Oviedo School Digs In Against Cultural Marxism

Video Reopens War Between Philosophical Materialism and Cultural Marxism

A video on music philosophy by Vicente Chuliá escalated into a confrontation where Ekaitz found himself defending against what the debate described as the psychopathic tactics of a supposed cultural Marxist. The argument spilled beyond the classroom, becoming a symptom of a larger clash: the struggle between the Oviedo-style philosophical materialism and the ideological tide that, according to its proponents, now dominates everything. The fight is far from over.

The Video That Lit the Fuse

It all began with an author, Vicente Chuliá, a popularizer of music philosophy whose work is described as sensible and "rational." In response to his content, an exchange emerged where Ekaitz and Chuliá addressed an interlocutor accused of hollow discourse, lacking argumentation, and relying purely on cultural constructs. The label attached is significant: hardcore cultural Marxism, a version that, in this view, connects to Adorno and the Frankfurt School.

For critics, the pattern is familiar. First, something succeeds. Then, someone arrives wanting to impose their "perspective," creating division. The underlying suspicion is that the institution has become permeable to a current that doesn't debate but simply occupies.

What Gustavo Bueno's Philosophical Materialism Defends

The core lies in the ontological architecture designed by Gustavo Bueno. His system distinguishes levels—M1, M2, M3—and acknowledges the existence of matters beyond the purely physical. His defenders emphasize that this separates it from physicalism and crude materialism. Internal critics, however, dismiss this framework as artificial, arguing that neither the ontological levels lead anywhere nor is the method as solid as claimed.

Gustavo Bueno left a quote cited here as an uncomfortable reminder: Marx's historical materialism is so important that failing to assimilate it is akin to being pre-Copernican. This warning unsettles those who now use his name as a shield against anything sounding like Marx.

Those who wish to compete in the philosophical big leagues need a system, some argue; comparing systems is the only way to measure their power and surpass the previous one. The skeptical counter-argument: attempting to systematize everything leads to failure, and Oviedo materialism carries Kant's transcendental method with imaginary structures. The clash between becoming and category often ends exchanges without resolution.

Bueno, the Berlin Wall, and the System of the 90s

There's a historical turning point that, according to one participant, reorders everything. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, Bueno stopped defining himself as a socialist; in his interpretation, the collapse represented the failure of Marxist theses against American capitalism. European leftists, they say, had to become bourgeois. And only after the USSR, in the 90s and in retirement, did the philosopher, as a critic claims, begin constructing his own system from the salvageable remnants of his work. Hence the accusation of "artificial grass" some level against that late ambition.

The Specter of Cultural Marxism and Its Two Faces

Here, the debate splits. One current holds that cultural Marxism is the official ideology of financial capitalism and that the right uses it as an excuse to ignore the IBEX (Spain's main stock index). Another responds that manifestations of this current invariably lean towards expropriation and the far-left. The friction points include specific political projects and names like Santiago Armesilla, Pedro Insua, or Antonio Escohotado, each carrying their own burden.

The Christian aspect of the issue doesn't help unify ranks. It's argued that dialectical materialism is incompatible with faith and that a real parallelism exists between socialism and Christianity, something liberal believers flatly reject. The discussion veers towards whether execution for heresy bears resemblance to the violence of the Communist Manifesto.

---

The debate fails to definitively establish who is right, or even to clarify who the infiltrator is. The figure of 70,000 euros gross per year, brought up when discussing whether a professor "succeeds," ended up overshadowing the philosophical problem. And when the level of erudition displayed is measured in logical signs that no one fully reads, it becomes clear that the war for the Oviedo School is fought primarily on the grounds of who can sustain the longest argument.