machiavellian, but there are definitely times when the ends justifies the means, if you want rapid, more reliable results.

I agree with what you say here but I don't agree that the US and the UK can easily be called terrorists. They do not meet the definition of being terrorist states or state sponsors of terrorism. I don't think you can make that equivalence.

> That is the problem with democracy.

I agree. Another problem with democracy is the belief that if you give people free elections that they will choose wisely. Another problem is people misunderstanding democracy and believing it means majority rule. Yet another problem is trying to spread democracy without spreading secularism. The United States forced a constitution on Japan after WW2 and the Japanese people have barely changed it since and look how great their country is. So that proves you are right when you imply that an iron fist has to be used sometimes. I don't think that a kind and reasonable dictator is such a bad thing.

> And I liked Ron paul in the beginning. He was kind of adorable. But all that Gold standard/Austrian school/Mises shiz was just silly. Before you worry about a potential presidents stance on abortion, you have to look and see if he has a basic grasp of economics.

Haha yeah! He wants (i'm not sure if this is still his position) to shut down the US central bank and believes this will somehow improve the economy!

> It is illegal to serve as governor while being an atheist in more than 10-20 states. Half the country doesn't believe gays should be able to marry. They don't think prostitution or drugs should be legalized. The US has to take care of itself. It is the only civilized country without socialized healthcare. The jail situation is incredibly depressing, especially for the black population.

I don't see why a country like the US can't fix it's domestic problems while still having a strong foreign policy. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

> Your problem is that you care on an emotional level maybe.

Of course I care on an emotional level but I don't think on an emotional level.

> Being in the UK, I assume you are Indian or Pakistani?

I'm Egyptian and moved with my parents and sister to the UK when I was 4 years old.

> Not an isolationist. First you have to love yourself, before you can love others.

Agreed. I don't think your an isolationist btw.

I have to admit, I didn't put much effort into this post but I did read all of your post carefully.

u/Satan_Is_Win · 1 pointr/ukpolitics

https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Whats-Left-How-Lost-its-Liberals-Their/0007229704

"From the much-loved, witty and excoriating voice of journalist Nick Cohen, a powerful and irreverent dissection of the agonies, idiocies and compromises of mainstream liberal thought.

Nick Cohen comes from the Left. While growing up, his mother would search the supermarket shelves for politically reputable citrus fruit and despair. When, at the age of 13, he found out that his kind and thoughtful English teacher voted Conservative, he nearly fell off his chair: 'To be good, you had to be on the Left.'

Today he's no less confused. When he looks around him, in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, he sees a community of Left-leaning liberals standing on their heads. Why is it that apologies for a militant Islam that stands for everything the liberal-Left is against come from a section of the Left? After the American and British wars in Bosnia and Kosovo against Slobodan Milosevic's ethnic cleansers, why were men and women of the Left denying the existence of Serb concentration camps? Why is Palestine a cause for the liberal-Left, but not, for instance, China, the Sudan, Zimbabwe or North Korea? Why can't those who say they support the Palestinian cause tell you what type of Palestine they would like to see? After the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington why were you as likely to read that a sinister conspiracy of Jews controlled American or British foreign policy in a liberal literary journal as in a neo-Nazi rag? It's easy to know what the Left is fighting against – the evils of Bush and corporations – but what and, more to the point, who are they fighting for?

As he tours the follies of the Left, Nick Cohen asks us to reconsider what it means to be liberal in this confused and topsy-turvy time. With the angry satire of Swift, he reclaims the values of democracy and solidarity that united the movement against fascism, and asks: What's Left?"

u/konstatierung · 1 pointr/Metal

> this is the mindset of conservatives since inherently you are being steadfast against a changing world. The idea already has conflict set and the world is crumbling around you as you get older and wish for whatever idea of right you had.

Totally. Corey Robin has been pushing (in his book and elsewhere) the thesis that conservatism has always essentially been about preserving the hierarchy of the past. And this is necessarily a project of oppression and occasional violence. Nice New Yorker writeup here.

u/nosayso · 1 pointr/SandersForPresident

He very clearly grabs her in this video.

She immediately posts picture of bruises on her arm

Washington Post reporter Ben Terris saw it happnen

Michelle Fields is a very conservative reporter who works for Brietbart, a severely right wing conservative propaganda newspaper. She literally just wrote a book shitting all over the Democratic establishment in Washington. She probably would have voted for Trump, she may still vote for Trump. Why would she lie? Nominally she and Trump are on the same team. She very clearly had nothing to gain and everything to lose. There's just no reason to not inherently believe her given she has no incentive to lie, on top of the preponderance of evidence.

What a judge decides is irrelevant, a court decision doesn't change a fact. If you're not aware that courts can make the wrong decision then you're woefully ignorant of history.

u/25Outs · 1 pointr/The_Donald

)0; luckly i saw on twitter that the reviews of a book on amazon was getting crushed by Trump supporters! imagine my surprise when i went to read them and got my tendies fix!https://www.amazon.com/Barons-Beltway-Washington-Elite---Overthrow/dp/0553447556/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1466813957&sr=1-1&keywords=barons+of+the+beltway

u/newsens · 1 pointr/911truth

I was studying 911 long before the "truth" movement was even thought about, in fact while Gage was still asleep, so I have been through the development of 911 thinking in its various phases.

Stephen Jones certainly does appear to be legit, that is until one realizes that thermite is not an explosive and thus could not account for what happened to the towers - total destruction, pulverization of all concrete, glass and most of the steel into the finest dust particles, and, most importantly, loss of the actual mass of the towers from the demolition site.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX1zX5RHC3M

Judy Wood's information is probably the most accurate there is and I highly recommend her book. Unfortunately she attributes what happened to an as yet unheard of energy source, the Directed Energy Weapon, which is clearly in the realm of science fiction.

http://www.amazon.com/Towers-Evidence-Directed-Free-energy-Technology/dp/0615412564

u/vin4444 · 1 pointr/politics

Your video proves my point. Go to 21:30. Not even enough rubble to fill the lobby, even though it should be at least 12 stories high.

Read this book to educate yourself.

https://www.amazon.com/Towers-Evidence-Directed-Free-energy-Technology/dp/0615412564

u/conspirobot · 1 pointr/conspiro

axolotl_peyotl: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link

I complete understand where you're coming from.

Let me clarify my position a little bit: the presence of thermite is not the big issue here.

My point is that Jones is trumpeting this explanation as the sole reason for the towers' collapses, and this theory has heavily infiltrated the 9/11 truth movement.

The big issue here is that something unconventional brought down those towers...they fell way too fast and completely.

That's why those of us with inquisitive and skeptical minds have been searching for alternate explanations for how they fell...and mostly because of Jones the thermite theory has been unfortunately embraced by many.

You've created a false dichotomy (perhaps one of the reasons Jones is doing what he's doing): you seem to think that if we don't believe Jones then we must be on the side of the US Govt.

That couldn't be further from the truth!

I'm a regular here, and you should know that by my questioning Dr. Jones, I am not questioning the 9/11 Truth Movement as a whole.

Since the only PHD I have is in armchair conspiracy theories, I'm clearly not qualified to question the science of his thermite findings, though I can read the many skeptical individuals who are scientists and who question his results.

However, I can comment on the bigger picture, because Jones' history with the "cold fusion" story should raise huge red flags as to his motivations with the whole thermite thing. Again, watch the film Heavy Watergate to understand what I'm talking about.

Since you seem ready for this information, I can't recommend this book enough.

Once you get past the seemingly implausible premise and look at the actual evidence, this theory becomes frighteningly plausible.

This is the theory /r/conspiracy should be talking about, not Jones and his red herring.

u/oomiak · 1 pointr/conspiracy

What do you think of this book and theory?

If you haven't read it yet, I would be extremely interested to know what you make of it.

This theory is frowned upon by alternative media in a similar way as the snowden-as-limited-hangout theory.

I can understand using baby steps to wake up the general population, but how do we wake up those who are already truthseekers, but who may be hesitant to embrace the "wilder" conspiracy theories?

u/stuckinabarrel · 1 pointr/books

I'll have you know that What it Takes is a brilliant book!

And if it's on sale in a used bookstore, so be it, internet sir!

u/gnownek99 · 1 pointr/AskTrumpSupporters

Yes, a smart Democratic party would exploit it. But its one of the things they can't actually push because it might work.

Democrats are operating of this book and have for some time. Hence, they dream of flipping Texas using the Hispanic vote and locking in a permanent majority.

https://www.amazon.com/Emerging-Democratic-Majority-John-Judis/dp/0743254783

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/03/the-coming-democratic-majority-might-be-coming-a-lot-slower-than-you-think.html

u/Joss_Muex · 1 pointr/AgainstGamerGate

> Cultural marxism in my experience is a most definitely right-wing term.

No it isn't. Below is a quote from this twitlonger http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4

**
Cultural Marxism is not an invention of the paranoid right. It's a school of thought developed by left-wing Marxists and named by them as such because it describes the application of their own theory to culture rather than economics. Whether you agree with the movement or disagree with the movement, saying that it's not a movement, or that William Lind created a fictitious movement in 1998, is absurd. You are either misinformed or lying.

Below is a list of sources drawn exclusively from professors and scholars practicing cultural Marxism in which they use the term to describe the Frankfurt- and Birmingham-descended schools of thought.

)1. Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

)2. Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC, near my house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg

)3. "Culutral Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144

)4. "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093

Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".

)5. "Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artifacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd

The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.

)6. For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."

)7. You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.

I hope that this brief survey amply demonstrates that Cultural Marxism is a term created and actively used by progressive scholars to describe the school of thought that first developed at Frankfurt and Birmingham to apply Marxism to cultural studies.

***

Cultural Marxism is a real academic term, Orwellian efforts of Wikipedia admins to redefine it notwithstanding.

u/gabbagool · 1 pointr/AskReddit
u/sulaymanf · 1 pointr/todayilearned

Your numbers are wildly off. Afghanistan does not have "hundreds per year." And while atheism wasn't their main goal, just like Islam wasn't the main goal of most of the aforementioned groups, the LTTE did get some atheist inspiration, as did many of the Vietnamese Communists.

Robert Pape, who teaches at the University of Chicago, has written an interesting book you should read: "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.". He examined every documented case of suicide bombing from 1980-2003.

> Pape argues that the news reports about suicide terrorism are profoundly misleading. "There is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions," Pape reports. After studying 315 suicide attacks carried out over the last two decades, the political science professor concludes that suicide bombers' actions stem from political conflict, not religion. While television viewers and newspaper readers in the US hear more about events in Israel, Iraq, Madrid and London, Pape points out that the Tamil Tigers, a group that most Americans have never heard of, are responsible for more suicide attacks over the last two decades than any other group. The Tamil Tigers have have been influenced by a Marxist/Leninist ideology which is largely atheistic and disavow any connection with the Hinduism practiced by many of the people the the region of Sri Lanka where they operate. The Tamil Tigers are engaged in a struggle for independence from the central Sri Lankan government.

>Pape's strong conclusion is that religious fundamentalism is NOT the source of suicide bombings or terrorism. "What nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland." This is true in Sri Lanka, it is true in the Middle East (where many terrorist groups consider themselves secular rather than religious) and, yes, in Iraq, where former Baathist supporters of Saddam Hussein may use Islam as a cover and even a recruiting tool, but are motivated by clear political objectives: the pressure the US to leave Iraq so that the way will be clear for their own return to power. Worldwide, the struggle is about power and politics, not religion.

>Bottom line: Asymmetrical warfare makes the world safe for suicide terrorism, while religion is a smokescreen and cover for what is actually happening. Focusing on "Muslim extremism" is therefore likely to make matters worse, rather than leading to a solution to the problem..

Passages lifted from a review

u/burnt_wick · 1 pointr/radiohead

Sure, I have met lots of Muslims. I live in Manhattan so I interact with Muslims every day. In my experience, they all seem to be lovely people.

I am not basing my opinion on the majority of Muslims in the world on my own limited personal experience.

I am basing my opinion on the majority of Muslims in the world on Pew Research, the gold standard in public opinion polling.


Pew did an exhaustive study where they did face to face interviews with 38,000 Muslims in 39 separate countries over the course of four years.

You can read the 200+ page report for yourself. I certainly did. I then broke down the results of their research here. It's about 20 minutes long, which is much longer than it took me to read the report.

Muslims integrate well into a Western population when they are less than 2% of the population. As the percentage of the population rises, problems arise.

I also analyzed the data collected by Samuel P. Huntington in his book The Clash of Civilizations. I also broke down his research in about 20 minutes here.

Let me know if you have any questions.

u/sammichbitch · 1 pointr/conspiracy

WWI and WWII were perfect example of white people fighting white people. It was a political and power's conflict. Now everything is settled and there is no need to acquire more power or territory in state level (at least for developed states) except for acquisition of resources. But you are also right, there was also cultural conflict going on. But now it is purely about that. You must be aware of Huntington's Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. If not then you should read it.

u/Bossman0101 · 1 pointr/geopolitics

> I think you have a misunderstanding of the crash. I would recommend the book courage to act from Former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke

Thanks, I'll check it out in a few months.

What I was getting at, when calling it like a Ponzi, is the idea that the solution to the last recession (I'm going to call it this now, instead of a depression, like I did before), is that the Government, just put a band-aid on the problem with QE. I think the rates are so low right now, to encourage spending, that when the next shock hits, there will be no more play room to address it other than printing more money.

Ponzi was definitely a wrong word to use, but it was the only thing that comes to mind when the current system is based on Consumption. You need more consumption in the future then you had in the past or you have a recession or a Depression. That strikes me a Ponzi, in that constant consumption is impossible, before something gives or breaks.

> globalization monetary system?

The whole shebang. Everything.

> Magic of the market. (Oil is still down)

Oil was just a random example I used, to display any variable of causes attributable to "Reasons why XYZ happened, happens, is happening" when economist or journalist try to explain how or why.

Pension system, I feel, will not be fixed. I'm more pessimistic then you are.

Health care needs to become Universal, but again, I'm more pessimistic then you are and don't think it will happen.

Refugees are what I think will cause the next "big thing". WW3? Collapse of the system..I have no idea...10 years, 20 years from now...I have no idea. I think two books, very controversial, but worth reading regarding this matter are The clash of Civilizations and Culture Matters by Samuel Huntington. Helping people help themselves is the only way to truly help someone and the manner of letting people flow undocumented into countries is not going to end well for those people or those countries.

> Each generation will adapt to the changes before it. Just like we used to have 80% workforce in agriculture. Now we have 2%. The next generation will do something else (always)

Definitely...but at what cost? Revolution? Civil War? Civil Discord? War? Change does equal Reaction....how will they react? (in general, well and good, or violently and with fear?) I guess depending on how fast the change happens will determine how violent the reaction will be.
>
> Timescales. Maybe, but Whether the system collapse in 100 years or 1000 years matter. The system has thus far shown resiliency to large external shocks (2008). Idk if it will survive a ww3 though

Agreed. So long as the resiliency is Real which would lead to assuming what the Government did to solve the last shock was applying a band aid to a necessary amputation. We will see when the next shock happens, 5 10 100 or 1000 years from now

u/enjoypolo · 0 pointsr/conspiracy

Thank you for providing this. Reddit has been invaded with skeptics.
Recently reading "Money Mafia" by Paul Hellyer revealed an interesting trick in the book for 9.11: The use of free energy devices (akin to Tesla's beam weapons) that completely annihilate materials and turns them into dust. I have yet to check out the book. "

EDIT: I just found out Judy Wood, the Author of the book has a website.

http://drjudywood.com

u/Righteousnous · 0 pointsr/politics

Vote for us you insufferable bigots, and by the way here’s a guide to your future: https://www.amazon.com/Emerging-Democratic-Majority-John-Judis/dp/0743254783

Intersectionality forever!!!!

u/trilateral1 · 0 pointsr/worldnews

You're in over your head. You've been mislead.

Am I right in assuming that you also believe "Cultural Marxism" is fake news, a fabrication by the "alt right"?

Let's look at some literature:

  • Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

  • Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

    Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg

  • "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144

    Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".

  • "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093
    "Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that

    "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artifacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. https://www.readings.com.au/products/6300010/cultural-marxism

  • The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

    Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.

    For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/index/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", described as "long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."

    You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.

    I hope that this brief survey amply demonstrates that Cultural Marxism is a term created and actively used by progressive scholars to describe the school of thought that first developed at Frankfurt and Birmingham to apply Marxism to cultural studies
u/deakannoying · 0 pointsr/Catholicism

> I hope you recognize that this is a politically charged statement, and the implicit danger is not necessarily grounded in reality.

I do realize that, and it's the reality I saw and experienced with my own eyes in France, Germany, and Italy only last year. I was in there when a series of terror attacks were carried out.

> conservative media hysteria

Not sure about this, because I rarely go to conservative news sites, preferring to get my news from the BBC, DW, France24, AlJazeera, and RT (yes I know some are propaganda, but I like to view the US through a critical lens).

What I have noticed is that there is a notable absence of any reporting about various anti-immigrant movements throughout Europe (especially PEGIDA in Germany). We were scheduled to attend a rally in Dresden (one of my friends in DE is an activist, and was in Leipzig in 1989 too), and not a word was mentioned anywhere I could find.

> Islam vs Western Liberalism conflict is almost a sideshow compared to what really needs to be solved

They're both grave situations. I don't completely disagree with you. But it would not be acknowledging reality to dismiss what one can see with one's own eyes and hear with one's own ears.

An anecdote: looking across the Lusatian Neisse River from Zgorzelec, Poland to Görlitz, Germany, I saw dozens of full hijab-wearing women and their children lining the banks on the German side. (Zero on the Polish side.) Anyone who says this is not a full-scale invasion of Europe is deluding themselves.

Yes, there are some refugees actually in need (the aforementioned women and children), but the vast, vast majority of people I saw were bodybuilder males aged 18-35, and they comprised roaming gangs through the squares of every town and village I visited.

You mentioned that secular society doesn't share our Christian values. I agree. Secular society also usually doesn't drive trucks over people they disagree with. (Not yet, anyway.)

Let's not be disingenuous nor put our heads in the sand about what is happening -- it's a clash of civilizations that has been happening for 1300 years.

I'd love to just "get along" and not be violent, just like the Pope says. But we're to be "wise as serpents" as well.

u/sunofapeach · 0 pointsr/WayOfTheBern

seems like Don Jr is the one who's Triggered.

u/intensely_human · 0 pointsr/news

How is that a "straw man"? For it to be a straw man fallacy, 123 would have to be involved in some kind of debate, which he is not. 123 has only made a simple statement, distorted slightly by sarcasm but still easily interpretable.

A straw man takes the form of "well you people think A, which is absurd because XYZ", when in fact nobody has been claiming A. That's a straw man.

Absolutely nothing about what 123 did is a straw man fallacy. Absolutely nothing about what 123 did is any type of fallacy. He called out Noam Chomsky, who is in fact an humanist, for not having spoken up on the situation.

> In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population.

-- Noam Chomsky


> The intellectual tradition is one of servility to power and if I didn’t betray it I’d be ashamed of myself

-- Noam Chomsky


> Education must provide the opportunities for self-fulfillment; it can at best provide a rich and challenging environment for the individual to explore, in his own way.

-- Noam Chomsky

> The only justification for repressive institutions is material and cultural deficit. But such institutions, at certain stages of history, perpetuate and produce such a deficit, and even threaten human survival.

-- Noam Chomsky, ibid

u/ILikeBumblebees · 0 pointsr/intj

> Not many people on here seem to agree with me though.

What you're describing is what certain varieties of libertarians, specifically certain anarcho-capitalists, refer to as "communities of legal agreement". You might be interested particularly in /r/polycentric_law and some of the discussions that take place in /r/anarcho_capitalism. You might also be interested in the works of David Friedman. If you like SMBC, the creator, Zach Weinersmith, actually wrote a book exploring similar ideas.

u/Inferchomp · -1 pointsr/Political_Revolution

Stalinism (an authoritarian form of socialism) is the most well known, and reviled, because of Cold War propaganda, but it worked pretty well. It's really the only form of socialism people know to have been fully implemented (Mao too but I don't know enough to comment on that) and since it was pretty evil in the beginning, people assume every form of socialism is inherently evil. Cuba has done pretty damn well despite being under intense embargos. Give Michael Harrington's book a read for a good recap of the history of socialism.

Then there's capitialism, which is a precursor to socialism, as it was a necessary evil (Industrial Revolution, for instance) to get us to be able to produce goods at a massive clip. I think in the beginning capitalism was fine for what needed to be done but it always ends in monopoly and incredible disparity because it relies on wealthy people being "well meaning" and "good" when we know they're not. Capitalism keeps people ruled by elites and allows us to...elect fascists like we have now. Nothing is perfect but I'm just asking you to challenge your preconceived notions of capitalism.

Apologize if this was hastily written, I'm about to drive somewhere.

u/slinky783 · -1 pointsr/bestof

Well, that would be a longwinded reply.

If you have a half hour, listen to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aevtHHULag

Read these two books with an open mind:

https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Hoax-Illicit-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0062872745

https://www.amazon.com/Spygate-Attempted-Sabotage-Donald-Trump/dp/1642930989

I understand these take some logical leaps as well, but I feel they're closer to the truth of the matter.

All I know is that this investigation impacted the mid-term results far more than any Russian interference impacted the 2016 election, and they better have something BIG for the damage that this has done to the country.

u/HeyZeusChrist · -2 pointsr/politics

Every single source is in his book Spygate.
But you don't really care about sources do you?

Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump https://www.amazon.com/dp/1642930989/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_QJU.BbD9W0QEC

u/Landotavius · -3 pointsr/SeattleWA

>Not hard to win a game rigged in your favor

Hahaha how you say that with a straight face is beyond me.

u/eviltuo · -3 pointsr/NorthCarolina

If you wanna know the truth

Spygate

u/CuckyMcCuckerston · -3 pointsr/The_Donald

Its bullshit, the 9/11 demolition charges and the official story, that's a part of this redacted disinformation one, all to cover their tracks and put it on Saudi Arabia (no matter how hard they deserve for other things, but not this). We need to SHOW people what happened and let them use their own two eyes. Not what they've been told to believe. It was directed energy technology, For years Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) wanted, NO BEGGED for a complete thorough exhaustive, meticulous analysis of the EVIDENCE. Put the pitchforks down, READ.


Dr. Judy Wood undertook the first and to this date ONLY complete scientific forensic analysis of the events that took place on September 11th 2001 available in the public domain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cow8GtYkeA4&list=PLdN42gkvqb35nM6U1MIVsg7W9lDpD8HOh

https://www.amazon.com/Towers-Evidence-Directed-Free-energy-Technology/dp/0615412564/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1468613890&sr=8-1&keywords=judy+wood

FREE FROM AGENDA OR SPECULATION as to who did it, only what actually happened.

'It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.' Sherlock Holmes

Its dustification, not pulverisation.

u/sh125itonlysmellz · -3 pointsr/unitedkingdom

o rlly?
Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

"Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093

Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd

The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies"

"Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.

u/DeathCampForLeftie · -5 pointsr/bulgaria

Cultural Marxism is not an invention of the paranoid right. It's a school of thought developed by left-wing Marxists and named by them as such because it describes the application of their own theory to culture rather than economics. Whether you agree with the movement or disagree with the movement, saying that it's not a movement, or that William Lind created a fictitious movement in 1998, is absurd. You are either misinformed or lying.

Below is a list of sources drawn exclusively from professors and scholars practicing cultural Marxism in which they use the term to describe the Frankfurt- and Birmingham-descended schools of thought.

  1. Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

  2. Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

    Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC, near my house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg

  3. "Culutral Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144

  4. "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093

    Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".

  5. "Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artifacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd

    The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

    Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.

  6. For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."

  7. You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.

    I hope that this brief survey amply demonstrates that Cultural Marxism is a term created and actively used by progressive scholars to describe the school of thought that first developed at Frankfurt and Birmingham to apply Marxism to cultural studies.