Details

Published: 24 April 2022

Why is Florida’s Battle Against Cultural Marxism Important for America?

This is not about liberty or equality. It is a power grab.

The fall of Soviet communism established the tenets of cultural Marxism, as the means to gain political power in the West. These series of revamped Marxist theoretical premises and strategies began in the 1920s, had a revival in the 1960s, and were formally consecrated by the world’s radical left in 1989. Florida, under the leadership of Gov. Ron DeSantis, has led the resistance to roll back this Neo-Marxist assault.

For clarity, cultural Marxism (or Neo-Marxism) is the revised adaptation of Marxist thought and praxis outside the Soviet Union following the falsification of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ predications after World War I, by an important group of Marxist intellectuals. The need to rescue “Marxism”, as Engels coined their version of “scientific socialism”, was because the key elements that underpinned this ideology were disproved by events. Among those that attempted to salvage Marxism, were the Hungarian, György Lukács, the Italian, Antonio Gramsci, and the Germans, Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Erich Fromm, Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse. The German group is known as the Frankfurt School. 

The common denominator among all these thinkers and activists was the element of impacting “culture” as the principal mode of societal transformation. Each focused on specific angles yet retained cultural determinism as the true driving force of change, as opposed to economic relations, as Marx/Engels originally claimed. Some in the left are irked by the description of “cultural” Marxism and have emotionally challenged its rigor. The overarching weight of culture, however, as the seminal factor in Marxism’s conflict theory, which is the basis of all these relevant Marxist proponents, eviscerates any opposition to this classification. Leftism’s objection to this technical understanding becomes a petty rant or a strategic maneuver to confine to stealth appearance.

Gender Ideology (GI) is a comprehensive belief system that surges from the Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory (CT) ideological workshop. It argues against one’s sex determined biologically. GI proposes that “gender” is culturally constricted. This delirious, unscientific worldview would delegate a person’s sex, to the realm of one’s perception. In other words, what would be whatever sex a person “feels” or “imagines” that they are. Postmodernism, the current predominating intellectual framework that took root as of the1950s, was stacked with influential adherents of Marxism. Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, and Michel Foucault, the French Marxists who stewarded postmodernism, were adamant disciples of cultural Marxism, particularly the German communist’s Critical Theory rationalizations.

Thus, it was only a matter of time before GI took hold of the primary schooling educational system. College and university level institutions have since the 1970s been inundated with CT-driven grievance studies courses. Within the last decade and a half, a strenuous campaign to undermine the nuclear family has utilized the primary public school system to promote cultural Marxist dogmas. GI and Critical Race Theory, another CT branch that concentrates is conflict premise on race relations, have been the main indoctrinating agents in America’s elementary, middle and high schools.         

Florida scored a big win for parents, civil society, and freedom by signing into law the Parental Rights in Education on March 28, 2022. Said legislation would prohibit the promotion of GI toxicity to children in grades K-3 on gender identity and sexual orientation. Florida’s law achieves some basic objectives. It stops the sexualization of minors. Parents are recognized as having primacy over the sexual education of their children and not teachers’ unions or school boards, which have become hotbeds of leftist activism. This establishes a fundamental precedent for the U.S.  

In 1919, György Lukács, whom some consider the father of cultural Marxism, was Minister of Culture in the short-spanned Hungarian Soviet Republic (March-August). The Hungarian communist codified sexual education and quasi-GI curriculum material for primary school children. Lukács idea, just as today’s proponents of cultural Marxist indoctrination in America’s schools, was to destroy the family, Christian morals, and institutions that challenge radical social engineering. 

The architects of this subversive scheme disguise their formula as that of promoting “equality” for certain fringe sectors of society. Yet, existing civil rights legislation, as well as the Constitution, already safeguard their freedoms. This is not about liberty or equality. It is a power grab. Florida, as we have become accustomed to, is spearheading America’s revival. 

©The Cuban American Voice. All rights reserved. Reproduction is prohibited without express permission.

Details

Published: 21 April 2022

Can Putinism Be Castroism’s Transition Model?

Both dictatorships invest enormously in the field of painting false images that suit their political objectives, through intelligence and counterintelligence operations.

When an autocratic regime falls, a free and open society is not an indubitable outcome. Not all political transitions are democratic. Some democratization processes are reversed. Others only migrate to different formats of despotism. Some are quite clever. Samuel P. Huntington argued in his 1991 book, The Third Wave, that major surges in democratic shifts occur in block and are part of historical trends. The American political scientist also noted that these seminal proceedings are often overturned.

Politics is dynamic. Dictatorships realize that to stay in power, they must reformulate their model from time to time. Castro-Communism has serious survivability issues. The necessity to still exercise brutal forms of state terrorism against its people—after over six decades of totalitarian control—is most frustrating, from a tyrant’s perspective. While each case always contains sui generis elements, there are various non-democratic options that the Marxist regime in Cuba can attempt to emulate.

There are the Chinese and Vietnamese models. These single-party communist dictatorships have revamped their economic systems along with party-controlled, market models that coexist with a Leninist state. Marxist ideology with nationalist particularities is still official dogma. The São Paulo Forum dictatorial sketch, an invention of the late Cuban tyrant Fidel Castro, is another option. This format is designed to mimic a “democracy.” It has rigged voting processes, an ineffective quasi-opposition, salient limits to freedom, no rule of law, and schemes that co-opt the business and military realms.   

In Russia, following the collapse of the USSR, a post-Soviet dictatorial model surged that caused many in the West to believe that the Eurasian giant was undergoing a democratic transition. Perhaps that was Boris Yeltsin’s intention. The maverick reformer, however, probably figured out what Mikhail Gorbachev learned the hard way: the Soviet bureaucracy, intelligence, military, and top-party echelon were not going to part easily with the perks of power. Russia’s “privatization” scheme was a literal license to steal for a smeared capitalism. The Sandinista Marxists called this the “piñata.”

Vladimir Putin perfected the kleptocratic autocracy that was built in Russia, in the 1990s. This authoritarian model is worthy of the name, “Putinism.” By 2000, Putin became the de facto dictator. Within a few years, the organized crime format that was prevalent in post-Soviet Russia was overhauled into a highly personalistic dictatorship, where all the tentacles of power: economic, political, intelligence, and military, were beholden to him. An economic class of oligarchs would be made rich, thanks to Putinism. The sociologist, Max Weber, would have labeled this leadership type as sultanism.  

The Castro regime currently shares many of the characteristics of Putin’s Russia. Communist Cuba, it must be stressed, is still totalitarian in structure. The post-Soviet dictatorship in Russia is authoritarian. Russians enjoy greater spaces of movement and are materially in better predicaments. They are not, however, free. The Russian transition from totalitarianism to authoritarianism witnessed the largest privatization scheme in history. Large enterprises were auctioned to select bidders by way of government loans for shares, questionable voucher proposals, and other nebulous mechanisms. The result was an oligarchy, first criminal and then politically controlled. Putin’s authoritarian paradigm annulled any institution that could check his power.

Cuban communism’s economy is today a mixture of state and concessionary (crony) capitalism. The Castroite state-owned enterprises (SOE) directly control 75% of the economy. In the tourist sector, that figure is even higher. The current Cuban economic arrangement would lend itself perfectly for a similar “privatization” scheme. Cuba’s wealth has already been plundered among the Castro brothers, family members, their associates, and the ruling elite. Like Putin’s oligarchs, most of them live, full or part-time, in the West. Many have even adopted dual citizenship or foreign residencies. This is an attempt to shield ill-gotten assets.

Disinformation for the Putin regime, as well as for Castro-Communism, is a way of life. Both dictatorships invest enormously in the field of painting false images that suit their political objectives, through intelligence and counterintelligence operations. Putinism and Castroism are, inherently, imperialistic. The highly personalistic, caudillo-like leadership mode of executive power is another common denominator shared by both dictatorships. Party institutionalization is weak in both regimes. The legal system is arbitrary and serves Putinism and Castroism in similar fashions. 

Cuban communism will surely incorporate elements from the other dictatorial models that cling to some notion of ideological underpinning, even in name only. Pieces of the Chinese and Vietnamese models will be incorporated. However, Putinism offers the Castro regime a comfortable starting point from which to migrate its tyrannical model. Forces of freedom must be alert to this ploy. The only successful democratization transition in Cuba, will first have to pass through the liberation process and then transitional justice. The errors of others must not be repeated.

©The Cuban American Voice and "El American". All rights reserved. Reproduction is prohibited without express permission.

Details

Published: 17 April 2022

Christianity and a Divided West

As we observe Easter, the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, a greater trust in a transcendental order would help strengthen the values ​​that have defined Western civilization.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made clear that there is a divide over the identity of the West and Western civilization. This has been especially palpable in the right and conservative circles. It has not, however, escaped the left entirely. As the world’s largest religion celebrates its holiest week, it is worth noting and, perhaps, bridging the gaps of this division. The Free World (another name for the West) has come to the aid of a besieged Ukraine. For some, this sign of democratic solidarity has been too slow and not enough. For other Westerners, the aid should not have happened at all. Why is there a divide?.

The West features a set of values, not geographically determined elements. Japan and South Korea are in Asia, yet they are part of the West. Those values include freedom, equality, justice, pluralism, rule of law, representative government, and open societies. Western civilization, the bedrock of the West, was built on a three-legged stool: Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem. Greek philosophy, Roman law, and Christian religion have been the hallmark of what constitutes being Western. When there is a disbalance within those three pillars, an identity crisis ensues.

Read more: Christianity and a Divided West

Details

Published: 13 April 2022

Castroism’s Immigration Weapon

Following the mass demonstrations in Havana in August 1994, known as the “Maleconazo”, the Castro regime tacitly allowed Cubans to leave the country. Here’s why.

Cuban Communism has been methodical and repetitive in its survivorship strategies. It has been systematic to the point that it is predictable. The use of state terrorism was initiated immediately upon seizing power in 1959. However, this proved early on to not be enough. The Castro regime has also relied on a geographically and politically directed immigration policy to achieve social control. As record numbers of Cubans are reaching the U.S. southern border, Havana’s escape valve approach is obvious. Immigration is another of Castroism’s political durability weapons.

The 11th of July Cuban Popular Insurrection of 2021 (11J) blew Castro-Communism’s mind. Hannah Arendt keenly noted that the most seminal component of a totalitarian regime was its ability to cohesively organize society and political power. The magnitude of the 11J mass demonstrations convinced the Marxist dictatorship that their organizational skills were gravely deficient.

Read more: Castroism’s Immigration Weapon