Leftist culture is just a culture of useful idiots

Amanda Allen4 said:The vast majority of these self-proclaimed "cultural elites" are nothing more than leftists—and there’s a very simple reason for that: they can't actually make a living from their "art," so they rely entirely on government subsidies. It’s a racket! They need a specific kind of administration that is willing to foot the bill for their lifestyle. The leftist political class and these "culture vultures" exist in a perfect, parasitic symbiosis—at least until the productive members of society finally decide they can't carry the weight anymore.

There is definitely a financial incentive involved here, but I would argue there is an even deeper motivation at play. They aren't just looking for a paycheck; they are looking for their own place in the sun—better status, more influence, and real power.

It really comes down to a hunger for dominance. Every social group tends to view itself as marginalized to justify why they deserve more resources. These academic types and leftist cultural figures see the business sector as their primary rival, which is why they constantly lump politicians and CEOs together under the label of "the elite." Yet, strangely enough, they don't see themselves as part of that elite; instead, they claim to be "of the people," even though they often have absolutely nothing in common with everyday Americans. To them, the public is merely a tool used to fight for better positioning. They stir up resentment and indulge in indoctrination just to win their little power struggles. Class warfare isn't driven by those at the bottom; you won't find a janitor leading a revolution based purely on ideology. A janitor only rebels when they are truly hungry. No, these movements are orchestrated by academic elites who ride waves of discontent to seize political control or secure a dominant social standing.

Michael Davis9 said:While there’s certainly a grain of truth in what’s being said here, I’m struggling to see how a "leftist" culture—and honestly, we could spend all day debating what that even means—would actually differ from a "right-wing" one when it comes to this whole "useful idiot" label.

I mean, think about it: you'd likely find the exact same sense of resentment toward massive multinational corporations coming from both a radical leftist and a hardline right-winger. The right-winger fumes because they see globalism eroding traditional culture, whereas the leftist bristles at the unchecked expansion of foreign capital. It’s just two different sides of the same coin.

Well, in America, there isn't really an economic left or right distinction, because when things get serious about money, the leftists and those self-proclaimed American right-wingers end up blowing the same horn. Another big thing is that the radical left pays way more attention to economics than the right does, since it’s barely even on their radar... American right-wingers are mostly obsessed with nationhood, faith, the church, family, and constantly defending all that from some perceived threat... or whatever. They spend just as much time worrying about relations with Mexico, the status of Americans in Latin America, Muslims, the European Union, the American Civil War, World War II, and stuff like that. They only bring up the economy in passing, usually just to complain about the privatization of some failing state companies, selling large tracts of land to foreigners, or when they need to talk about how foreign products and TV shows are ruining the morals and behavior of the American people...

The moderate left also focuses way more on social issues, minority rights, LGBTQ+ rights, drug legalization, and so on, so in America, it's totally normal to see the heirs of old communist movements in the Democratic Party teaming up with the most capitalist-leaning wing of the Liberal Party...

In this kind of setup, the people paying the most attention to economics—and doing so from radical Marxist positions—are clowns like Horvat, Mate Kapović, and their crew, because their whole ideological foundation is that capitalism causes every single social problem, so it has to be destroyed and replaced by some new socialism... which makes capitalism their primary target. Then you have the libertarians, who are disorganized and completely marginal, mostly just talking about economics online on forums, blogs, and increasingly on various news sites...

driftingcobra22 said:Well, in America, there isn't really an economic left or right distinction, because when things get serious about money, the leftists and those self-proclaimed American right-wingers end up blowing the same horn. Another big thing is that the radical left pays way more attention to economics than the right does, since it’s barely even on their radar... American right-wingers are mostly obsessed with nationhood, faith, the church, family, and constantly defending all that from some perceived threat... or whatever. They spend just as much time worrying about relations with Mexico, the status of Americans in Latin America, Muslims, the European Union, the American Civil War, World War II, and stuff like that. They only bring up the economy in passing, usually just to complain about the privatization of some failing state companies, selling large tracts of land to foreigners, or when they need to talk about how foreign products and TV shows are ruining the morals and behavior of the American people...

The moderate left also focuses way more on social issues, minority rights, LGBTQ+ rights, drug legalization, and so on, so in America, it's totally normal to see the heirs of old communist movements in the Democratic Party teaming up with the most capitalist-leaning wing of the Liberal Party...

In this kind of setup, the people paying the most attention to economics—and doing so from radical Marxist positions—are clowns like Horvat, Mate Kapović, and their crew, because their whole ideological foundation is that capitalism causes every single social problem, so it has to be destroyed and replaced by some new socialism... which makes capitalism their primary target. Then you have the libertarians, who are disorganized and completely marginal, mostly just talking about economics online on forums, blogs, and increasingly on various news sites...

Those clowns are everywhere. They stick together, constantly pulling each other up, having captured CNN, appearing across other major media outlets, and even founding their own media platforms and activist groups to push their agenda.
Their ideology might be hollow, but they are highly organized and well-connected—which is surprisingly successful for people who claim to be anti-materialist when it comes to generating revenue.
Personally, I find the Austrian School to be a bit too radical; when it comes to economic theory, I tend toward the American mainstream—somewhere between London and Chicago—though I certainly find the Austrian School much more palatable than any sort of Marxist nonsense. So, why aren't they making waves? Or more broadly, why isn't there a strong pro-capitalist movement? They should start something similar to H-alter, but from a right-wing perspective, or perhaps a publication backed by state grants, similar to how LMD, comma, and News outlets operate, and then really make an impact.
But the question remains: is there actually anyone with the talent to pull something like that off? The radical left tends to recruit heavily from Philosophy departments—majors like philosophy, sociology, comparative studies, and so on—as well as journalism programs at places like FPZ, specifically targeting students whom professors have indoctrinated with Naomi Klein and similar thinkers. Where could one find advocates for right-leaning ideas—essentially the antithesis of that Marxist-anarchist-anti-Western ideology? Perhaps a rare gem in a philosophy or sociology program would be worth their weight in gold, since they know those circles intimately, maybe someone out of FPZ. You would surely find more potential candidates within history, economics, or various engineering programs.

Richard Wilson4 said:Honestly, I think it's even more basic here in the States. These people are leftists because that's just who they are everywhere else. They don't want to be seen as anything less than "edgy" or controversial, even though they're actually just boring mainstream types who don't really shock anyone anymore.

What on earth are we supposed to expect from a self-proclaimed "fine artist" who can’t actually paint a decent picture or carve a respectable sculpture? It’s pretty obvious they can't make a living from their "craft"—so, naturally, they need to feast at the taxpayer's trough.

And don't get me wrong—they aren't lazy. Oh no, they’re always *busy*. They attend seminars, they participate in "workshops," they show up at protests... they’ve even gone and invented an entirely new category of expression called "installation art." One of these types actually told me once how "interesting" his life is! First, he joins some pretentious art "colony," then he bumbles through "workshops," puts together an "installation," and suddenly—presto!—it’s a "happening" that qualifies him for a government grant. It might not be a fortune, but these artists are supposedly "bohemians," right? They don't need much. Besides, they certainly know how to charm you—it's far too easy to buy them a beer or two.

rustywalker32 said:Those clowns are everywhere. They stick together, constantly pulling each other up, having captured CNN, appearing across other major media outlets, and even founding their own media platforms and activist groups to push their agenda.
Their ideology might be hollow, but they are highly organized and well-connected—which is surprisingly successful for people who claim to be anti-materialist when it comes to generating revenue.
Personally, I find the Austrian School to be a bit too radical; when it comes to economic theory, I tend toward the American mainstream—somewhere between London and Chicago—though I certainly find the Austrian School much more palatable than any sort of Marxist nonsense. So, why aren't they making waves? Or more broadly, why isn't there a strong pro-capitalist movement? They should start something similar to H-alter, but from a right-wing perspective, or perhaps a publication backed by state grants, similar to how LMD, comma, and News outlets operate, and then really make an impact.
But the question remains: is there actually anyone with the talent to pull something like that off? The radical left tends to recruit heavily from Philosophy departments—majors like philosophy, sociology, comparative studies, and so on—as well as journalism programs at places like FPZ, specifically targeting students whom professors have indoctrinated with Naomi Klein and similar thinkers. Where could one find advocates for right-leaning ideas—essentially the antithesis of that Marxist-anarchist-anti-Western ideology? Perhaps a rare gem in a philosophy or sociology program would be worth their weight in gold, since they know those circles intimately, maybe someone out of FPZ. You would surely find more potential candidates within history, economics, or various engineering programs.

Leftists are absolutely nuking the right on a propaganda level globally, thanks to everyone from those self-labeled Marxists, neo-communists, and anarcho-syndicalists like Žižek, Chomsky, and Naomi Klein—not to mention that old guard of Marcuse and Sartre—all the way up to the moderate left-wing liberals... and there’s a damn good reason for it. They look out for one another, they push each other forward, and they’re incredibly organized, carving out their own space in universities and the media while constantly recruiting new activists... so even though they’re actually marginal in terms of results—since even the moderate left rarely takes power in most countries—they wield massive influence through media and propaganda. You see this exact same thing happening here in the States, where people from the old establishment are still deeply entrenched in our universities and news outlets, creating a feedback loop to shape public opinion. I don't hold it against them, honestly; if I were in their shoes, I'd be doing the same thing, except my side doesn't have anyone in those key positions... and it doesn't matter that Marxism was theoretically debunked by the end of the 19th century, or that it practically collapsed after the horrific crimes of the 20th century—Marxism remains one of the most influential ideologies out there...

Personally, I find myself leaning much more toward the Chicago School than the Austrian school when it comes to monetarism... because the whole gold standard theory feels full of holes to me, especially since the gold standard wasn't some organic choice made by the market, but rather something forced on everyone by government decree, whereas silver was actually what people used most often in the real market...
Look, even the Austrian School isn't some monolith where everyone agrees on everything, and they definitely aren't all equally radical... Take Friedrich Hayek, for instance; he actually believed the government should provide basic necessities like food and shelter for those who can't afford them, and he supported things like building codes and FDA regulations, which led hardliners like Rothbard to brand him a fake free-market economist. Personally, I think the Austrians are spot on when they argue that an unregulated free market would drive the most prosperity and progress in the long run, but I also believe we need a basic social safety net, because if we just leave people completely at the mercy of the market, we'll end up with the kind of suffering we already saw back in the 19th century... So yeah, taxes have to be paid and the state has to spend some money, but the less that happens, the better...

So, why doesn't a movement like that actually coalesce here in the States? Well, since I'm personally running in those same circles, I can tell you from experience that it’s mostly just a bunch of wannabe intellectuals who act like they've mastered everything under the sun, love playing the lone wolf, and are basically impossible to work with in a team setting. If you spend any time on American free-market blogs, you'll see exactly what I mean: most posts dive into abstract economic theories that the average American couldn't care less about—usually focusing on US or global policy—and the readers are just a tight-knit echo chamber constantly bickering over whether we should follow Mises, Friedrich Hayek, or Rothbard, or debating who's the "real" libertarian among them...

If economic liberals in America could actually get together without all that pointless infighting over ideology, they could focus on things like slashing government spending, privatizing state-owned companies (except for the natural monopolies, obviously), implementing a flat tax, stripping away the regulations that choke growth, making the labor market more flexible, and introducing school vouchers, and so on. I think people could push for these ideas through existing political parties; I’d probably suggest the Libertarian Party, since they’re constantly drifting and currently lack any real political clout, which leaves plenty of room for a total rebranding. But looking at the American public, even if it's just online, the influence of market-based ideas is becoming much more obvious, so it's really just a matter of time before these ideas find a way to become more serious and institutionalized. Take certain factions within the Republican Party, for instance, where there are plenty of people openly promoting free-market principles, along with a handful of respected intellectuals, journalists, and NGOs that champion those same ideas...

A few thoughts here:

+ In my view, the real priority should be building an informal anti-Marxist coalition that can dismantle leftist and anarchist ideas through solid argumentation, rather than just endlessly debating different flavors of capitalism. There will always be plenty of time for internal capitalist squabbles. At the end of the day, the left operates specifically by those principles; they don’t actually offer a viable alternative to capitalism. Instead, they cleverly dodge proposing their own hollow visions for how a system should function, choosing instead to master the role of the systemic critic—which is where they hold all the sway. Striking at the foundations of Marxism and its flimsy theses would be a massive win. This effort could bring together neo-classicals, Austrians, Keynesians, and even genuine social democrats—as long as they share that fundamental anti-Marxist core.

+ Working outside of party lines, engaging in reasoned debates, and educating the public will have a much deeper impact than simply trying to steer the policies of individual parties. A political party will pivot toward the voters if it's politically expedient, but if it doesn't, they'll just keep hitting a brick wall. If capitalist ideas gain traction among the general public, the parties will inevitably follow suit. It isn't that politicians can't influence public opinion, but the actual reach of non-charismatic individuals is quite limited.

+ In this propaganda war, PBS holds a pivotal position. Historically, various factions have fought for control there, but before the recent crises hit, the focus wasn't even really on capitalism; it was the usual battles between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, revolving around figures like Harmon, Marshall, or Pavelić. Today, we could argue that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats truly control PBS. Because of lingering ties to the old system—that sense of nostalgia for the old guard, the partisans, and the era of Harmon—the Republican Party finds them more distasteful than the Democrats. Yet, the news, culture, and lifestyle editors at PBS are actually quite neoliberal. Within the parliamentary landscape, the Labor Party is arguably the most popular on PBS, though many find them far too mild. I had hoped—and that hope is still flickering—that Radman might step in and clean house effectively. As a former Democratic talent, he would be the perfect candidate for this, especially since it’s unrealistic to expect the Republican Party to make a fuss about firing people like Kosanović or other journalists who are too deeply entrenched in ideology; after all, the Republicans have always had teeth against them and frequently challenge their very foundations. He wouldn't even need to fire them; simply freezing them out would suffice, though I'm not sure which media outlet would take them—they might only find work in marginal print circles like The New York Times. If a Republican-appointed director were to attempt a purge like that, you'd likely see the Democrats resisting.

+ Anyone could easily list the Marxist forces present in the American media; they are everywhere, lurking in the shadows. But who are the prominent media voices advocating for a different model—Šonjo, Polšek, and who else? I am talking about those who are genuinely, seriously active on these topics, not just mentioning them in passing, but treating them as their primary mission. Who serves as the alternative to the Horvats, Kapovićs, and Mršics of the world? There is a massive void there. Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has its own agenda and interests, which often does more harm than good in these ideological clashes.

+ Someone finally needs to tackle the issue of privatization in America. I’ve written about this on the forum before. The myth surrounding privatization does immense damage to the pro-capitalist cause. Nowadays, everyone in the US "knows" about the predatory privatization era that brought nothing but misery to the people, leading them to look back nostalgically at the supposed security of the socialist days. We need to shatter that myth. We need to lay out a clear chronology: when did privatization actually begin, and when did the American economy start to crumble? Corruption is a side story; the main narrative is the collapse of a decaying socialist economy. There are specific academic works on this subject that need to be brought out of the shadows.