a) It's been largely drowned out in all the misuse, but people still do talk about Cultural Marxism in the original sense. For example, this book was published just last year.
The book refers to a movement that existed in the sixties and seventies.
b) That's not necessarily the case. There are people who use it to describe a particular flavor of left-wing authoritarianism, as my article says:
The article that says this
Current left-wing activism can, indeed, display hyperbolic, philistine, and authoritarian tendencies, but these have little to do with any influence from Marx, Soviet totalitarianism, or the work of the Frankfurt School. They have more, I suspect, to do with tendencies toward moral and political purity in almost any movement that seeks social change.
Meaning the author does not say that modern "authoritarian" tendencies in left wing activism like, I dunno-political correctness gone mad or power + prejudice "isms", have anything to do with Marx or Marxism.
So yeah, OK. I'll grant you. "Cultural Marxism" has been used, to describe the application of Marxism to the social sciences, as your book says-primarily in the sixties and seventies. The term is commonly used
today to promulgate the batshit insane notion of various progressive ideas being a Trojan Horse to bring about the destruction of the west by a super secret cabal of Marxists/Jews/Cthulhu/Insert The Blank.
It's a bit like the term "libertarian", you could point to the fact that the original use of the term or it's use by left leaning libertarians bares little resemblance to the way it's used today, but because of the way it is used today, on the internet in particular, it's broadly understood to be a term describe someone who thinks Ayn Rand was the greatest thing ever.
Back to the start of this brouhaha, I suggested you might be culturally conservative because you were citing a publication that suggests the left is the sole source of kafkatrapping and which penned an
editorial suggesting that Cultural Marxism is bad in the "it's all a Trojan horse to undermine civilisation sense", not the "obscure application of Marxism to the social sciences" sense.
This was the purpose of the ideology of Cultural Marxism — to root out the fundamentals of Judeo-Christian civilization and the splendid Camelot of Freedom it had created in America from 1776 to 1913. What is horrifying is that it has been triumphant. Marx has not buried us in an economic sense as Khrushchev boasted he would; but Marx has buried us in a cultural sense as Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs planned over 80 years ago. James Jaeger's film demonstrates this in lucid fashion that is at once fascinating and abhorrent.
That's not an "application of Marx to the social sciences", that's this.
