In terms of right wing PR/propaganda, it is another example of them following a specific playbook to redefine a term to mean what they want it to mean. 'Critical Race Theory' is the current example of this; 'political correctness' was another. Remember when they were shouting about Saul Alinsky? Well, that was because the playbook is largely derived from his writings - specifically, the tactic described as 'Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.'
So there you are. Depending on your politics, it was a strain of Marxist intellectual thought in the 1930s, or just another cudgel in the culture wars.
Critical theory itself came out of various Marxist and Marxist-influenced academics in the mid-20th century.
A main part of the concept behind this is that this dialectic is wrong. And hence people supporting it are doing so for other goals. Apparently this goal is "communism". That is, the goal is overthrowing the oppressed. It seems like the idea is that some of the people supporting this dialectic do so without questioning whether it is true. Hence, the argument goes, the supporters of this idea are either maliciously pushing a false agenda, or they are convinced by the false agenda and are well-meaning fools.
I also get the feeling there is an undertone of trying to understand why white / straight / gentile people are actually supporting the progressive side of identity politics.
Personally, I think most of this is plainly wrong. Though it seems like an interesting lens through which to look at the most extreme people at the progressive spectrum of identity politics.
The original formulation of Marxism was economic, based on the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This conflict worked to create communist revolutions in nations with more feudalistic systems like Tzarist Russia. However Communists have struggled to create revolution in more Democratic societies with greater social mobility, or at least the perceived possibility of.
So failing to get the economic class consciousness to trigger a revolution, the modern Marxist has moved on to pushing race/culture based class consciousness as the trigger for their revolution. This is why todays Marxist is not obsessed with rich and poor but white vs black vs hispanic.
Marxism is the idea of needing class struggle for progress. Cultural Marxism is transposing that from class to culture / ethnicity. Essentially moving the dialectic from worker / captialist to privileged race / non-priviliged race?
And the idea is that this is done, not to engender gradual change, but to engender revolutionary change?
Thanks for the explanation!
> This is why any time you see somebody talk about "the right side of history" that's a flag that said person is a Marxist, they view their desired communist end-state as inevitable.
I think that is, at best, a gross generalization. Just because that is what a Marxist might say, does not mean that everyone who says that is actually a Marxist. Besides, I believe that "history is the story of human progress" is much more a modernist theory, than a Marxist one. It seems to me that someone being "on the right side of history" could just as easily mean, being part of the progress which modernists consider inevitable. Hence making it a modernist sentiment.
Besides, when someone says "the right side of history" all that suggests to me is "back then people thought X was acceptable, now we no longer think that. Person Y was against X, and hence 'on the right side of history' ". The idea that our current morals are better than our previous morals is rather unsurprising. Most people probably hold that opinion, because otherwise, our current morals would change.
Seems more that the US deliberately focussed on creating these divisions to destroy working-class movements with COINTELPRO.
That's also why it only exists in the US.