UK students more anti-free speech than ever: cultural socialism

[Pluvia]

I stumbled across this article:

unherd.com/thepost/britains-students-will-be-woke-forever/

I'm not sure I understand what is meant (or the implications) by the phrase 'cultural socialism.' If anyone can explain this, I'd be obliged.

I'm tempted to say this is nothing buy UTTER STUPIDITY.

"39% believe student unions ‘should ban all speakers that cause offence to some students’ (more than double the 16% figure in 2016), with just 31% opposed".

Do they realise that by their own criteria one undergraduate who goes on to do a masters and pHd could prevent all TRA speeches happening for 8 years at their uni?

In theory, socialism involves distribution according to collective interests, with (again in theory) more being given to people who have less. In practise, the interests are rarely collective; they operate according to who has power.

The hard left want free speech to operate in the same way, but of course it will operate in the same way.

There was a Twitter thread with graphs on this - does anyone have this to hand?

What it means is that the extreme right are pursuing a culture war- attacks on women's rights to control their own body.

"Cultural socialism" is just a phrase used by the author of the piece. Not a term I've come across before, but he claims what he means by it, counterposing it to cultural liberalism.
Some people conceptualise socialism in opposition to liberalism. Certainly, some forms of government claiming to be socialist, such as in China, are politically illiberal. (And almost all forms of socialism are in opposition to economic liberalism, as normally defined, particularly in its more extreme forms.)
So from that point of view I see what the author means, although it is perhaps an unfortunate expression, reminiscent of other phrases such as "cultural Marxism" and "cultural Bolshevism" ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism , a phrase coined by the Nazis).
Speaking as a gendercritical democratic socialist and as a liberal socialist, I don't particularly like seeing the term "socialist" or "cultural socialist" used in this way.

transdimensional

I disagree. Cultural socialism is about a redistribution of cultural power. It’s deeply connected to economic socialism, and just as doomed, because it can’t be done without the self-same appropriation of power which it critiques.

I read cultural socialism as being more or less the same as identity politics. So a kind of collectivist/ class and power framework for analysis but applied to identity or culturally defined groupings based on sexuality, race, or gender presentation, or I suppose any other set of criteria we care to use.

There's a lot of argument over what the best phrase to describe this ideology is, but it's certainly a real thing. It would be nice to have a widely accepted term because the lack of one is part of what allowed some adherents to claim that it's not an ideology, just a construct to serve the culture wars.

Cultural Marxism was a dogwhistle phrase used by the Nazis to indicate Jews.

Cultural socialism is a modernised form used by the extreme right both on "unherd" and on this website- which I understand is occasionally referred to as "Prosecco Stormfront"

@antifascist Do you have some reputable links or evidence for that observation?

ODFOD.
Many, many women who post on these pages are centre-left.

Prosseco stormfront my arse.

Cultural Marxism

"cultural socialism " Note the way it is deemed to be against the white Christian way of life

You're welcome.

@antifascist do you mean Cultural Bolshevism? So you are stating that Cultural Bolshevism became Cultural Marxism which has now become Cultural Socialism?

I'm saying the three terms are used interchangebaly on the far right sites which are frequently linked to on here by some of the far right posters who are trying to push their ideology

They’re random links. I can’t see where they go and I’m not clicking on those.

This study matches this yougov one.

yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/12/22/cancel-culture-what-views-are-britons-afraid-expre

Which in turn was done as a follow up to Dr Frank Lunz's research published in may 2021. I will find that study as well and post it.

It defies logic that anyone after these studies keep showing the truth of the matter continues to push the belief that the current group of 18-28 year olds are 'the most tolerant' age group. I wish that people would stop pushing that because it simply shows that even the word 'tolerant' has been changed to mean the opposite to make some people feel better about their actions.

Here is the other study on 'woke'.

yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/05/18/what-does-woke-mean-britons

If you scroll to the end of these pages, you will find links to the data sets.

Ah, you've been here before with that same claim, which is probably one of the most tortured I've ever seen.

Christians are just as, or more, likely to be non-white these days, btw.

I’m not indulging in pigeon chess, but it’s worth remembering that for some so-called antifascists, “far right” just means “anyone I don’t agree with”.

And what would those sites be that we are linking to?

I am all agog at learning of how many left lesbians and women have suddenly become radicalised far right extremists over the past few years. Defying their decades of campaigning for the left and for women.

‘I am all agog at learning of how many left lesbians and women have suddenly become radicalised far right extremists over the past few years.’

Relative to the far left, everyone’s a radicalised right wing extremist. You’d almost think...

The problem I see with people not defending free speech is that it hasn't been defended properly for years.

Even Julie Bindel, in the car park of Aspley Library in Nottingham, said she didn't support full free speech. She said something about not believing people should be allowed to use speech that large numbers of people found offensive.

I agree there are limits on free speech, but they have to be at the level of criminal behaviour, so inciting violence or persistent harassment, abusive language and behaviour aimed at someone or a group.

Expressing opinions that offend, even large groups of people, should be defended. We need to learn to argue against ideas we disagree with, not just shut people down,

‘I agree there are limits on free speech, but they have to be at the level of criminal behaviour, so inciting violence or persistent harassment, abusive language and behaviour aimed at someone or a group.’

This is essential in ensuring a level of objectivity about what is unacceptably offensive. We’ve seen this with the trans movement: they are absolutely genuine in finding offensive what nearly everyone else finds just true. What can you do with that?

When I was at Oxford in the early 2000s, I went to hear Charlton Heston speak about his support for gun laws. I found his stance reprehensible, but it gave me an important insight into how the pro-gun lobby felt. If he had been cancelled, which he most probably would be now (if he were still alive), I would never have got to hear his perspective and integrate it into my understanding of the issue.