Advertise Here
The Frankfurt School and Cultural Communism (Obama and Clint
Uploaded by: CanadaFirst2007
Video Description:
For Our People. A weekly show by Canada's leading Immigration Reform advocate - Paul Fromm.
This weeks show is: The Frankfurt School and Cultural Communism
The failure of Karl Marx and the Frankfurt School.
The communist disillusionment of the American Working man. From trying to use racial minorities (Blacks) and radical Feminism (gender politics) the Cultural Communism.
Barack Hussein Obama , and Hillary Rodham Clinton .
The inversion of three of the basic pillars of the United States. European Foundation, Christianity and a patriarchal society.
From the war on Religion and Culture of the United States. Barack Hussein Obama is a crypto muslim.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a radical feminist.
Tags for this video: christian clinton communism cultural feminism feminist For frankfurt fromm karl marx muslim obama Our Paul People school
Find more videos in the "News" category
See more videos uploaded by CanadaFirst2007
| Obama Communist Flag In Office! | O'Reilly's Goofy Guest - Obama A Communist, Like Castro | Is Barack Hussein Obama Electable??? |
 |  |  |
| Obama is a Communist | Obama And His Communist Ties - Frank Marshall Davis - Obama & Friends - History Of Radicalism - Volume 2 - Part 3 | Barack Obama: Black Communist |
 |  |  |
Share This Video:
Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Tell a friend:
Marxism is doubly-efficient fascism.
Doubly efficient at slaughtering the masses.
Yes that's why it can never exist. It's a theoretical impossibility. It's a contradiction to do economics without private property and a classless society is impossible because people are not naturally equal. Also a stateles society is a contradiction in terms. To sum up Marxism was a really really stupid theory.
Fascism Smascism. Does anyone even know what the heck fascism is? I've yet to run across a coherent definition of fascism that doesn't at the same time encompass most every society in human history.
@marxism It seems to me, you did not understand it. Marxens has analysed the actual society, but has not really worked out an alternative. Marx has shown that there are classes in capitalism (the ones who have the means of productions/the ones that dont). Marx has never really concentrated on the "state" (because no progress was possible with that instrument of the rich in 1848) Equality Liberty are just values, we should defend
Well a lot of them try and they tend to create bad alternatives.
"no progress was possible with that instrument of the rich"
The problem with Marxism is that it doesn't realize that progress can be shared between classes. Progress is not about class warfare.
"Equality Liberty are just values"
Trouble is most Marxists pit the two values against each other.
That is not true. Marx has never said that, nor did his followers.
One problem: every sicko that wants to take money from the rich is called "marxist" today. but marxens ideas cant be made responisble for what everybody does and says. a bit less emotion and a bit more sientific accouracy wouldnt be a bad idea
Look I only say this because most self-described marxists I know (I mean personally know) advocate the redistribution of private property
"a bit less emotion and a bit more sientific accouracy wouldnt be a bad idea"
Yes although I have know critical theorists and to base their arguments on emotion albeit in a cryptic fashion.
Private property is a concept that evolved over the past few centuries, yet we've had economic activity for millennia. The modern state too is a structure that was created only in the 17th century, why then is "a stateles[sic] society a contradiction in terms"?
They are not meaningless assertions. I was pointing out that politics and economics require the inclusion of fundamental concepts if we are to make any sense of them.
No private property has been around since the dawn of history. That's why people millenia ago had a concept of "stealing." Frankly I've never heard such a ridiculous statement before.People exchanged items as private property all throughout history. That's why we can unearth coins from the Roman period or learn the history of the barter system of the ancient Egyptians.
In it's modern form yes.But a government of one form or another has always existed.If it hasn't escaped your notice a state is a society.Without a government defining the rules or boundaries of a state you can't define that state as any particular society. Rather "societies" would be formless and non-concretizable abstractions(ie they wouldn't exist)
To sum up saying that a society can exist without a state is akin saying that a building can exist without walls, floors, or a ceiling.
Until the enclosure movement in the UK and similar developments in Europe as feudalism ended, private property as it is conceived today did not exist. The idea of property was even farther from how we today conceive of it in the world outside Europe. The modern legal/economic conception of private property had no meaning to the majority of the world's population until the 19th century.
As civil society is related to, but distinct from, the state, and as primitive societies (and many small communities) existed without the state, I am not so unimaginative as to declare such a thing an impossibility.
OK first of all those small communities had a surrogate for the state. The cheif and the tribal elders in that case were the "state". I'm not meaning "state" in the modern sense. I mean emblem of authority that ties the community together. You can't have a society without one.
Anarchy in Canada!