→The state of the page: new section Tags: Reverted New topic |
Newimpartial (talk | contribs) Undid revision 1064507868 by Sennalen (talk)WP:NOTFORUM. This WALLOFTEXT is disruptive, proposes major departures from fairly recently-established and widely-participated consensus, and does not plausibly contribute to the improvement of this article. Tags: Undo Reverted |
||
Line 534: | Line 534: | ||
:::You keep saying that, which is why I attached full quotes on the citations at [[Marxist cultural analysis]]. [[User:Sennalen|Sennalen]] ([[User talk:Sennalen|talk]]) 18:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC) |
:::You keep saying that, which is why I attached full quotes on the citations at [[Marxist cultural analysis]]. [[User:Sennalen|Sennalen]] ([[User talk:Sennalen|talk]]) 18:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::: Quotations that did not demonstate the point you are claiming to make. I remember. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 18:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC) |
:::: Quotations that did not demonstate the point you are claiming to make. I remember. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 18:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC) |
||
== The state of the page == |
|||
===Policy reminders=== |
|||
It's rare to see a page with so much attention for so long still flaunt [[WP:NPOV]] to such an extent. Here are some of the relevant clauses presented all at once so as not to break up the text below. Bold emphasis is mine. |
|||
[[WP:YESPOV]] |
|||
*The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view. It means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. |
|||
*'''When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.''' |
|||
*Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views |
|||
[[WP:WEIGHT]] |
|||
*Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. |
|||
*In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, '''these pages should still appropriately reference the majority viewpoint wherever relevant''' and must not represent content strictly from the minority view's perspective. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, '''the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it''', and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. |
|||
*Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. |
|||
[[WP:BESTSOURCES]] When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias and NPOV disagreements. |
|||
[[WP:IMPARTIAL]] Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. |
|||
[[WP:EVALFRINGE]] (...)restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: '''Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas,''' and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations. |
|||
[[User:Sennalen|Sennalen]] ([[User talk:Sennalen|talk]]) 18:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
===Textual problems=== |
|||
The first section is named with a vague and mealy-mouthed title "Aspects of the conspiracy theory". The first paragraph is a brief history of the Frankfurt School sourced entirely to [[New Statesman]]. The main thesis of the source - Adorno's break with the student movements he inspired - is not mentioned. The conspiracy theory's founding text from Minnicino seems to be mentioned as briefly as possible before being used to coatrack [[Wandervogel]] and [[Daniel Estulin]]. The discussion of Cultural Bolshevism seems appropriately placed, although there is an ongoing thread above about how to phrase it better. |
|||
Woods, an excellent secondary source on the conspiracy theory discourse in post-2010 conservatism, gets only a sentence in edgewise before the article uses him to quote in full the 11 points circulating on Stormfront. What is due weight even? The "Othering" and "Political correctness" sections are full of sources that likely belong somewhere in a finished article, but it looks like it was built by a processes of accretion, lacking any coherent plan for presenting these particular claims in this particular order. |
|||
Now we start the history section, although we also abortively started the first section with history. Nevermind that. Except for name-checking Minnicino again, the history consists of continuing to talk about Lind's views on political correctness that we were just discussing in the "Political correctness" section immediately prior. |
|||
In the "Main promoters" section we have two [[WP:BESTSOURCES]] identifying five individuals. Lind has already been discussed. Brevik gets a subsection here although there is a terrorism section later. The views of the other three people named have no description, but Andrew Breitbart and Paul Weyrich get a few sentences each. The main source for Breitbart's views is [[Socialist Review]]. |
|||
There is a section called "Fomentation". What is this supposed to be about? Ghostbusters, InfoWars and Richard Spencer. What they are fomenting is anyone's guess. |
|||
"Entering the mainstream"! This is an important part of the story that is covered well by Woods and Jamin. We'll get to that later. First the reader needs to know Noah Berlatsky's opinions about Jordan Peterson. The sections on regional issues are actually not bad. |
|||
The article ends with "Scholarly analysis" as if scholarship is not the kind of best source that should form the whole article, though in this case, scholarship apparently consists of Joane Braune and Vox. |
|||
''This is an objectively terrible article''. [[User:Sennalen|Sennalen]] ([[User talk:Sennalen|talk]]) 18:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
===Editing philosophy=== |
|||
Why is the article like this? The existence of this article is fallout from a 2014 AfD on the page called "Cultural Marxism" with high participation from PoV warriors on both sides of the Gamergate fracas happening at the time. The outcome was to delete and redirect to [[Frankfurt school#Conspiracy theory]] which was later spun out to this article in 2020. In the intersection of anti-Semitism and Gamergate, there was naturally a lot of [[WP:OUTRAGE]], [[WP:USTHEM]], and [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]]. Whether or not it was the intention, the outcome has been an article that insinuates more than it informs. |
|||
There has been a critical misunderstanding of [[WP:DUE]] weight policy. [[WP:BESTSOURCES]] detail what the conspiracy theorists believe, attributing views to individuals rather than collectives where appropriate. They explain the history of Western Marxism and the Frankfurt School, how the conspiracy theorists drew on that background, and how the conspiracy theorists went wrong. In the mistaken view of policy, since RS agree that it's a conspiracy, then Wikipedia can and should be maximally dismissive and derogatory. The thinking goes, if sources like Jamin or Braune say anything anything that lends credence to the conspiracy theory, it's undue weight to repeat it, since its supporting a conspiracy theory. Meanwhile if cherrypicking verbatim quotes from primary sources makes the conspiracy theory seem more nutters, that gets a green light. This is 180 degrees opposite of how policy should actually be applied. [[WP:BALANCE]] is not between things that are friendly to the theory and hostile to it. Balance is between things that are in best sources or not. The ideal article would be one that fully [[WP:SOURCEMINE]]s a few review articles. |
|||
There is resistance from editors who suspect that efforts to get the article to clearly explain the conspiracy theory and clearly contrast it with the mainstream view is a plot by supporters of the theory. If anyone truly believes that [[WP:MORALIZE|letting the facts speak for themselves]] would create an article that supports the conspiracy theory, that seems like someone who by definition believes the conspiracy theory is true. [[User:Sennalen|Sennalen]] ([[User talk:Sennalen|talk]]) 18:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
===Plan of action=== |
|||
There is very little if anything that needs to be outright removed from the article. It's reliably sourced, so achieving due weight will be from adding balancing material, mostly from mining the sources already used. The biggest problem with the article is the lack of meaningful structure, just a series of vague headings under which to coatrack. I would like to reorganize it, similarly to how I recently tackled the lack of structure at [[COVID-19 lab leak theory]] - before:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1063985329] after:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1064013689]. I will create a new thread when I have a more concrete proposal on how to do that in this article. It will certainly include an unhurried discussion on the actual activities and scholarship of Lukács and the Frankfurt school, in order to comply with the policy that "the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it." [[User:Sennalen|Sennalen]] ([[User talk:Sennalen|talk]]) 18:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:58, 8 January 2022
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Consider Re-naming Article.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
this isn't a conspiracy theory in the typical sense. It's literally an interpretation of the ideology propogated by the Frankfurt School Philosophers. "Conspiracy" requires connection between the participants. the Frankfurt School gives us that connection. if anything, the word "Theory" should be used, but Conspiracy does not fit. Jaygo113 (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- As I note in the subsequent section, this article, its title and its sourcing have been extensively discussed and have been subject to repeated, widely-parricipated RfCs. Your edits-which amount to the POV that "Cultural Marxism" is an intellectual movement and not the trope of a conspiracy theory- run counter to this broadly-based consensus. I have therefore reverted your BOLD changes. Newimpartial (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- The claims of the conspiracy theory and the claims of The Frankfurt School don't line up. For instance, The Frankfurt School claimed an elite of corporate interests rule over the Culture Industry. Where as the conspiracy theory claims The Frankfurt School themselves are in control of the media, culture and academia. There's no semantics about it, it's a conspiracy theory, and runs contrary to what The Frankfurt School actually espoused. --194.193.147.6 (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- The Frankfurt School scholars that created Critical Theory, whether derogatively or pejoratively called "cultural marxism" or not, are no longer exclusively or even primarily confined to "the frankfurt school". However the Scholar Antonio Gramsci and Rudi Dutschke both recognized that influence in the societal institutions was necessary to bring forth a more "marxist" or egalitarian world. see e.g. https://www.conservapedia.com/Cultural_Marxism#Dutschke 75.164.170.25 (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- ″The Long march through the institutions is a Marxist concept formulated in 1967 by the West German student movement leader Rudi Dutschke. Dutschke reformulated Antonio Gramsci's philosophy of cultural Marxism with the phrase the long march through the institutions (German: Marsch durch die Institutionen) to identify the political war of position or incrementalism, an allusion to the Long March (1934–35) of the Communist Chinese People's Liberation Army, by means of which, the working class or "oppressed" would produce their own intellectuals, civil servants, and culture (dominant ideology) to replace those imposed by the bourgeoisie or "oppressor class."″ 75.164.170.25 (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds like a suggestion that should be made at the Talk Page of Marxist Cultural Analysis. I don't believe Gramsci or Dutschke ever used the term Cultural Marxism, he used the term hegemonic. --194.193.147.6 (talk)
- Conservapedia is not a legitimate source according to WP:RS, due to it not being WP:NPOV. Wikipedia avoids politics this way. --194.193.147.6 (talk)
- Since the article is about a conspiracy theory, the article should actually source what the conspiracy theorists claim, not what other people claim that the conspiracy theorists claim. The conspiracy theorists should be considered reliable sources for the content of their own theory, rather than use strawmen arguments and ad-hominem arguments about the theory, such as that Anders Brevik the mass murderer believed in it. Endomorphosis (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is the page for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. If you want to make a new page with sources that define Cultural Marxism outside of the conspiracy theory - you'd need to put in an article request elsewhere Wikipedia:Requested_articles. Currently the decision standing is that the term is non-notable in WP:RS left-wing writings. You'd need reliable academic sources defining exactly what "Cultural Marxism" is, otherwise you're doing something called WP:OR Original Research, which means coming to your own thoughts, rather than reporting the thoughts of qualified others. Wikipedia seeks to report facts and public opinion, stuff that's been expressed and vetted by an editor. You'd need something official which defines it. No one at The Frankfurt School used the term, and it's a fairly obscure term. It should be confined to those who actually used it (rather than The Frankfurt School). Not sure any major figure has used it to describe themselves. --194.193.147.6 (talk)
Conservapedia is not a legitimate source according to WP:RS, due to it not being WP:NPOV
– indeed, and I strongly feel that any attempt to rename or otherwise rewrite this article to imply that "Cultural Marxism" has any existence beyond a bogeyman created by far-right conspiracy theorists (such as probably write half of Conservapedia) is likely to be summarily dismissed as nothing more than naked POV-pushing. Suggest abandoning this per WP:SNOW and the canonical Wikipedia approach to conspiracy theorists and other species of lunatic charlatans. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)- Here is a mainstream source that calls it "cultural marxism" https://www.dukeupress.edu/Cultural-Marxism-in-Postwar-Britain Title: Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies Author: Dennis Dworkin Published: April 1997, Cited by 534. This actually appears to be the first use of "cultural marxism" that I can find so far. Endomorphosis (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, and if you look at page 3 you can read the words: "My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline" (pg. 3) meaning it's a neologism, not longstanding discourse or plan. Besides which, this talk page isn't for the Wikipedia page "Cultural Marxism", it's for the conspiracy theory. If you want to recreate the old page (which only had 3 valid sources on the topic) - then this is not the place to do it. It's a WP:SNOW case. The discussion has already been had. Also we use the sources we do because they're notable or came early in the conspiracy discourse. Lind for instance. Breivik's usage is notable and has a lot of news stories that cite it. --194.193.147.6 (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Since the article is about a conspiracy theory, the article should actually source what the conspiracy theorists claim, not what other people claim that the conspiracy theorists claim. The conspiracy theorists should be considered reliable sources for the content of their own theory, rather than use strawmen arguments and ad-hominem arguments about the theory, such as that Anders Brevik the mass murderer believed in it. Endomorphosis (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- ″The Long march through the institutions is a Marxist concept formulated in 1967 by the West German student movement leader Rudi Dutschke. Dutschke reformulated Antonio Gramsci's philosophy of cultural Marxism with the phrase the long march through the institutions (German: Marsch durch die Institutionen) to identify the political war of position or incrementalism, an allusion to the Long March (1934–35) of the Communist Chinese People's Liberation Army, by means of which, the working class or "oppressed" would produce their own intellectuals, civil servants, and culture (dominant ideology) to replace those imposed by the bourgeoisie or "oppressor class."″ 75.164.170.25 (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- The Frankfurt School scholars that created Critical Theory, whether derogatively or pejoratively called "cultural marxism" or not, are no longer exclusively or even primarily confined to "the frankfurt school". However the Scholar Antonio Gramsci and Rudi Dutschke both recognized that influence in the societal institutions was necessary to bring forth a more "marxist" or egalitarian world. see e.g. https://www.conservapedia.com/Cultural_Marxism#Dutschke 75.164.170.25 (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I went to the origination of the "conspiracy theory", it was apparently NOT cited in the wikipedia page, only a criticism of the work. https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_91-96/921_frankfurt.html. The claim made, was based on a rhetoric exaggerated hyperbole, including claims: "This is not the academy of a republic; this is Hitler's Gestapo and Stalin's NKVD rooting out "deviationists," and banning books—the only thing missing is the public bonfire". It also does not actually use the words "cultural marxism" anywhere in the article. Moreover nothing in the article has any anti-semitism whatsoever, and even goes to claim that marxism is antisemitic " Their goal was not the protection of Jews from prejudice, but the creation of a definition of authoritarianism and anti-Semitism which could be exploited to force the "scientifically planned reeducation" of Americans and Europeans away from the principles of Judeo-Christian civilization, which the Frankfurt School despised." Endomorphosis (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- How about you quit with the original research, and read the many, many discussions of these issues in the Talk page archives here and at Talk:Frankfurt School. Also, perhaps, take a look at Marxist cultural analysis, since you seem to be confusing that with the trope of the conspiracy theory. If you do that, and still believe you've identified any issues that haven't already been dealt with by many, well-informed editors, you could bring that back here. But it isn't necessary to rehash the basics every time a n00b editor appears on this Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is what the page reads "Cultural Marxism is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims Western Marxism as the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture." that is not the definition of a conspiracy. The definition of a conspiracy is when two or more people agree to a concrete course of conduct, not a criticism of a allegedly subversive ideology, merely because a couple academics "conspired" to create the ideology. This article claims the above cited article is the origin of the conspiracy , but the origin itself is not actually cited by wikipedia, but rather a separate writer criticising the author of the original, and when you look at the citation its literally from the "Quarterly Journal of Poetry, Science and Statecraft" https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_97-01/fidelio.html, and the journal claims the frankfurt school adherants are antisemetic, and behave like the nazis / nkvd, and it is clearly rhetorical hyperbole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endomorphosis (talk • contribs) 00:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could take the time to read WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. At Wikipedia, we prefer to use secondary sources (and tertiary ones, when available). Reliance on primary sources in articles is frowned upon. Perhaps you would prefer to contribute to a user-generated encyclopedia based on different principles...Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Relying on a document written by a literal nobody that states "This is not entertainment. This is the deeply paranoid hallucination of the LSD acid head. The worst of what happened in the 1960's is now daily fare. Owing to the Frankfurt School and its co-conspirators, the West is on a "bad trip" from which it is not being allowed to come down." and critisizing the frankfurt school as anti-Semitic, as the basis of an anti-semetic conspiracy theory is not reliable and contradictory. In fact there is a 1997 book called "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies" by Dennis Dworkin who is a history professor, which seems much more relevant as the far as the origin of "Cultural Marxism", because the original document does not reference "cultural marxism" but the "Frankfurt school". Endomorphosis (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia relies on secondary sources to describe the origins of the conspiracy, not primary sources. As far as Dworkin goes, do me a favor and search the Talk:Frankfurt School archives as well as those for this page. Thus has been amply discussed before - Dworkin is not giving an account of the conspiracy theory's origins. Newimpartial (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- But what is the "conspiracy", to create an ideology? who are the conspirers, the originators of the ideology? The only difference is that one side says the effects of the ideology is bad, and the other side says the effects of ideology is not bad, so therefore the idea that people "conspired" to create an ideology with harmful effects is a "conspiracy theory". Also here is another book from 1981 by another professor using the term "cultural marxism", this implies that the term did not originate with "cultural bolshevism" of the nazis or the 90's evangelicals see https://books.google.com/books/about/Cultural_Marxism_and_Political_Sociology.html?id=ArLaAAAAMAAJ&source=kp_book_description see also https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=cultural+marxism&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccultural%20marxism%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Ccultural%20marxism%3B%2Cc0 I do not find these sources to be reliable because they're plainly contradicted. Endomorphosis (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- More WP:OR. That just isn't what we do on WP. And if you can't tell the differences between sources on "Cultural Marxism" as a trope of the conspiracy theory and sources on Marxist cultural analysis, you really shouldn't be proposing changes to this article, much less offering your personal opinion about which sources are "reliable". Newimpartial (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Relying on dictionary defintions is not WP:OR. Here is: A Dictionary of the social sciences - Page 392 published in 1964 https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Dictionary_of_the_social_sciences/ "the cultural marxism of Antonio Gramsci examines similar practices in relation to forms of social control" here is the definition of "conspiracy theory" https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy-theory "a theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot". So what is the "theory"? That a bunch of intellectuals came up with an ideology, is the "theory" that the effects of the ideology are harmful? Where is the "conspiracy", people openly publishing ideas about their ideology? This would be similiar to having a page on the "fascist conspiracy theory", stating that many left wing activists claim that all the bad things they dont like are caused by "fascism", and that their ideological opponents are "fascist", instead of just recognizing that people are just LABELING the thing as "cultural marxism" / "fascism", and LABELING it as "harmful", in term of speech called exaggerated hyperbole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole. Nobody actually cited implied that Karl Marx and Engels conspired in a room some elaborate plan, that would inevitably lead to famines in the soviet union, nor that the frankfurt school conspired in a room to "destroy western civilization", because they obviously thought very highly of marxism and its utopian ideals. Endomorphosis (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Endomorphosis, you seem to feel some fundamental error is occurring. I concur with Newimpartial that the sources here are clear on what the conspiracy theory is and what its roots are. If all the sources are making the same fundamental error, you should find other reliable sources that point out the mistake. If they don't exist, you might seek out publication elsewhere as the first to identify the issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Endomorphosis, I really doubt that you have read WP:OR. If you had, you would most likely have recognized that your dictionary-based example could have been used in our policy as a textbook example of SYNTH. Newimpartial (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- this is not needed, being the sources I provided demonstrate that "critical theory" was classically called "cultural marxism" by its proponents to the extent that it was in the dictionary, the fact that there are people such as NewImpartial who said he publishes in the topic who want to portray criticisms of the ideology as anti-semetic conspiracy theorists who believe they want "to destroy Western civilization", when the chinese communist party marxist writers come to the same conclusions as the "conspiracy theorists" with regard to "It is a carefully arranged attack on Western civilization. Its main goals are Christian faith and moral values; the other is narrow white men, especially white men. Considered to be the source of most violence and exploitation in the world." see The History and Enlightenment of Cultural Marxism, Jianghai Journal Copy Issue Number: 2014, Issue 12 by Dang Shengyuan. I believe that it must be warranted to change the page to include the Chinese as among the people who believe in the "conspiracy theory".... I mean criticism of the ideology. http://rdbk1.ynlib.cn:6251/Qw/Paper/570796 Endomorphosis (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Relying on dictionary defintions is not WP:OR. Here is: A Dictionary of the social sciences - Page 392 published in 1964 https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Dictionary_of_the_social_sciences/ "the cultural marxism of Antonio Gramsci examines similar practices in relation to forms of social control" here is the definition of "conspiracy theory" https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy-theory "a theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot". So what is the "theory"? That a bunch of intellectuals came up with an ideology, is the "theory" that the effects of the ideology are harmful? Where is the "conspiracy", people openly publishing ideas about their ideology? This would be similiar to having a page on the "fascist conspiracy theory", stating that many left wing activists claim that all the bad things they dont like are caused by "fascism", and that their ideological opponents are "fascist", instead of just recognizing that people are just LABELING the thing as "cultural marxism" / "fascism", and LABELING it as "harmful", in term of speech called exaggerated hyperbole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole. Nobody actually cited implied that Karl Marx and Engels conspired in a room some elaborate plan, that would inevitably lead to famines in the soviet union, nor that the frankfurt school conspired in a room to "destroy western civilization", because they obviously thought very highly of marxism and its utopian ideals. Endomorphosis (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could take the time to read WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. At Wikipedia, we prefer to use secondary sources (and tertiary ones, when available). Reliance on primary sources in articles is frowned upon. Perhaps you would prefer to contribute to a user-generated encyclopedia based on different principles...Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is what the page reads "Cultural Marxism is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims Western Marxism as the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture." that is not the definition of a conspiracy. The definition of a conspiracy is when two or more people agree to a concrete course of conduct, not a criticism of a allegedly subversive ideology, merely because a couple academics "conspired" to create the ideology. This article claims the above cited article is the origin of the conspiracy , but the origin itself is not actually cited by wikipedia, but rather a separate writer criticising the author of the original, and when you look at the citation its literally from the "Quarterly Journal of Poetry, Science and Statecraft" https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_97-01/fidelio.html, and the journal claims the frankfurt school adherants are antisemetic, and behave like the nazis / nkvd, and it is clearly rhetorical hyperbole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endomorphosis (talk • contribs) 00:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Martin Jay, a historian of The Frankfurt School is being used as the source for the Larouche article being the origins of Cultural Marxism. If it originated the concept it doesn't need to use the term, as the claim is only that the concept came from that article. There's a trope of Larouche being a conspiracy nut, this isn't the only conspiracy that it's been suggested originated there (See Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement for details). Personally I beleive Lind being asked by Weyrich to research The Frankfurt School was the origin. I believe Lind and Buchanan popularized the term on the right. Lind who appeared at a holocaust denial conference, and Buchanan who can be shown to be lying in his book Death of The West (specifically making false quotes that were later put into a youtube documentary). So it is a conspiracy theory. By the way the standard for that we're using is Barkun's three types, and it's a "Systemic conspiracy theory" - to quote the Wikipedia page Conspiracy Theory "The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. The goals are sweeping, whilst the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, Communism, or the Catholic Church."
- But yeah, your claims articles are just jokes or hyperbole - is WP:OR. We're here to report, not interpret. --194.193.147.6 (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2021
- Conservapedia doesn't just fail WP:RS because of WP:NPOV, it fails because it is an open wiki. No open wiki counts as WP:RS. Bear in mind, I am a contributor at both Wikipedia and Conservapedia; there's no anti-Conservapedia bias here or anything, but it can't be used as a source in Wikipedia articles. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 03:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Did someone mention switching back to the 2014 version of the "Cultural Marxism" page? Here's all that's changed since the 2014 version - https://i.redd.it/3sjg14xin8381.jpg --00:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.113.170 (talk)
- This page didn't exist in 2014 (It was created in 2017 as a redirect) :D Maybe you need to look for yourself first before trusting a random reddit article? --Mvbaron (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- « This page didn't exist in 2014 » => I disagree.
- The Cultural Marxism page did exist in 2014 cf. https://web.archive.org/web/20141104053904/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism
- The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article did exist in 2014 cf. special:permalink/608592820
- Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- « This page didn't exist in 2014 » => I disagree.
- This page didn't exist in 2014 (It was created in 2017 as a redirect) :D Maybe you need to look for yourself first before trusting a random reddit article? --Mvbaron (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Did someone mention switching back to the 2014 version of the "Cultural Marxism" page? Here's all that's changed since the 2014 version - https://i.redd.it/3sjg14xin8381.jpg --00:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.113.170 (talk)
Far-Right?? Yeah right!!
Let's not feed the trolls, please. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This is EXACTLY what is wrong with this article. It's not a far-right "conspiracy theory" as writen in wiki-land. This has been and is currently being taught in educational systems from K-12 well into the graduate schools. Preached EVERYWHERE in the media and so on. This has been happening slowly over a period of decades but now it's just so blatant it's disgusting. You allow edits everywhere normally except where you (Wikipedia) see fit as long as it doesn't go against the agenda. Publish the facts not just one-sided garbage. 96.18.231.208 (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
|
- Op-eds alone aren't being used to justify the anti-semitism categorization (see the section titled "Evidence for antisemitism" for details).
- No, 'Op-eds' aren't enough to make the statement "Cultural Marxism is being taught in schools" ..."Cultural Marxism" is a conspiracy theory which makes claims about The Frankfurt School having taken over the world. For a short time, it was called "The Frankfurt School Conspiracy".
- If you want to state that Marxism is being taught in schools, there are multiple pages to do that on: Because Marxism is taught in classes on politics, in classes on world history, in classes that relate to politics and political theory. Sure, Marxism is taught in schools, often along side conservatism, progressivism, neoliberalism, fascism, and numerous other "isms". That's the nature of schools, they're institutes of education, learning and knowledge. That's why we rely them for certain truth claims. --61.68.219.18 (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Adding addition information
Hello, In the 'Political correctness and antisemitic canards' there is a segment from an article by Samuel Moyn. I would like to add this article [1] which is a direct rebuttal to the Moyns article. I believe this is a good addition because while it credits Moyn on some points, it argues against others and that having both articles will give a more complete and accurate understanding of the subject for the reader.
There is also the 'origin' section of the which cites an article that claims that the term itself originates from 'New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness' (1992), but the earliest use of the term is actually from a book published in 1973 [2] on page 15. All opinions aside, the claim that the term originates from 'New Dark Age' in 1992 is just factually not true, I think this should be corrected.
I would also like to add this [3] by Frankfurt School and Critical Theories academic Douglass Kellner with his description of what 'Cultural Marxism' is.
I see that the article is locked. What is the process I would need to go through in order to add this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital Herodotus (talk • contribs) 00:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Digital Herodotus - Thanks for that. You can use the template Template:Edit semi-protected to signal other editors to take a look. Otherwise, this talk page has watchers who regularly check in to converse on stuff like this. I will note here that the article doesn't actually say "the term" originates from 'New Dark Age,' but that the conspiracy theory this article is about originates there. You might be confusing this article with Marxist cultural analysis, which used to be under this title until the conspiracy theory overshadowed it in prominence. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 00:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Tablet Magazine is funded by a sole individual via the publishing house 'Nextbook'; "The New York Jewish Week describes Keren Keshet as a "powerhouse" in Jewish philanthropy that provided essentially all of Tablet's $5 million annual budget." - Zubatov has no relevant qualifications in the social sciences nor as noteworthy commenter, and appears to just be a random lawyer. It has been argued before that the inclusion of his opinion is WP:UNDUE and seeks to provide a WP:FALSEBALANCE. You can search the archives at The Frankfurt School talk page, as well as this one, to find previous attempts at inclusion and why it's been rejected previously.
- Also, this page is for the conspiracy theory version of the term, so doesn't aim at finding the academic origins (the academic usage was later replaced by Cultural Studies BTW). This page only seeks to document the origins of the conspiracy theory regarding The Frankfurt School. --14.201.132.122 (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, it appears that Zubatov is a conservative leaning lawyer, and writes for thefederalist - a website that often sprukes for the conspiracy theory: https://thefederalist.com/author/alexander-zubatov/ --14.201.132.122 (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hmmm, apparently Zubatov used to write for The Republic Standard, a far-right, antisemitic website which no longer exists. --14.201.132.122 (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- The fact that you might personally disagree with the political views of Zubatov is completely irrelevant. Im not really familiar with the rules of this website, but simply stating that you dont like certain publications that he has written for seems meaningless to me, as does the charge that he is a conservative.
- "Also, this page is for the conspiracy theory version of the term, so doesn't aim at finding the academic origins" But the problem with the article is that it includes factually incorrect information and readers of the article may be mislead into believing this false information. The main problem I see it that this article makes it seem like there is no actual academic school of thought called 'Cultural Marxism' no where in the article does it even mention that the term was first used by a Critical Theorist in 1973, and instead gives the impression that it was coined in 1993 by a far right conspiracy theorist.
- Trent Schroyer's usage has been included in the article before, and I don't oppose it. Nor do I oppose the inclusion of Kellner. Zubatov however has no chance due to WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE having previously written for far-right publications, and having no background in sociology or the structure/study of conspiracy theories. --14.201.132.122 (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, as I recall Schroyer has come up before. He writes about cultural Marxism, as in what is the culture of Marxism. I don't believe he's writing about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Likewise, his writing is not about a Frankfurt School take over. I'm probably more okay with noting his work as a possible origin of the term... but I believe others won't be fine with this, which is fair enough, as it's questionable whether he's talking about Cultural Marxism, or Marxist Cultural Analysis. I'd say the latter. But I'm not the only user of this website. --14.201.132.122 (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Please look at the Talk page archives, here and at Frankfurt School: these sources have all been discussed before. The consensus (both on-wiki and of the Reliable Sources) is that the usage of "Cultural Marxism" in the sense of the conspiracy theory does not derive from the "cultural Marxism" of mid-century (which was a less-common synonym for Marxist Cultural Analysis) but rather from Lind etc. No amount of original research or far-right RSOPINION pieces are going to change that reality. Newimpartial (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
It doesnt really matter what a few wikipedia editors might think, the reality is that the term 'Cultural Marxism' was not created by Lind, that term first appeared in a book by Critical Theorist Trent Schroyer, this isnt a case of my opinion vs their opinion. Im not trying to argue if Schroyer or anyone else is right or wrong, the reality is that Schroyer coined the term first in 1973. I linked to his book and in the table of content of it, it states 'Cultural Marxism' that exact wording, not 'Marxist Cultural Analysis' or whatever else. Also, according to Kellner, another Critical Theorist academic whos field is all about the Frankfurt School, Cultural Marxism (again, the exact wording he uses) was "Many different versions of cultural studies have emerged in the past decades. While during its dramatic period of global expansion in the 1980s and 1990s, cultural studies was often identified with the approach to culture and society developed by the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, England, their sociological, materialist, and political approaches to culture had predecessors in a number of currents of cultural Marxism. Many 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life. Traditions of cultural Marxism are thus important to the trajectory of cultural studies and to understanding its various types and forms in the present age." [4]
The point is that this article has blatantly false or at best misleading information that makes it seem that Cultural Marxism is just this boogeyman or 'phantasmogoria' as Moyn says made up in the early 1990s, when in fact its an actual school of thought and was given that name, and later used by, academics in that field to label their own field of study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital Herodotus (talk • contribs) 12:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think you missed the point, it's not about the wording - it's about capitalization. Proper nouns are capitalized. So 'cultural Marxism' (referring to either the cultural elements of Marxism, or the Marxist elements of the early development of Cultural Studies) is different than 'Cultural Marxism' (capitalized, referring to the supposed Marxist conspiracy plot to overthrow culture, the media and academia). If you look, you'll see Kellner and I believe Schroyer use cultural Marxism. So if you want to discuss the views of Kellner or Schroyer, you'll have to do it on the page Marxist Cultural Analysis, or on their own pages (see [WP:BLP).
- Further more, all of the Marxist authors you listed already have Wikipedia pages, only two of those authors actually use the term "cultural Marxism" in their writings(Jameson and Kellner) - and only one of those bothers to go into it in detail (Kellner). So yeah, what are you asking for exactly? A special page which groups these thinkers together with a little devil hat on each of them?
- There's no denial of the Marxism involved in The Frankfurt School's development, or of The Birmingham School, or Culture Studies. You can go look at their relative pages - they all clearly and directly describe their Marxism. That however does not justify the conservative claim that Marxism or Marxists controls academia, or the media, or Hollywood, or Politics, which is the claim of the conspiracy theory. --14.201.132.122 (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Also, to my knowledge, the field of study is titled "Cultural Studies" - there's no such field as "Cultural Marxism" nor does anyone self describe themselves using that term... and there's already a Wikipedia page titled "Cultural Studies" which details its development, and a lot of what you're saying. Maybe you can go update it, but THIS page is for the Conservative Conspiracy Theory titled "Cultural Marxism" - hence the title of the page "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory". If you wish to discuss the Marxist foundations of Cultural Studies, I suggest you do it there (although you'll find it's already quite detailed and honest). --14.201.132.122 (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- In my view, neither The Birmingham School (cultural studies) article nor the Cultural Studies article really does justice to the intellectual history of the Birmingham School itself, But that isn't a topic for this page... Newimpartial (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Also, to my knowledge, the field of study is titled "Cultural Studies" - there's no such field as "Cultural Marxism" nor does anyone self describe themselves using that term... and there's already a Wikipedia page titled "Cultural Studies" which details its development, and a lot of what you're saying. Maybe you can go update it, but THIS page is for the Conservative Conspiracy Theory titled "Cultural Marxism" - hence the title of the page "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory". If you wish to discuss the Marxist foundations of Cultural Studies, I suggest you do it there (although you'll find it's already quite detailed and honest). --14.201.132.122 (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Far-right
LaRouche was a socialist and a Democrat. He was not on the right and the article on him even states this. 37.252.92.67 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- Even if that were true, this article doesn’t even say that LaRouche was “on the right”… Mvbaron (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- It does say
fringe American right-wing political activist Lyndon LaRouche
, because that's how the sources for that bit describe him. But that gets to the real answer here (which was discussed above) - LaRouche was, yes, at one point a socialist and a Democrat in his youth, before he was notable. But his politics shifted over time, and by the time he became well-known, most reputable sources considered him firmly on the fringes of the right. Therefore, sources largely treat him as right-wing, and we have to reflect that - arguing that he was actually secretly still left-wing in this period (when the source describes him as a fringe right-wing figure, in the context of the specific stuff we're discussing about him in this article) would obviously be WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- It does say
- While Larouche began on the left, he became far right by the 1970s. TFD (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Conspiracy Theory??
Not even looking at whether aspects of this are true or not, how can a social theory be a conspiracy theory? No one says objectively false social theories are "conspiracies". The definition of conspiracy is "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." Does this page imply there is a secret cabal somewhere trying to invent a term just to disagree with? Wouldn't that make a LOT of things "conspiracies"? Why would someone invent a school of thought (that many people subscribe to) just to argue with? If that was true, and there really was no "other side," why is there so much disagreement on this? There are people who identify as Social Marxists. That at least makes it not a "conspiracy theory". Even if there were zero people who had ever agreed with the idea that "Cultural Marxism is a term used to describe the idea that our society is best interpreted as being a power struggle between different identity groups or cultures (women, men, gay, straight, black, white)" (Urban Dictionary), which is certainly not true, there is at least an ideology there that someone could have, someday. The political implications of labeling this a conspiracy theory are quite evident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.97.16 (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- This page is indeed about the conspiracy theory. If you are looking for various Marxist positions on Culture and Society, you can start at the articles on Marxism and Marxist cultural analysis.
- Btw, urban dictionary is a user generate site, anyone can add an entry on anything there, so the contents are often completely wrong and it shouldn't be used like a real dictionary. Best, -- Mvbaron (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- I do quite like the image of
Social Marxists
, though. I'm thinking of cute guys in black turtlenecks with round glasses, posing as Maoists or Frankfurters to get laid and yet, inexplicably failing to do so. Newimpartial (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- The concept of conspiracy theory does not imply that the named conspirators do not exist, in fact they usually do. TFD (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Time for a FAQ
Regulars here are painfully aware of how the same arguments come up over and over again. We should create a FAQ in order to respond to some of the perennial questions, including why the article has this name, and others. I've started a FAQ subpage here just to get the conversation going: please modify/expand it as you see fit.
As far as style, I've been roughly following the model used at Talk:Climate change. Here are links to that one, plus some examples of other FAQs in Talk page context showing different FAQ page style choices:
Some Talk page FAQ examples
|
---|
All have bolded, numbered Q & A labels (e.g., Q1/A1, etc.) unless otherwise mentioned.
Here's how the current draft would look when rendered on the Talk page: Please expand/adjust as needed. |
Once there is something useful there, we can render it in the Talk header at the top of the page with {{FAQ}}
.
Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I'm not the most knowledgeable about this article, and I don't plan to take the draft FAQ too much further; I'm relying on more involved editors to step up (if interested) and carry it forward. The FAQ is here. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Good work taking the initiative! I'm sure regulars will expand on questions/answers soon enough! --203.221.148.126 (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't feel like I have the competency to contribute much here yet, but I feel like this contribution by an IP editor, which may or may not be below likely covers some of the more common comments I've seen removed over the last few days. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Not really, there's still a conspiracy theory regarding The Frankfurt School having a plan or having already "taken over" society - there are books and websites accusing them of being in league with the devil, so yeah. That contribution should be on a different page. Good sources for Marxist cultural analysis - I've actually been meaning to add more there. Maybe the IP editor can discuss what that want added there? --203.221.148.126 (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't feel like I have the competency to contribute much here yet, but I feel like this contribution by an IP editor, which may or may not be below likely covers some of the more common comments I've seen removed over the last few days. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Good work taking the initiative! I'm sure regulars will expand on questions/answers soon enough! --203.221.148.126 (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- If you'd like to make a FAQ, feel free. But in my experience, it won't deter these topics from popping up. People just come to the Talk page to spout their outrage, without bothering to look at the FAQ (and sometimes not even reading the article). The one benefit to having a FAQ is that we can just close those new discussions with "Please see the FAQ." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Most of the readers who come with suggestions don't even read the article let alone the notes at the top of the discussion page. If they do read the article and still think it is not a conspiracy theory, then no arguments we can provide will persuade them. One value of the FAQ is that regular editors can cut and paste. I suggest we copy the first three FAQs from Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/FAQ. But I don't see the point of a lengthy rebuttal of conspiracy theorista. TFD (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yep. FAQs are not useless but they are of limited value. They can be helpful for people who are genuinely confused but most people who fetch up on Talk pages about far-right topics "just asking questions" about long settled issues are trolling. The value of a FAQ in those cases is that people can copy'n'paste bits or just say "Please read the FAQ" and avoid more onerous interaction. Of course, >90% of them won't even read the FAQ, because they are not here to learn, but if it helps anybody at all then that's better than nothing. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Most of the readers who come with suggestions don't even read the article let alone the notes at the top of the discussion page. If they do read the article and still think it is not a conspiracy theory, then no arguments we can provide will persuade them. One value of the FAQ is that regular editors can cut and paste. I suggest we copy the first three FAQs from Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/FAQ. But I don't see the point of a lengthy rebuttal of conspiracy theorista. TFD (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Sources that show that Cultural Marxism isn't a conspiracy theory, article should be renamed, and anti-Semitic tag should be removed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The section title is a bit over-broad. Yes, cultural Marxism is a part of many conspiracy theories, but that in and of itself does not make cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory.
For decades, cultural Marxism has been an established political belief, applying the economic views of Marxism to the paradigms of identities other than economic class, such as sexuality, gender identity, and race. It's existence is acknowledged in both academia and commercial publication for decades from both conservative and liberal sources.
Brenkman, J. (1983). Theses on Cultural Marxism. Social Text, 7, 19–33. [5] - from Duke University publication, primarily conservative leaning university which actually isn't critical of cultural Marxism, but simply takes a look at it
Gross, N. (2007, September 24). The Social and Political and Political Views of American Professors. Ucla.Edu. [6] - published by UCLA, a primarily liberal university which openly admits that a significant proportion of professor in the field of Social Sciences are Marxists
And stepping away from academia, we can find publications that acknowledge cultural Marxism as a school of though, again on both sides of the political spectrum:
Mendenhall, A. (2019, January 7). Cultural Marxism Is Real. The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal. [7] - A conservative non-profit, which references a Yale University(another primarily liberal university) publication that also acknowledges cultural Marxism as an actual school of thought
Just because conspiracy theorists use cultural Marxism to support their theories does not mean cultural Marxism itself is a conspiracy theory.
Just because anti=Semites use cultural Marxism to support their agenda, does not mean cultural Marxism is itself anti-Semitic.
Cultural Marxism is the application of Marx's theories on economics and class to other paradigms such as race, gender, and sexuality, is a very real school of thought that are acknowledged by both proponents and critics.
The idea that "ACADEMIA IS TRYING TO MAKE OUR KIDS GAY!" is a conspiracy theory. The idea that many of the people working as educators are applying Marxist class theory to these other social paradigms is very real, and dismissing that idea as a conspiracy theory is doing a disservice to people who come to this site looking for an NPOV look at what cultural Marxism is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.52.47.222 (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Application of Marxist theory to culture is covered at Marxist cultural analysis. None of that effectively refutes the existence of a conspiracy theory. Firefangledfeathers 04:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- This article is named "Cultural Marxist conspiracy theory", and the article that actually addresses cultural Marxism is named "Marxist cultural analysis". Why the differentiation? In the name of maintaining consistency, either this article should be renamed to "Marxist cultural analysis conspiracy theory" or the other article should be renamed to "Cultural Marxism".
- I don't deny that there are reputable sources to show that there are conspiracy theories based on cultural Marxism, just pointing out that cultural Marxism itself isn't a conspiracy theory. As an aside, I've noticed that the most prolific editor on both pages are the same person, and I can't help but suspect some sort of bias is influencing the difference in the titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.52.47.222 (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Consider Assassination of John F. Kennedy vs. John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories or maybe Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy vs. Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories or maybe COVID-19 vs. COVID-19 misinformation. While all of the words in the original articles' titles can be found in the conspiracy pages' titles, this is one of the only(few?) articles where the words for the conspiracy article have been changed, rather than just omitted or added. There needs to be consistency between the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.52.47.222 (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Cultural Marxism was a rarely used synonym for Marxist cultural analysis. But the conspiracy theory is not about that, but about a made up concept they call "cultural Marxism." One could compare it with New World Order (conspiracy theory). While the term new world order has been used to refer to other things, the New World Order as they understand it does not exist, or at least there are no reliable sources for its existence. TFD (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Consider Assassination of John F. Kennedy vs. John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories or maybe Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy vs. Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories or maybe COVID-19 vs. COVID-19 misinformation. While all of the words in the original articles' titles can be found in the conspiracy pages' titles, this is one of the only(few?) articles where the words for the conspiracy article have been changed, rather than just omitted or added. There needs to be consistency between the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.52.47.222 (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Look at the top of the page, there's a tag that reads: "Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For "cultural Marxism" in the context of cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis." - that is to say, Wikipedia already acknowledges the existence of "cultural Marxism" as a Neologism, but it was found to not be in wide spread usage enough to be noteworthy as an individual phenomena (there's already a page on The Frankfurt School, Western Marxism, The Birmingham School, Cultural Studies, Stuart Hall, ect... This is not the point, the point is that THIS PAGE, is for the right wing conspiracy theory that reaches as far as accusing Ardorno of creating A-tonal music to induce necrophilia. So yes, there is a real conspiracy there - and no, if you want to expand on Wikipedia's content in regards to Marxist cultural Analysis aka the culture within Marxism, or, Marxisms take on Cultural Phenomena "Cultural Marxism"... no, this is not the page for that. There's a page called "Marxist cultural analysis" for that. --203.221.148.126 (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Cultural Marxism redirect
Someone else should have eyes on the Cultural Marxism redirect to this article, which dates from before the Frankfurt School split, as I recall. Newimpartial (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- This redirect should instead be a disambiguation page that links to both Marxist cultural analysis AND Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as it has been established in talks on both pages that the term Cultural Marxism refers to both subjects, and redirecting it to the conspiracy theory is a blatant violation of WP:POV
- User Newimpartial has been policing both pages along with the redirect in order to promote their own WP:POV and to limit the obvious(as shown by sources in both articles as well as those provided on this Talk page) ambiguity between the two pages. Nerfdart (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Nerfdart: one of the largest AfDs in Wikipedia history reached the conclusion you have accused me of
policing
- the deletion of Cultural Marxism as a "real thing" and redirect to the conspiracy theory - and I didn't participate in that discussion at all. Your POV does not trump a consensus that has been frequently reiterated by different editors in periodic discussions and RfCs since 2014. It just doesn't. Newimpartial (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)- Because I've not seen that discussion linked, which Nerfdart may wish to read here's the successful AFD entry from 2014, and the 2018 deletion review. Consensus of the first discussion was delete and redirect, and there was no consensus for overturn of that deletion/redirection at the second discussion. You are of course welcome to try another deletion review at the appropriate project page, though I don't think it would be successful. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- While listing some of the formally closed discussions, the successful 2020 split proposal (in which, like the first two discussions listed by Sideswipe9th, I did not vote) was this one. The subsequent formal consideration of the redirect from Cultural Marxism to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory was here. The community's decisions on these questions have been remarkably consistent. Newimpartial (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting! For some reason the 2020 split proposal discussion didn't show up. The redirect page history only links to the 2014 AfD, and that AfD links to the 2018 review. I had no idea it was discussed again in 2020! But you're right, it's a very consistent line over the last seven or so years. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- There was also a failed split proposal in 2019, which I did !vote in, but that closure also reaffirmed that "Cultural Marxism" was not a real thing. At that point, though, not enough people were convinced that the conspiracy theory was a viable article topic for encyclopaedic treatment; the community changed its mind on that narrow question (only), the following year. Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting! For some reason the 2020 split proposal discussion didn't show up. The redirect page history only links to the 2014 AfD, and that AfD links to the 2018 review. I had no idea it was discussed again in 2020! But you're right, it's a very consistent line over the last seven or so years. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- While listing some of the formally closed discussions, the successful 2020 split proposal (in which, like the first two discussions listed by Sideswipe9th, I did not vote) was this one. The subsequent formal consideration of the redirect from Cultural Marxism to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory was here. The community's decisions on these questions have been remarkably consistent. Newimpartial (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Because I've not seen that discussion linked, which Nerfdart may wish to read here's the successful AFD entry from 2014, and the 2018 deletion review. Consensus of the first discussion was delete and redirect, and there was no consensus for overturn of that deletion/redirection at the second discussion. You are of course welcome to try another deletion review at the appropriate project page, though I don't think it would be successful. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Nerfdart: one of the largest AfDs in Wikipedia history reached the conclusion you have accused me of
It's so strange to me that people wish to update THIS page, rather than Marxist cultural analysis. Like, if people truly believe that Kellner and Brenkman are saying something definitive about Marxist approaches to culture, even though neither of them are from The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, nor have anything to do with EP Thompson... then PLEASE DO argue that on a talk page about a 'real' thing. Eg: Western Marxism, Marxist Cultural Analysis, Cultural Studies... don't go wasting everyone's time by trying to convert a conspiracy theory article to a factual article. Go look at WP:FRINGE.... there have been conspiracy claims made around The Frankfurt School, "Cultural Marxism" is definitely a term used in those conspiracy theories, so this page isn't going anywhere. I don't know why people don't get that. --203.221.148.126 (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Proposed rewording of first sentence
@Nerfdart: opening a discussion section for you here. You've been reverted by multiple editors, and are above the WP:3RR limit. Why are the changes you're proposing DUE for inclusion? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Links in "See also"
Why is literal "well poisoning" linked in the See also section? This article has to do with rhetoric, so I'm guessing it's supposed to link to "poisoning the well", the logical fallacy. I tried changing this, but it was reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Giovanni del Monte Cristo (talk • contribs) 15:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, because the reference is to the antisemitic canard Well_poisoning#Medieval_accusations_against_Jews - and not the logical fallacy. Best, -- Mvbaron (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Mention of the conspiracy theory at Marxist cultural analysis
A novel approach to discussing the relationship between Marxist cultural analysis and the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has recently been proposed in this section. This may be of interest to editors watching this article. Newimpartial (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be surprised if the same user now shows up on this page to "make changes" in order to point out the conspiracy theorists "are talking about actual historical facts". --124.170.170.79 (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
'With roots in the Nazi propaganda term “Cultural Bolshevism”'
What evidence have we that the term 'Cultural Marxism' has its roots in the term 'Kulturbolshewismus', rather than merely being reminiscent
of it, as the given source itself states? Tewdar (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- I love this tool! Tewdar (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- this probably makes the link more explicitly. I shall add it. Tewdar (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- That is another source for the claim. However, since there is overwhelming evidence that the term originated in Marxist circles before 1950, claims to the contrary should be framed according to WP:Inaccuracy and WP:Conflicting sources. Sennalen (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- That what term
originated in Marxist circles before 1950
? Cultural Marxism? That is an EXTRAORDINARY claim, Sennalen. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)- I do b'lieve Sennalen is referring to the term '[C/c]ultural Marxism'... Tewdar (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- If so, she should provide sources (or know better than to make the claim) - I don't think even any of the published conspiracy theorists go that far. Dialectics of Enlightenment was translated into English in 1947, for example, and none of the contemporary reviews refer to "cultural Marxism", as far as I can discern. Even for the 1950s and 1960s, the term seems anachronistic. Newimpartial (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Gilbert, James. “Literature and Revolution in the United States: The Partisan Review.” Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 2, no. 2, Sage Publications, Ltd., 1967, pp. 161–76, http://www.jstor.org/stable/259957. Tewdar (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Cultural Marxism was most pervasive during the I930S in New York literary circles, particularly among the generation of critics which came of age during the early years of the depression." Tewdar (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- That's the late 1960s, and whatever Gilbert is saying, he isn't saying that the New York intelligentsia of the 1930s were referring to each other as "cultural Marxists". Newimpartial (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am unable to do an exhaustive full-text search for "cultural Marxism" on my vast digital library at the present time as I do not have access to it. But I'm sure there's earlier examples. Tewdar (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am confident that if there were attested pre-1950 examples, they would have even presented by highly motivated persons well before now. Also, putting the word "cultural" before the word "Marxism" doesn't mean that the author is invoking some particular meaning of "cultural Marxism", obviously. I don't see any clear examples of anyone doing *that* before the 1980s, and certainly not in the 1940s or before. Newimpartial (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- What do you want, exactly? Sources saying "cultural Marxism ===Frankfurt school", or... something else? Tewdar (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Anyhow, if that is what you want (1970s): https://doi.org/10.2307/1957920 Tewdar (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- I was thinking really of any usage of "cultural Marxism" as an intellectual tendency distinct from other tendencies. The usage of "cultural Marxism" as "people doing cultural things with Marxism" - typical of the 1970s and 1980s - does not mean that thing specifically, and it is therefore a retcon to look at 1990s writers who really did see "Cultural Marxists" as a tendency, and look back at what is essentially Marxist interest in culture to find precursors. It just isn't the same thing at all.
- And of course I've read Schroyer. What do you think I am: some kind of philistine? Newimpartial (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am confident that if there were attested pre-1950 examples, they would have even presented by highly motivated persons well before now. Also, putting the word "cultural" before the word "Marxism" doesn't mean that the author is invoking some particular meaning of "cultural Marxism", obviously. I don't see any clear examples of anyone doing *that* before the 1980s, and certainly not in the 1940s or before. Newimpartial (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- We certainly are not justified in making wild claims in Wikivoice such as the "etymology of the term Cultural Marxism derived from the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism)" in any case... Tewdar (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Etymology" may be the wrong word, given the sources, but I'd like to deal with Sennalen's FRINGE "prior to 1950" claim first. Let's not run after any moving goalposts. Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- If so, she should provide sources (or know better than to make the claim) - I don't think even any of the published conspiracy theorists go that far. Dialectics of Enlightenment was translated into English in 1947, for example, and none of the contemporary reviews refer to "cultural Marxism", as far as I can discern. Even for the 1950s and 1960s, the term seems anachronistic. Newimpartial (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- I do b'lieve Sennalen is referring to the term '[C/c]ultural Marxism'... Tewdar (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- That what term
- That is another source for the claim. However, since there is overwhelming evidence that the term originated in Marxist circles before 1950, claims to the contrary should be framed according to WP:Inaccuracy and WP:Conflicting sources. Sennalen (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have given examples of "cultural Marxism" being used to refer to e.g. Frankfurt school &c. before the term "cultural Marxism" came to be used as a pejorative by conspiracy theorists. What is it you want me to do, again? Tewdar (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to back up Sennalen's claim, then find sources using the term, showing authors from
Marxist circles before 1950
actually using the phrase "cultural Marxism" to mean something in particular. That is what is currently at issue. Newimpartial (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to back up Sennalen's claim, then find sources using the term, showing authors from
- Sounds like you're the one moving the goalposts. My point, as the section creator, was that we are not justified in stating that the term 'Cultural Marxism' 'originates' in some way from the Nazi propaganda term. You will probably have to wait a while for me to check pre-1950 sources that support Sennalen's claim (if there are any). Tewdar (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- You may have created the section but do not OWN it. I was responding to Sennanen's comment of 16:17 2 January, stating that because the term was used in Marxist circles before 1950 (which is entirely unsubstantiated), that therefore the actual reliable sources (Martin Jay, Matthew Feldman, et al.) should he set aside. This argument needs to be resolved one way or another, I think, before moving on to other topics.
- Also, since you are a new editor in this subject area, you should be aware that the WP editing community has repeatedly and emphatically found that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is not based on there already having been some pre-existing intellectual or political movement called "Cultural Marxism" that then conservatives seized on in the 1990s as the basis for their conspiracy theory.
- Rather, the consensus of editors - in line with the consensus of scholarship - is that while there were various schools of Marxism interested in culture, there was never a coherent intellectual movement of "cultural Marxists" and that the phrase was generally used to denote an area of interest (and was much less frequently used as a label among scholars than "Western Marxism", "Critical Theory" or "Marxist Humanism" even within this domain). CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, of course, but so far consensus and scholarship actually agree about this. Newimpartial (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- The
various schools of Marxism interested in culture
were conveniently labelled 'cultural Marxism' a long time before the conspiracy theory came along. It would surprise me if there is consensus to the contrary. BTW I am not new to this topic, just new to editing this topic. 😁 Tewdar (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)- Obvs the conspiracy theory errs in describing this as a coherent monolithic group of conspirators, but... Tewdar (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Don't forget to leave the relevant DS sanctions message on my talk page, now. 👍 Tewdar (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- "the etymology of the term Cultural Marxism derived from the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism" according to Matthew Feldman - what does Feldman actually say, verbatim please? Tewdar (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have access to that at the moment.
- Concerning whether "Cultural Marxism" is a distinct encyclopaedic topic outside of the conspiracy theory, please see this discussion above, which includes links to some of the main turning points on WP (notably the 2014 AfD for Cultural Marxism). Newimpartial (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Found it. Statement in wikivoice has no resemblence to what he actually writes, as I suspected. Tewdar (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll take a look. Tewdar (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- For me, in the UK, the terms "Marxist cultural analysis" and "cultural Marxism", meant the same things, and the same people, and the same scholarly discourse. Only recently, has the Americentric "Cultural Marxism = Mad Hatter's tea party" stuff become widely known. Tewdar (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- The
- Sounds like you're the one moving the goalposts. My point, as the section creator, was that we are not justified in stating that the term 'Cultural Marxism' 'originates' in some way from the Nazi propaganda term. You will probably have to wait a while for me to check pre-1950 sources that support Sennalen's claim (if there are any). Tewdar (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
And I strongly suspect that said field of discourse maps closely onto what I referred to above as an area of interest
and people doing cultural things with Marxism
- but you can check previous discussions here and at Talk:Marxist cultural analysis if you want an even more precise idea of what that field of discourse typically included, selon moi. Newimpartial (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
people doing cultural things with Marxism
is a quite adequate description of what I would call "cultural Marxism", loosely defined. As for Cultural Marxism" beinga distinct encyclopaedic topic outside of the conspiracy theory
- it is. It's just that on the Americentric Wikipedia, it's called "Marxist cultural analysis"... Tewdar (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)- Surely you can FIXIT on Cornish Wikipedia, in any case. Newimpartial (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I was not introducing any candidate article text earlier, so don't get to hung up on that. If you like, I withdraw whatever it was I said. However, the article is too absolute its pronouncement that "cultural Marxism" comes from "cultural Bolshevism" by way of nazis. "Cultural Marxism" is a term used by and about Western Marxists, especially in reference to the Frankfurt School. It's not the WP:COMMONNAME of anything, which is why a page called "Cultural Marxism" shouldn't be on Wikipedia. That is what the 2014 RfC affirmed. "Cultural Marxism" is still a name of something that exists, used by people who are not conpsiracy theorists. I introduced some sources for that on Marxist cultural analysis and Tewdar has found some that are even better. Dissenting opinions are noteworthy but they should be in-text attributed. Sennalen (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- feel free to open another RFC. It won't change anything tho. Mvbaron (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's a subtle form of WP:OR to treat "cultural" + "Marxism" as automatically meaning the same thing as the term "cultural Marxism". If you look for two words that have been placed next to each other, you may find examples, but as always, we have to evaluate sources in context. We have to summarize what sources are actually saying about the topic. That's the entire point of Wikipedia. We cannot presume that just because they used these words together the source must be talking about this specific topic, nor that this isn't just a passing mention. If you find a older sources which uses the phrase to refer to something more specific than the individual words, we would still need secondary sources to explain why that usage matters to this topic. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- For me, "cultural Marxism" === Frankfurt School, Thompson, Habermas, & c. I am genuinely finding it a little weird that people think this is weird. I'll find some primary, secondary, and probably tertiary sources for you tomorrow if I have time. In UK sociology classes until quite recently, Adorno et al was the only meaning of the term 'Cultural Marxism'. Tewdar (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any source, conspiracy-oriented or not, where "cultural Marxism" doesn't mean something involving the Frankfurt school. There may be some question about whether a particular mention applies to Lukacs or applies to Thompson, and so on, but there's a pretty consistent core there. Sennalen (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Denise Dworkin uses it to refer to the Birmingham School, as does Douglas Kellner. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Something involving" is too vague, and as I said, it's a subtle form of OR anyway. Since the Frankfurt School involves both Marxism and "culture", you could, as an editor, make a connection, but we need sources to make that connection for us. The consistency of the core maybe clear to you, but we need sources. Like I said, we cannot assume that it's relevant or encyclopedically significant. We have to look at what that something actually is according to sources. If it's about the Frankfurt School, maybe it belongs at that article, or maybe not. If it's about this conspiracy theory, what is it saying about the conspiracy theory that would help readers understand the topic? Grayfell (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not convinced that recent editors or participants in RfCs have firm grasp of topic at current time. Tewdar (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Your comment is too vague, and therefor inappropriate. See Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. Grayfell (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- People who believe that "Cultural Marxism" has not been linked to, and loosely equated to, "Frankfurt School &c." by numerous primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, are not fully familiar with this topic, or have an extremely "localised" understanding. No WP:aspersions or WP:ANYTHING_ELSE intended. Tewdar (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- FFS, Tewdar, please give the sloppy argumentation a rest. The word cultural followed by the word Marxism exists back to the late 60s (as you have noted), and we have an early 1980s source ret-conning Schroyer into conceiving of "cultural Marxism" as a field of discourse. However, this is not at all the same as reliable sources identifying "cultural Marxism" as a specific topic equated with the "Frankfurt School, etc.", whether
loosely
or otherwise. The number of non-conspiracy theory 20th century sources that use "cultural Marxism" as a term for a movement or tendency, rather than a subject-matter domain, can probably be counted on one hand and it doesn't matter that some of the same people who wrote on that domain get labelled later by conspiracy theorists as "Cultural Marxists". - Hell's bells, Tewdar: you can disagree with me if you like, but implying they I am
not fully familiar with this topic, or have an extremely "localised" understanding
when I have been reading these sources, including the UK-based ones, in real time since 1985 is a bit more WP:ANYHING_ELSE then I can take at the moment. I may not always be the best example of this, but I do believe it is possible to disagree with others on WP without chanelling one's inner asshole. I commend this exercise to you in particular. Newimpartial (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- FFS, Tewdar, please give the sloppy argumentation a rest. The word cultural followed by the word Marxism exists back to the late 60s (as you have noted), and we have an early 1980s source ret-conning Schroyer into conceiving of "cultural Marxism" as a field of discourse. However, this is not at all the same as reliable sources identifying "cultural Marxism" as a specific topic equated with the "Frankfurt School, etc.", whether
- People who believe that "Cultural Marxism" has not been linked to, and loosely equated to, "Frankfurt School &c." by numerous primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, are not fully familiar with this topic, or have an extremely "localised" understanding. No WP:aspersions or WP:ANYTHING_ELSE intended. Tewdar (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Your comment is too vague, and therefor inappropriate. See Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. Grayfell (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, perhaps people can point out where they disagree with me without chanelling their inner asshole.
(1) Beginning in the 1920s, some people (Lukács, Frankfurt School, Habermas, etc.) started doing cultural things with Marxism
, thus partially differentiating themselves from other forms of Marxism.
(2) From (at the latest) the late sixties, sociologists solved the partial differential equation "cultural + Marxism = cultural Marxism", specifically to refer to these theorists, probably because they were bored with writing "Lukács, Frankfurt School, etc. etc." all the time.
(3) The term 'cultural Marxism' continued to be fairly widely used in this sense, and this sense only, until the early nineties or so, at which time "Cultural Marxism" started to be used by some "very fine people" in the US to refer to an imaginary conspiracy, in which the Frankfurt School take over the Matrix.
(4) This novel usage becomes dominant rapidly in the US, but takes a little longer to catch on in the UK, where sociology textbooks and teachers continue to use "cultural Marxism" with its original meaning, until the Breivik incident, meaning that now, as in the US, one cannot use the term "cultural Marxism" without being thought an antisemite. Tewdar (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- (ad 1) - agreed, this is a trivial point.
- (ad 2) -
probably because they were bored with writing "Lukács, Frankfurt School, etc. etc." all the time.
No idea what you mean. Usually if people want to refer to Lukacs, Adorno et al, they use the term "Frankfurt School" or "Critical Theory", and not "cultural Marxism" - as has been repeatedly pointed out here, that's just not a school of thought and there are no dictionary entries on "the school of Critical Marxism" or something like that. - (ad 3) -
The term 'cultural Marxism' continued to be fairly widely used in this sense
. No, that's incorrect. Hardly anyone uses that term, and certainly not to refer to a school of thought. The rest about the conspiracy is accurate. - (ad 4) -
where sociology textbooks and teachers continue to use "cultural Marxism" with its original meaning
. Examples please! - I would also like to echo new's comment that your comment about people on this talk who do not share your beliefes
are not fully familiar with this topic
is highly inappropriate. --Mvbaron (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)- (@3) "hardly anyone?" This is not correct... give me a while to collect examples
- (@4) one (US!) example is Encyclopedia of Sociology Second Edition ( 2000, Borgatta & Montgomery) (heavily edited to avoid copyvio)
- "A third tendency has been loosely referred to as ‘‘cultural Marxism.’’ Such critics of the functionalist tendencies of structuralist Marxism put particular stress upon the contested and uneven character of cultural reproduction in capitalist societies... Raymond Williams, Richard Johnson, Stuart Hall...A related tendency has been the cultural Marxist historiography of E. P. Thompson...A distinctive aspect of the cultural Marxist tradition, an aspect that has led it away from Marxist sociology... Much of the recent work carried out in the name of cultural Marxism thus increasingly blends with poststructuralist and critical theories of culture..." - I'm sure ai can find quite a few textbooks using" cultural Marxism" in a similar sense. Tewdar (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- They talk about contemporary tendencies, not the Frankfurt school:
The complex outcome of the crisis of Marxist sociology in advanced capitalism is suggestively anticipated in the response of three contemporary countertendencies.
"analytical marxism", "poststructuralist marxism" and "cultural marxism". This is exactly what Grayfell talked above and this is also covered in our article Marxist_cultural_analysis. This thread here is completely superfluous, all these arguments have been repeated ad nauseam on this talk page already. Until a specific proposal is made here how to change this article, I rather not waste any more time repeating what has been said. Mvbaron (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC) - Since you have managed to make a couple of comments without including any obvious insults, Tewdar, I will therefore point out in good faith that your (2) is simply incorrect when it comes to all pre-1980 and most pre-1990 literature. The "cultural Marxism" of Gilbert and of Schroyer is an activity or a field of inquiry, not a term of art used
specifically to refer to these theorists
. The mass of sources after 1990 that do, in fact, use Cultural Marxism as a label for a group or tendency (following Weiner's misreading of Schroyer in the early '80s) give rise to the understandable but mistaken tendency to assume that those two words taken together meant the same thing as a phrase in 1967 or '73 that they came to mean in the 21st century, which sad to say is not the case. Newimpartial (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)- doi:10.1007/bf01701854 (May, 1978)
It is at this point that the "cultural Marxists" and particularly Marcuse, Habermas and Offe make their significant contributions.
- not really sure what your point is any more. Is it "cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory, and any other usage is WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH"? Tewdar (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)- Cultural Marxism is primarily the trope of a conspiracy theory, yes. And people struggling to read Schroyer were not particularly influential in scholarship on Critical Theory or Cultural Studies in the 1970s, 1980s and even in the 1990s. Those are my (fairly obvious) points. (Also, anyone citing Offe as a "cultural Marxist" is obviously employing a rather vague sense of the phrase.) Newimpartial (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Cultural Marxism" is a
vague
term, hence nobody sensible is calling it a "school of thought", some usages don't even include the Frankfurt School. But I think calling itprimarily the trope of a conspiracy theory
is a recent development, and quite inaccurate. Do you have access to the Christian Fuchs book, linked below? He quite unashamedly uses "cultural Marxism" throughout, in exactly the same way that I (would have) used it (until recently). Tewdar (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)- Sure, but that 2016 Fuchs book, like most of Jamin's work, incorporates the retcon assumption that "cultural Marxism", rather than say "Western Marxism" or "Critical Theory" or "Marxist Humanism", was a standard 20th-century term used to mean something in particular. In our timeline, however, the
trope of a conspiracy theory
usage is set down firmly in the early 1990s while the Fuchs-Jamin usage develops somewhat organically (probably mostly based on Dworkin) in parallel to, but somewhat after, the CT usage. And unlike the CT usage, the Dworkin-Fuchs-Jamin terminology never comes to predominate among Marxologists - it always remains a minority, alternative label (even in the UK, though perhaps not in Cornwall). Newimpartial (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)- I'm reasonably convinced that Schroyer and Fuchs are, by and large, referring to the same people, and the same thing, when they use the term "cultural Marxism", with or without the hyphen. Tewdar (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- What convinces you of that? That is the sticking point, after all. Given that we have high-quality source in the article stating that
Frankfurt School scholars are referred to as "Critical Theorists", not "Cultural Marxists"
, alleging that there is noteworthy usage elsewhere is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim and would require a strong secondary source stating such - searching it and finding one or two people talking about the cultural dimensions of Marxism in various unrelated ways isn't sufficient (it's effectively WP:OR if used to try and disprove or disagree with the statement I highlighted.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- What convinces you of that? That is the sticking point, after all. Given that we have high-quality source in the article stating that
- I'm reasonably convinced that Schroyer and Fuchs are, by and large, referring to the same people, and the same thing, when they use the term "cultural Marxism", with or without the hyphen. Tewdar (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, but that 2016 Fuchs book, like most of Jamin's work, incorporates the retcon assumption that "cultural Marxism", rather than say "Western Marxism" or "Critical Theory" or "Marxist Humanism", was a standard 20th-century term used to mean something in particular. In our timeline, however, the
- "Cultural Marxism" is a
- Cultural Marxism is primarily the trope of a conspiracy theory, yes. And people struggling to read Schroyer were not particularly influential in scholarship on Critical Theory or Cultural Studies in the 1970s, 1980s and even in the 1990s. Those are my (fairly obvious) points. (Also, anyone citing Offe as a "cultural Marxist" is obviously employing a rather vague sense of the phrase.) Newimpartial (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- doi:10.1007/bf01701854 (May, 1978)
- They talk about contemporary tendencies, not the Frankfurt school:
- Specific proposal : Change the sentence
In Fascism and Culture (2003), professor Matthew Feldman argues that the etymology of the term Cultural Marxism derived from the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism)
to something that accurately reflects what Feldman writes. Since "hardly anyone" uses the term "cultural Marxism" in its original academic sense in these parts, I think we're done here. Tewdar (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)- Thanks for the specific proposal. This is what Feldman writes:
Some fascists even pointed to the influence of Marxism, or 'cultural Bolshevism'. According to a BUF writer, it was the task of 'cultural Marxism' to plant the seed of cultural disintegration ... Thus when vice is pandered to and 'unhealthy tastes and tendencies are excited by suggestion', it was certain that the 'hidden hand' of Bolshevik cultural subversion was actively at work.
Do you think this is no accurately reflected in the article? Mvbaron (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)- As far as I can make out, Feldman is claiming here that British fascists, as early as 1938(?), were using the terms 'Cultural Marxism' and 'Cultural Bolshevism' interchangably, as an explanation for what they saw as contemporary social decay and sexual promiscuity. I am unable to access the source that Feldman gives for this claim, however. Tewdar (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, looks as though the Fascists got there first...
- Marxism, the Doctrine of Decay by Francis Mcevoy - "Needless to say, the utopian equalitarianism of the denationalised intellectual has never existed anywhere, but it is not political so-called communism which threatens immediate danger to this country. That would be the final consummation, but before the oriental commissars can come into their own, the minds of the prospective victims must be prepared for the event, that is to say, perverted and poisoned to the necessary degree of receptivity. Herein lies the task of cultural Marxism, the preliminary bolshevisation of the mind, facilitated by the indiscriminate toleration-psychosis of liberalism, inherent in Social-Democracy, and leading to its final inevitable collapse." [my emphasis] Tewdar (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I can make out, Feldman is claiming here that British fascists, as early as 1938(?), were using the terms 'Cultural Marxism' and 'Cultural Bolshevism' interchangably, as an explanation for what they saw as contemporary social decay and sexual promiscuity. I am unable to access the source that Feldman gives for this claim, however. Tewdar (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the specific proposal. This is what Feldman writes:
- Do you have a link to this book. It's not listed on
- This book by this person seems to be another one of those 'hardly anyones': "The book is intended as a reader on aspects of cultural Marxism in the digital age". It's rather good. ("Cultural Marxism" appears 8 times on page 4, mentioning Frankfurt School, Lukács, Adorno, etc...) Tewdar (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- That the Frankfurt School existed, and can be discussed as having had a take on culture (namely that industrialist mass produced culture was taking over from more traditionalist or individualistic/idiosyncratic/human forms) is their Marxist take on culture. That doesn't entail the term being used in the 1930s-50s, but yes, some Frankfurt School writing is that old. The earliest I can find a usage of 'cultural Marxism' was some 1970s books.
- As for Cultural_Bolshevism - I believe there was some discussion of the connections and sources here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Bolshevism#Quoting_WP:MERGE --124.170.170.79 (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- The conspiracy theorists, who were veterans of the far right, took the term cultural Bolshevism and renamed it cultural Marxism. They then scoured Marxist literature for evidence that the Marxists had ever used the term. If it were a standard term in left-wing thought, there would have been a definition of it somewhere. TFD (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like they (the recent conspiracy theorists) didn't even have to rename it; see above. I'm not so sure there would need to be a "definition": like I say, the term "cultural Marxism" has been used, very loosely, to refer to "Frankfurt School++", without implying "cultural Marxism" is a school of thought or a coherent doctrine, for decades, by several perfectly normal sociologists. Fuchs uses the term like everyone's familiar with it in his relatively recent book, despite the fact that the most popular use of the term now apparently relates to the conspiracy theory. Why's he doing that, if this usage is supposedly so fringe? Tewdar (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- My reading, after glancing over the text, is that he is simply using it to mean "marxism through a cultural lens", not as a term with any more specific meaning than that. Note that (except when it's the start of a sentence) he never capitalizes the 'c' for "cultural" the way he does for eg. "Cultural Materialism" (a term with actual academic meaning.) I feel like you've confused yourself by doing a search for "cultural marxism" with a specific meaning in mind and then reading that meaning into whatever random results you found - but "cultural X" is a common enough construct for discussing a broad field that it's inevitable that you'll find some results. For example, we can find plenty of papers discussing cultural Capitalism, cultural Democracy, cultural Fascism, cultural Anarchism, cultural Socialism, etc; but they're not specific established topics and the usages are therefore not particularly connected into a single topic, nor do uses like that have any real connection to the conspiracy theory. Basically, it's not a useful source here. --Aquillion (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Also, let it be noted that I tried to remain on topic, and was dragged kicking and screaming to discuss this here. Tewdar (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- In order for a topic to be noteable, and hence deserving of its own article, we would need a definition in a reliable source. I assume he means an analysis of capitalist culture by the Frankfurt School and related groups. To the conspiracy theorists, it means a method by which the international Communist movement undermines Western civilization by promoting whatever U.S. conservatives happen to oppose, such as abortion. Thanks for the link, I was able to download the book. TFD (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like they (the recent conspiracy theorists) didn't even have to rename it; see above. I'm not so sure there would need to be a "definition": like I say, the term "cultural Marxism" has been used, very loosely, to refer to "Frankfurt School++", without implying "cultural Marxism" is a school of thought or a coherent doctrine, for decades, by several perfectly normal sociologists. Fuchs uses the term like everyone's familiar with it in his relatively recent book, despite the fact that the most popular use of the term now apparently relates to the conspiracy theory. Why's he doing that, if this usage is supposedly so fringe? Tewdar (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Also, we already have several "cultural Marxism" articles... Tewdar (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not really, the page for Critical Theory relates to the other topics, The Frankfurt School was a group of academics with a historical presence and biographies, and western marxism is a wider umbrella term. What you've said is essentially like saying we already have a page on neo-conservatism, because there's a page on The Bush Administration, and a page on Irving Kristol, and there's a page on conservatism its self as well. They are similar, relate and overlap, but they are not the same things. Not the same pages. Maybe we could reduce Wikipedia down to a single page about knowledge? :) --07:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.170.79 (talk)
- Also, we already have several "cultural Marxism" articles... Tewdar (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Minnicinno 1992, which is described as the first article to outline the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory does not use the term. Lind 2000, which is the second text, uses the term cultural Marxism, but does not identify it with the Frankfurt School or mention that they ever used the term. To Lind, cultural Marxism dated back to WWI and he refers to the updated Frankfurt School plot ass "Critical Theory." It was only later that the conspiracy theorists found that Schroyer 1973 had used the expression.
- The reasonable conclusion is that Minnicinno copied and updated the Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory, while Lind gave it the name "Cultural Marxism." Later writers found that the expression had been used in writings about Critical Theory. They then refocused the conspiracy theory on the Frankfurt School and other critical theorists.
- TFD (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting. So what we actually seem to have is this:
- (1) Kulturbolschewismus 'Cultural Bolshevism', Nazi propaganda term
- (2) 'Cultural Marxism', found in a BUF journal as early as 1938, quite probably a calque on the Nazi slogan
- (3) 'cultural Marxism', a (lesser used) scholarly (and often also pejorative) term used to describe the actual work of Lukács, the Frankfurt "school", Thompson, etc. in various permutations, probably originating from Schroyer 1973
- (4) 'Cultural Marxism', as used (but not originally named this) by conspiracy theorists Minnicinno, Lind et al., apparently originally based on the Nazi conspiracy theory, but later taking advantage of previous academic usage of 'cultural Marxism' to refer to the Frankfurt school, et al, and integrating this with the conspiracy theory
- (5) Various other fringe uses of "cultural Marxism", eg. Gilbert 1967, "someone talking about Marxism to sound hip"
- Tewdar (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think there's any sources for point 3). Have never seen a source use it pejoratively with the lower case 'cultural'.Never mind, I see your reference to Marxism, the Doctrine of Decay by Francis Mcevoy --124.170.170.79 (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Cultural Bolshevism cites primary examples of Dada and Bauhaus which I don't recall appearing in anything pertaining to cultural Marxism. Going to a primary source turned out to be helpful in this case. The Minnicino text that's given as the origin of the conspiracy theory titles the first section, "The Frankfurt School: Bolshevik Intelligentsia". The word "Bolshevism" appears several times, although the exact phrase "cultural Bolshevism" does not, nor does "cultural Marxism" for that matter, I'm no longer skeptical that the phrases are connected. I am still skeptical this means that Minnicino was cribbing from Mein Kampf to describe Lukács as a Bolshevik instead of Lukács' own writing on Bolshevism.
- Meanwhile, everybody who says cultural Marxism or Bolshevism means at least Lukács and the Frankfurt school. All this finger wagging about "what if it's just two words next to each other" is totally unconvincing. Normal reading comprehension is WP:NOTOR.
- If the load-bearing argument is that "cultural Marxism" is not a common term in the literature, not common is being conflated with not valid as a form of special pleading. If Lind had latched on to the phrase "cultural Bolshevism" or kept a small c in "cultural Marxism" or used a phrase like "Western Marxism", "Marxism applied to culture", "a cultural turn in Marxism", etc and so on, that would have changed absolutely nothing about where the conspiracy theory comports with facts and where it doesn't.
- Sennalen (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know why you think
where the conspiracy theory comports with facts and where it doesn't
is somehow relevant here, but it isn't. This was previously discussed rather thoroughly with Swood100 in this "extended content" section. Determining "how much of the conspiracy theory is true", or is in accord with actual scholarship, just isn't especially helpful in making editorial decisions on this article. Newimpartial (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC) - Minnicino dates what he calls the "conpiracy" to before the Frankfurt School. The "New Age", which was a 20 year period following the 1890s, replaced Western culture with ugliness. Dada and Bauhaus were both founded in this era, so would be included. Obviously he's not going to go into detail about art movements of the 1920s, but he expresses the same views on them as Hitler: They were part of a plot by the Bolsheviks to undermine Western civilization.
- OR incidentally is allowed on talk pages, just not in articles. In this case, it's OR to say that the conspiracy theorists were writing about cultural Marxism as understood by the Frankfurt and related schools. We have no evidence they had even heard of that use of the term before they chose to use it.
- So it seems that Minnicino and Lind saw the conspiracy as having originated circa 1900. Minnicino sees the failure of Communist revolutions in Western Europe to cause the Kremlin to appoint Georg Lukacs to head the plot. But later writers leave out the prehistory and instead say that the Frankfurt School launched the plot, which they only brought to America after WWII.
- TFD (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- The plot is much more interesting with the art criticism; I am with Henri Lefebvre on that one. Newimpartial (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Is "Swood100" some sort of code for "you will be topic banned for talking about this"? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- No; that editor's page ban has long since expired, though apparently they have found something more interesting to do with their time. Newimpartial (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know why you think
- By cultural Marxism, Gilbert was referring to the involvement of the CPUSA in literature. First, these artists had no connection with the Frankfurt School. Second, the people in this case are artists, while the Frankfurt School people were critics. Third, the type of literature Gilbert's cultural Marxists produced was overtly left-wing. John Dos Passos' opus, U.S.A., which was originally published in the USSR, shows the exploitation of the working class in America. The conspiracy theorists OTOH see pornography and sitcoms as the vehicle through which the cultural Marxists undermine America.
- So this indeed is an example of someone putting two words together. And AFAIK, no other writer had yet to put these two words together in reference to the Frankfurt School et al.
- TFD (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree Gilbert is not talking about cultural Marxism in the same sense as everyone else. I believe some people have tried to extend the "two words together" theory to Trent Schroyer and John Brenkman, and that doesn't hold water. Sennalen (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Even if eg Schroyer's cultural Marxism and eg Fuchs's cultural Marxism were not the same thing, I think that this article needs to clearly explain that, look, this term has a legit (though perhaps less common than other terms) scholarly usage, generally referring to Marxist analysis of 'Western' culture, in order to clearly distinguish it from the conspiracy theory. Now, anyone who Googles 'cultural Marxism' is informed, without nuance or qualification that this is a conspiracy theory, and nothing more. There is quite a lot of potential for confusion here. Tewdar (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Except for the handy one-way disambiguation link, that might be the case.
- Also, I think the line is to be drawn between Schroyer's actual "two words together" usage and those citing him, 5-10 years later, who interpreted his work differently. But that is off-topic for this article. Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Google searches now provide users with Wikipedia disambiguation links? Good to know. Tewdar (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Except I get Marxist cultural analysis, Cultural Bolshevism, and Western Marxism as links too from Google. What can this mean? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- You are talking about improving this article for people who Google the term and don't click on the link to this article? Those are not the target market for "maybe they're looking up the work of actual Marxist intellectuals", IMO. Know your audience... Newimpartial (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Aaaaaanyway... I disagree that the article itself does enough to make it clear that cultural Marxism might mean something else, despite the disambiguation link. I have no interest in your often bizarre tangential and oft-times provocative "repartee" this evening. Tewdar (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- You are talking about improving this article for people who Google the term and don't click on the link to this article? Those are not the target market for "maybe they're looking up the work of actual Marxist intellectuals", IMO. Know your audience... Newimpartial (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Even if eg Schroyer's cultural Marxism and eg Fuchs's cultural Marxism were not the same thing, I think that this article needs to clearly explain that, look, this term has a legit (though perhaps less common than other terms) scholarly usage, generally referring to Marxist analysis of 'Western' culture, in order to clearly distinguish it from the conspiracy theory. Now, anyone who Googles 'cultural Marxism' is informed, without nuance or qualification that this is a conspiracy theory, and nothing more. There is quite a lot of potential for confusion here. Tewdar (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree Gilbert is not talking about cultural Marxism in the same sense as everyone else. I believe some people have tried to extend the "two words together" theory to Trent Schroyer and John Brenkman, and that doesn't hold water. Sennalen (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- There is almost no chance that someone will come across the conjoined words "cultural Marxism" and google search it. First, there are very few reliable soures that use the term even in the literature about the subject. Second, the place where the vast majority of people will hear the expression is from conspiracy theorists. This then is the article they want. If they want to know who these supposed conspiracists were, they can follow the article's links. TFD (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Having trouble finding "Marxism, the Doctrine of Decay by Francis Mcevoy" - it's not on google books or book finder:
- Anyone have any links to the source Tewdar is claiming? --124.170.170.79 (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- There are rather more than "very few" sources that use the term "cultural Marxism" in a scholarly context. The source you're looking for, cited by Feldman in his book Fascism: Fascism and Culture is "Marxism, the Doctrine of Decay" by Francis McEvoy. Indeed it is from a BUF quarterly, July-September 1938 I think. Tewdar (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Uh huh, and then later in history the Conspiracy Theory "Cultural Marxism" became popular, starting within "silent majority" conservatism of the late 90s, and it was really mainstreamed (out of white supremacist circles) sometime between 2014 and today. So what are you trying to prove here? That more legitimate usages tend to be older and more obscure? Is that why we're looking at 1938 propaganda and going "Yep, it WAS used back then"... We have two pages BECAUSE of what you're talking about, not in spite of it. What change are you trying to make here anyways? Trying to inform editors of what they already know? --124.170.170.79 (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- My very mundane contribution here, is that the term "Cultural Marxism", in English, actually dates from 1938 at the latest, and in all likelihood is derived from the Nazi term, and this usage is much older than any academic usage relating to the Frankfurt School I can find. As far as I can tell, nobody had actually pointed out the actual source Feldman uses before. You seem to be making some sort of fun game out of wilfully misinterpreting what I am saying. You asked what the source was. I told you. What's the problem? Tewdar (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose the problem now is working that into the text if that's your aim. But you're right, it's nice information to have. Sometimes editors to this page are an unknown quantity, and it has to be determined whether they're a WP:FRINGE supporter of the conspiracy theory. Conspiracy Theory pages just come under attack now and then. Hazard of editing on this topic sometimes. I hope you've not taken any offence. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- My very mundane contribution here, is that the term "Cultural Marxism", in English, actually dates from 1938 at the latest, and in all likelihood is derived from the Nazi term, and this usage is much older than any academic usage relating to the Frankfurt School I can find. As far as I can tell, nobody had actually pointed out the actual source Feldman uses before. You seem to be making some sort of fun game out of wilfully misinterpreting what I am saying. You asked what the source was. I told you. What's the problem? Tewdar (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Uh huh, and then later in history the Conspiracy Theory "Cultural Marxism" became popular, starting within "silent majority" conservatism of the late 90s, and it was really mainstreamed (out of white supremacist circles) sometime between 2014 and today. So what are you trying to prove here? That more legitimate usages tend to be older and more obscure? Is that why we're looking at 1938 propaganda and going "Yep, it WAS used back then"... We have two pages BECAUSE of what you're talking about, not in spite of it. What change are you trying to make here anyways? Trying to inform editors of what they already know? --124.170.170.79 (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- There are rather more than "very few" sources that use the term "cultural Marxism" in a scholarly context. The source you're looking for, cited by Feldman in his book Fascism: Fascism and Culture is "Marxism, the Doctrine of Decay" by Francis McEvoy. Indeed it is from a BUF quarterly, July-September 1938 I think. Tewdar (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
"Jewish intellectuals" of the Frankfurt School
Minnicino does not appear to use this phrase, which appears in quotation marks, in either of the two given sources. Either I have made a mistake, or the article is wrong. Tewdar (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- It actually appears in Adorno's enlightenment as mass deception: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm but I believe the phrase is being used by Martin Jay to describe the Minnicino article. Martin Jay is an academic historian of The Frankfurt School. I think Lind also used something similar (as reported from the SPLC). --124.170.170.79 (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Is this the ip address that erroneously suggested that I am a 'new' (presumably code for something or other) editor, in a now deleted section on this page? Anyway, what does Adorno's Enlightenment as Mass Deception have to do with my question? Jay does not use this phrase in the cited article either afaict, and your "beliefs" do not allow me to attribute this phrase to Lind either, but I will check that. The article says
Minnicino said that the "Jewish intellectuals...
, followed by two inline citations to Minnicino's articles, so even if Lind did say this the sentence is still false. Your logic seems to be, "someone else said it, so let's pretend Minnicino said it". This is utterly preposterous. Tewdar (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Is this the ip address that erroneously suggested that I am a 'new' (presumably code for something or other) editor, in a now deleted section on this page? Anyway, what does Adorno's Enlightenment as Mass Deception have to do with my question? Jay does not use this phrase in the cited article either afaict, and your "beliefs" do not allow me to attribute this phrase to Lind either, but I will check that. The article says
- Of course it's relevant, Lind is one of the key proponents of the conspiracy theory. Here's the source of Lind talking about The Frankfurt School's jewishness, which he did at a holocaust denial conference: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2002/ally-christian-right-heavyweight-paul-weyrich-addresses-holocaust-denial-conference I haven't seen any source putting that claim in contention. Is that your purpose here, to attack sources in order to WP:OWN the page? --124.170.170.79 (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please explain how Lind using the phrase "Jewish intellectuals" (if he does) allows us to attribute this phrase to Minnicino. Your argument as it stands is ludicrously SYNTH, and doesn't even make sense. Tewdar (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- For now, I have removed the quotation marks; additional changes (like quoting a phrase Lind actually used) I will leave for others (or for later). Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, at least it isn't a false quote now. I wouldn't synthesize material in this manner, however. But whatever, wouldn't want random ip addresses accusing me of being a Nazi racist or whatevs. 😡 Tewdar (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please respect the WP:HUMAN policy. I never called you a Nazi. Merely pointed out that your edits all call for the (questionable) removal of sources which use the term (Both Brievik and Feldman use the term, also, this page is for the conspiracy theory usage).--124.170.170.79 (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Newimpartial removed the quote marks now. Because it is not a quotation from any of the citations, evidently. Tewdar (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Also, you seem to miss the point. If Smith refers to the "Thinkery", and Jones calls the Thinkery "a shower of bastards", we cannot therefore in Wikivoice state that
Smith said that the "shower of bastards" in the Thinkery..."
because that misrepresents what Smith says and is SYNTH. Do you understand? Tewdar (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)- Sorry, what is "Thinkery"? Weird example. Are you talking about Matthew Feldman (an academic) reporting on the writings in the BUF (The British Union of Fascists)? Please stick to talking about edits to THIS particular Wikipedia article. Personally I'm not even sure why you're here. Your goal appears to be removing WP:Reliable sources as far as I can tell. You need to stick to the topic, the page at hand. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please respect the WP:HUMAN policy. I never called you a Nazi. Merely pointed out that your edits all call for the (questionable) removal of sources which use the term (Both Brievik and Feldman use the term, also, this page is for the conspiracy theory usage).--124.170.170.79 (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, at least it isn't a false quote now. I wouldn't synthesize material in this manner, however. But whatever, wouldn't want random ip addresses accusing me of being a Nazi racist or whatevs. 😡 Tewdar (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- For now, I have removed the quotation marks; additional changes (like quoting a phrase Lind actually used) I will leave for others (or for later). Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please explain how Lind using the phrase "Jewish intellectuals" (if he does) allows us to attribute this phrase to Minnicino. Your argument as it stands is ludicrously SYNTH, and doesn't even make sense. Tewdar (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Of course it's relevant, Lind is one of the key proponents of the conspiracy theory. Here's the source of Lind talking about The Frankfurt School's jewishness, which he did at a holocaust denial conference: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2002/ally-christian-right-heavyweight-paul-weyrich-addresses-holocaust-denial-conference I haven't seen any source putting that claim in contention. Is that your purpose here, to attack sources in order to WP:OWN the page? --124.170.170.79 (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- The phrase "Jewish" appears 11 times across the two Michael Minnicino articles given as sources. Michael Minnicino does indeed focus on the Jewishness of intellectuals he is claiming to be "part of the conspiracy" (going as far as having a section titled "The 'Jewish identity' project" in one source). So again, investigating your claims I'm left wondering - why are you here? Are you here trying to muddle sources? --124.170.170.79 (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- You clearly don't understand why attributing quotations to people who do not actually say what we claim they are saying is a problem. Newimpartial removed the quotation marks. Talk to Newimpartial. Tewdar (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- You clearly don't realise that the page is in a series on Antisemitism, and that putting "Jewish Intellectuals" doesn't necessarily mean we're quoting a text. It means, the text was antisemitic... which the page is part of a series on. Might want to think about the CONTEXT sometimes. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- If it is a 'term', and not a "quotation", single quotes might be best. Newimpartial, OTOH, determined that no quotes at all was best. Talk to Newimpartial. They'll explain everything for you. Tewdar (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, and I'm saying that given the context, not even that was necessary. I would really like you to be clearer and more informed in your goals here. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- If it is a 'term', and not a "quotation", single quotes might be best. Newimpartial, OTOH, determined that no quotes at all was best. Talk to Newimpartial. They'll explain everything for you. Tewdar (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- You clearly don't realise that the page is in a series on Antisemitism, and that putting "Jewish Intellectuals" doesn't necessarily mean we're quoting a text. It means, the text was antisemitic... which the page is part of a series on. Might want to think about the CONTEXT sometimes. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- You clearly don't understand why attributing quotations to people who do not actually say what we claim they are saying is a problem. Newimpartial removed the quotation marks. Talk to Newimpartial. Tewdar (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- My goal is to make sure that we don't imply that people have said things that they didn't actually say. Perhaps Newimpartial should explain this to you. You don't seem to understand when I tell you. Ask Newimpartial. Maybe you'll listen to them. Tewdar (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm far more worried about The Frankfurt School themselves having been misrepresented by the Conspiracy Theory than I am about the representation of the antisemites and conspiracy theorists. So I guess that's where our goals and approaches may differ. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- My goal is to make sure that we don't imply that people have said things that they didn't actually say. Perhaps Newimpartial should explain this to you. You don't seem to understand when I tell you. Ask Newimpartial. Maybe you'll listen to them. Tewdar (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
"the etymology of the term Cultural Marxism"
What the article says Feldman writes: "professor Matthew Feldman argues that the etymology of the term Cultural Marxism derived from the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism)"
What Feldman actually writes: "Some fascists even pointed to the influence of Marxism, or 'cultural Bolshevism'. According to a BUF writer, it was the task of 'cultural Marxism' to plant the seed of cultural disintegration. because a climate of national and cultural decay aided the goal of revolutionary communism"
Feldman here is not arguing that the "etymology" of the term "Cultural Marxism" derives from Kulturbolschewismus, or Cultural Bolshevism. He is not saying anything about etymology. What he is doing, is using these two terms, as synonyms. Perhaps we could justify saying "Feldman uses the terms cultural Marxism and cultural Bolshevism identically/interchangeably..." or something like that.
Do we have a source explicitly saying Cultural Marxism < Kulturbolschewismus (which does look highly likely, since the first time I can find it is in a BUF journal)? If so, we should probably use that instead. Tewdar (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Without responding to the point I know you're trying to make, there's another problem with that expression: namely, this: one can *never* say, "the etymology of the term XYZ derives/is derived from <something>". Etymology is the study of word origins, and by extension, the origin of a word. So in the second sense, you could say either:
- the etymology of the term XYZ is <something>, or
- the term XYZ derives/is derived from <something>,
- but not both. Etymology is derived from Greek etymon, "true sense, original meaning", + -logia "study of". See the "cheese" example at use–mention distinction. Mathglot (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed the sentence is bollocks on every level. Tewdar (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- We could always revise the sentence so that it is based primarily on Martin Jay's reference, rather than Feldman's. Newimpartial (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed the sentence is bollocks on every level. Tewdar (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be more like "Feldman has noted the BUF use the terms interchangably", rather than "Feldman uses the term interchangably" --124.170.170.79 (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- My preference, though, would be to remove Feldman entirely from this section, and replace it with something else, properly summarized and attributed. Tewdar (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Why, are you trying to reduce the article? I doubt Feldman is lying about his sources. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- You also seemed very happy to have removed references to Breivik on the Cultural Marxism section of another page. It seems to be there's a trend going on here. Quite WP:TEND --124.170.170.79 (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Feldman is not lying about his sources. I checked the citation he gives, and provided a quotation on this page. What Feldman does not do, is tell us anything about the etymology of "Cultural Marxism". That is why we need to improve the article, by replacing Feldman with a source that does do this. The Breivik stuff is not due on a page about "Marxist cultural analysis", where we only need a brief mention of the conspiracy theory to avoid confusion and a link to this article. My deletion was not contested by anyone, not even Newimpartial (!!!), until now. As for your accusation of bias, this is, quite frankly, bullshit. Tewdar (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- I notice now that Mvbaron did in fact restore the part relating to Breivik at one point. But again, myself, Sennalen, and Newimpartial seemed to agree that it was out of place there. If anything, it looks as though people arguing for its inclusion on that page are attempting to improperly conflate the conspiracy theory with the Frankfurt School. Perhaps you are the one who is
sus.
Tewdar (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)- What can I say, when a new editor comes at two relate political pages, and starts to remove sources, I question why they came WP:HERE. Sorry if I offended you. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'VE BEEN HERE TWO AND A HALF FUCKING YEARS. 😡 Tewdar (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- I see you're very angry. I meant new to editing this page. You should consider taking a WP:wikibreak if you're this invested in what is essentially WP:FORUM style chat. Which by the way, I'm not here for, and should stop. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
starts to remove sources
Like this?[8] Sennalen (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)- No, that doesn't look like a controversial removal of sources. The Frankfurt School never preached "Marxism applied to cultural goals" - and I believe that is Conspiracy Theorist William S. Lind's misinterpretation. Here is the late 'Andrew Breitbart' using almost the same words (although he says translated): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4qkvu3ACUU - The Frankfurt School is not directly related to Identity Politics. Identity Politics came from Barbara SMith at the Combahee River Collective.
- The Frankfurt School's "cultural Marxism" (if we are to call it that for the purposes of this discussion) involved pointing out that the Culture Industry (one of their key concepts), was run by corporate interests specifically to indulge a capitalist ideology. The idea that they "set out to perform a Marxist take over of the west" is conspiracy BS, and should be removed. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- As I'm answering basic questions about the conspiracy theory, I'll also quickly note that The Frankfurt School aren't responsible for the phrase "Long March through the institutions". That phrase can (loosely) be attributed to Rudi Dutschke, a later thinker, whom only Marcuse expressed approval of, and was not part of The Frankfurt School. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'VE BEEN HERE TWO AND A HALF FUCKING YEARS. 😡 Tewdar (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- What can I say, when a new editor comes at two relate political pages, and starts to remove sources, I question why they came WP:HERE. Sorry if I offended you. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- My preference, though, would be to remove Feldman entirely from this section, and replace it with something else, properly summarized and attributed. Tewdar (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- I see that none of the WP:OWNers have managed to WP:FIXIT yet. It doesn't even make sense. Tewdar (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Your link to WP:FIXIT was broken, so I fixed it for you. Please let me know if there's anything more you think we can do. --RecardedByzantian (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Proposal 1 - Feldman writes this: Some fascists even pointed to the influence of Marxism, or 'cultural Bolshevism'. According to a BUF writer, it was the task of 'cultural Marxism' to plant the seed of cultural disintegration ... Thus when vice is pandered to and 'unhealthy tastes and tendencies are excited by suggestion', it was certain that the 'hidden hand' of Bolshevik cultural subversion was actively at work.
Which can be summarized as "professor Matthew Feldman argues that the term Cultural Marxism is derived from/is reminiscent of the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism)". Any complaints? --Mvbaron (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- May I also add that this talk page is so full of ramblings that it's very hard to make anything of it. If everyone could just stick to suggesting concrete improvements to the article, we could all move on much more quickly. (Also insinuations of WP:OWNership do not help and I would like to ask you Tewdar (now for the second time) to drop that kind of talk. Thanks --Mvbaron (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Feldman isn't arguing that, or indeed anything about the relationship between the terms 'cultural Marxism' and 'cultural Bolshevism'. He is simply using these terms synonymously. And I don't believe that I mentioned OWNership before now, but, despite heavy provocation, insinuation, and misrepresentation, mainly by ip 127, I will make an effort to remain civil from now on. Tewdar (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Reminder about this page.
Even if eg Schroyer's cultural Marxism and eg Fuchs's cultural Marxism were not the same thing, I think that this article needs to clearly explain that, look, this term has a legit (though perhaps less common than other terms) scholarly usage, generally referring to Marxist analysis of 'Western' culture, in order to clearly distinguish it from the conspiracy theory. Now, anyone who Googles 'cultural Marxism' is informed, without nuance or qualification that this is a conspiracy theory, and nothing more. There is quite a lot of potential for confusion here. Tewdar (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
This page is about the CONSPIRACY THEORY, "Cultural Marxism" - it's a WP:FRINGE topic according to Wikipedia policy. We must thus side with leading academics over conspiracy theorist. There is no confusion here. Wikipedia has no obligation to characterize, inform, or otherwise explain the non-notable previous usage here (see (WP:NN and WP:NEO). It has been determined more than a few times that 'cultural Marxism' in the academic usage, is rare and non-notable. Information relating to that usage can be listed at Marxist cultural analysis (another generalist term which appears more frequently in academic literature, but has roughly the same gestalt meaning). Perhaps at some point we may even have a disambiguation page for Cultural Marxism. But currently the consensus is that 'cultural Marxism' has been (narrowly in some corners of academia, particularly those related to Cultural Studies) used as a generalist term for analysis of culture through a Marxist lens. Where as Cultural Marxism refers to the conspiracy theory. This page is about the latter.
Anyone here to "question sources" with a view to restoring WP:SALTED content, is in the wrong place.
Please keep in mind that we have two warnings at the top of this page about this being a controversial topic. This page is at the nexus of Politics, Conspiracy Theorist madness, and antisemitism. For this reason please go easy on your fellow editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.170.79 (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- I definitely
take offence
at the implications here. Tewdar (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)- Removed your quote. Let me know if you still take offence. But the point stands that any usage which refers to legitimate Marxist scholarship around culture (and particularly relating to The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, and E.P Thompson) goes to the Marxist Cultural Analysis page, whereas this page is purely for the conspiracy theory usage. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's even worse now. Put the effing quote from me back. That's what your inspirational monologue is about after all. Tewdar (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've restored the quote, as it shouldn't have been removed per WP:TALK#REPLIED. IP 124, you might choose to strike that part of your comment, but please do not remove it. Firefangledfeathers 18:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, it's still a bit dodgy, because the quote is taken out of context. Could perhaps be interpreted to mean that I think that the conspiracy theory might in fact be true, which is false. Perhaps my entire comment should be quoted, so that passing anti-Fascists can make up their own minds about what I was trying to say here. Tewdar (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've restored the quote, as it shouldn't have been removed per WP:TALK#REPLIED. IP 124, you might choose to strike that part of your comment, but please do not remove it. Firefangledfeathers 18:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's even worse now. Put the effing quote from me back. That's what your inspirational monologue is about after all. Tewdar (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Removed your quote. Let me know if you still take offence. But the point stands that any usage which refers to legitimate Marxist scholarship around culture (and particularly relating to The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, and E.P Thompson) goes to the Marxist Cultural Analysis page, whereas this page is purely for the conspiracy theory usage. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is a page for fringe views about Western Marxism. "Cultural Marxism" is a synonym for Western Marxism. The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory about Western Marxism. Sennalen (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Once again, you are assuming a thing to be proven. Is the conspiracy about (actual) Western Marxism, or something largely constructed/imaginary? Are the conspiracy theories about George Soros and other "Jewish financiers" actually about George Soros and a network of other donors, or are they about something that is largely imaginary? Typically WP does not concede to conspiracy theories a discussion of the question, "how much of the conspiracy is real", unless there is a critical mass of RS scholarship to follow - and only cautiously, even then.
- And as an aside, "Cultural Marxism" cannot possibly be a synonym for "Western Marxism", because both CT "Cultural Marxism" and UK scholarly slang "cultural Marxism" refer to something that is still going on in Critical Theory and Cultural Studies - but I can't find any good sources that refer to "Western Marxism" as anything other than a 20th century tendency (i.e., in the past). Newimpartial (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- It is proven. For academic sources using them synonymously, see Schroyer, Brenkman, Markwick, Jameson, along with others Tewdar has surfaced recently. For sources saying that the conspiracy theorists are referencing Western Marxism see Jamin, Braune, Tuters, Busridge, and Blackburn. Sennalen (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- As the sources show, Lind coined the term "cultural Marxism" and only later did that econspiracy theorists find that the same phrase was used in Marxism literature, although with a different meaning. They then used this coincidence in order to prove the existence of their conspiracy. Ironically, the inventer of the theory had called in "Critical Theory." But the term isn't catchy and the absurdity of its being a conspiracy are more evident.
- While you might find it impressive to list several articles about writers who used the term cultural Marxism, you've left a lot out. Why is it that the conmspiracy began in 1900, yet you can't find any reference to it until the 1970s?
- TFD (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- I would argue that the first expression of the conspiracy theory was Lukács' 1918 "Bolshevism as a Moral Problem" before his apparent chage of heart, but that's naturally original research. It's hardly surprising that there's no vocal opposition to the Frankfurt School before it became a force for political action in the 1960's student movements. Minnicino has said his essay was echoing views of Lyndon LaRouche, who considered Marcuse and Adorno to be not only ideological rivals but some of the first of the long list of people LaRouche accused of plotting his assassination. LaRouche was ideosyncratic but deeply versed in Marxist theory. The connections to the legitimate scholarly corpus are not random or accidental inventions of 1990s Republicans. Sennalen (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you are under the impression that Lyndon Larouche was connected to the
legitimate scholarly corpus
on Marxism, then we have more serious problems than I thought. Running a groupuscule doesn't make anyone a reliable source on Marxist theory, as I ought to know. :) Newimpartial (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC) The connections to the legitimate scholarly corpus are not random or accidental inventions of 1990s Republicans.
here in lays the problem. Conservatives of the same time frame have also made whacky claims about The Frankfurt School. So how are you connecting the music of Adorno and the claim that he created music to "induce mass necrophilia"? Feel free to try to legitimize that "connection". That you want to substantiate the claim that The Frankfurt School has taken over Hollywood, Television and Radio, is kinda proof that you're a believer in these things. Were the Frankfurt School secretly Satanic, as conspiracy theorists have claimed? Apparently "The connections to the legitimate scholarly corpus are not random"... When in actual fact, within American Republicanism since the 1980s, there was the moral majority letter/speech, which included the term "Cultural Marxism" and was written by a guy who used William S. Lind (an avowed nutter) as a legitimate historical source. There in lays your problem, that Paul Weyrich, and Lind, did in fact, write books titled "The New Conservatism" and "Victoria: a novel of 4th generational warfare" in the 2000s, in which they blamed the Frankfurt School for things going on in American society in the 1990s. Things not related or directly caused by The Frankfurt School. Things like Homosexuals appearing on television. Sorry, that's exactly an invention of 1990s Republicans. The idea that degenerate society is caused by The Frankfurt School in order to take over, is exactly inventions of 1990s Republicans. That they cited REAL texts - doesn't mean those texts led to a Frankfurt School take over of society. Hell the whole of the discourse around "Political Correctness" is mostly based on POV pushing conspiracy minded thinking. So again, you're using academia in an attempt to justify Conspiracy claims. That's not on, not here on Wikipedia. Not gonna happen. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you are under the impression that Lyndon Larouche was connected to the
- I would argue that the first expression of the conspiracy theory was Lukács' 1918 "Bolshevism as a Moral Problem" before his apparent chage of heart, but that's naturally original research. It's hardly surprising that there's no vocal opposition to the Frankfurt School before it became a force for political action in the 1960's student movements. Minnicino has said his essay was echoing views of Lyndon LaRouche, who considered Marcuse and Adorno to be not only ideological rivals but some of the first of the long list of people LaRouche accused of plotting his assassination. LaRouche was ideosyncratic but deeply versed in Marxist theory. The connections to the legitimate scholarly corpus are not random or accidental inventions of 1990s Republicans. Sennalen (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- It is proven. For academic sources using them synonymously, see Schroyer, Brenkman, Markwick, Jameson, along with others Tewdar has surfaced recently. For sources saying that the conspiracy theorists are referencing Western Marxism see Jamin, Braune, Tuters, Busridge, and Blackburn. Sennalen (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I mean technically Western Marxism is just Marxism, and Marxism is just whatever Marx said, but Marx is just a human, and humans are just atoms, and atoms are just what we happen to know about atoms... long story short, I'm calling for a WP:merge of every single Wikipedia article. It shall all be merged into Knowledge. Anyone want to help with the RfC? /ping everyone/ --124.170.170.79 (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Also, the claim that Schroyer or Jameson used the terms "Western Marxism" and "cultural Marxism" synonymously is just
bonkerspoorly conceived, and the idea thatthe conspiracy theorists are referencing Western Marxism
is not supported by the sources cited. For the conspiracy theorists to be "referencing" Western Marxism, they would first need to understand what "Western Marxism" is, and few of these sources provide any support for that being the case, while most of them show quite clearly the extent to which the conspiracy theorists do not understand what Western Marxism is/was, and therefore offermistaken"creative" interpretations of it. Newimpartial (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)- First of all the sources say that the conspiracy theorists are talking about the same Western Marxism that everyone else is talking about, so ipso facto Wikipedia should say the same thing. The sources are also clear on where the conspiracy theories are wrong, and no one is suggesting holding back on saying that either. Sennalen (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, and that already happens. True stuff goes on Marxist cultural analysis (as cultural Marxism was determined to be a generalist term, rather than a set ideology) - fake conspiracy stuff goes on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Is there something you're not getting with this arrangement, or is there a substantive edit you wish to discuss? Like yeah, both 9/11 and the melting point of steel are discussed by 9/11 conspiracy theorists... it doesn't mean that the page on steel or the 9/11 conspiracy theory should be merged, or have overlapping content. Like, we're not merging Flat Earth Theory with the page about planet Earth. That they both reference earth is irrelevant. Wikipedia divides WP:RS "truth" from WP:FRINGEWP:NN or WP:OR "fiction". Deal with it. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- First of all the sources say that the conspiracy theorists are talking about the same Western Marxism that everyone else is talking about, so ipso facto Wikipedia should say the same thing. The sources are also clear on where the conspiracy theories are wrong, and no one is suggesting holding back on saying that either. Sennalen (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I think it's irresponsible to use 1970s sources to prop up a term that's obviously gone through some rather drastic changes in meaning within the past 10 years. Wikipedia has decided (2 AfDs, 4 RfCs and a split proposal or two later) that THIS PAGE is for the Conspiracy Theory usage. If Brenkman et al. want to be used to discuss the ideas of The Frankfurt School, Birmingham School and E.P Thompson, that can be done on Marxist cultural analysis (which is SPECIFICALLY NOT about The Conspiracy Theory). The division is pretty clear. The history of this topic on Wikipedia is pretty clear. Hell, I even think you'd be violating WP:BLP to claim academics are in support of a conspiracy theory. So yeah, there's no meat for Wikipedia in attempting to 'recombine' salted content. It's just that simple, against policy and a closed case really. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- You make a very compelling case against points no one is making. Sennalen (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, that's good. It's my reminder section, so yeah. In “The Widening Gap Between the Military and Society” (1997), journalist Thomas E. Ricks said that Lind's rhetoric of Marxist cultural subversion is different from the "standard right-wing American rhetoric of the ’90s", because Lind said that the "next real war we fight is likely to be on American soil." --124.170.170.79 (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Although the article Marxist cultural analysis is not about the
CONSPIRACY THEORY
, as ip 124 dramatically types it above, that article does have a rather good paragraph to explain the difference between the conspiracy theory and legitimate scholarly usage:Since the 1930s, the tradition of Marxist cultural analysis has occasionally also been referred to as "cultural Marxism", in reference to Marxist ideas about culture. However since the 1990s, this term has largely referred to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, an influential discourse on the far right without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis.
Unfortunately, this article, as far as I can tell, only seems to include Joan Braune's opinion thatFrankfurt School scholars are referred to as "Critical Theorists", not "Cultural Marxists"
. Perhaps it would be nice if these two articles didn't partially contradict each other. Tewdar (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- This does somewhat sound like a problem that might be solved with a disambiguation page. Wikipedia:Disambiguation should have instructions on how to initiate the relevant processes. Never done one myself, so you'll have to check there for what exactly should be done. Perhaps can comment or advise further about the necessary requirements. --RecardedByzantian (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- My name is Tewdar, not Spartacus, and so I will most certainly not be creating any disambiguation pages for this article, even if I knew how to do it. I'm not sure that would really be good enough anyway. The Marxist cultural analysis article at least makes an attempt to explain that readers might encounter two very different usages of the term "[C/c]ultural Marxism" – why doesn't this one? Tewdar (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have no idea why you think the disambiguation notice at the top of the page is insufficient.
- And, RecardedByzantian, given the previous large-scale AfD that resulted in the deletion of the pre-2014 "Cultural Marxism" article, I don't think creating a disambiguation page would be a valid step without an RfC or other formal community endorsement of the idea. Newimpartial (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Is it possible to view the pre-2014 "Cultural Marxism" article here (without visiting the Internet Archive, which I might if I have nothing better to do this afternoon)? What was it, a sort of Frankenarticle with the conspiracy theory and the Marxist cultural analysis all jumbled together? Tewdar (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- My name is Tewdar, not Spartacus, and so I will most certainly not be creating any disambiguation pages for this article, even if I knew how to do it. I'm not sure that would really be good enough anyway. The Marxist cultural analysis article at least makes an attempt to explain that readers might encounter two very different usages of the term "[C/c]ultural Marxism" – why doesn't this one? Tewdar (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- This does somewhat sound like a problem that might be solved with a disambiguation page. Wikipedia:Disambiguation should have instructions on how to initiate the relevant processes. Never done one myself, so you'll have to check there for what exactly should be done. Perhaps can comment or advise further about the necessary requirements. --RecardedByzantian (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Just remember that the most salient fact about that article was the community decision to delete it - a decision that resulted from wide participation of editors and a panel of admistrators that decided on deletion. Sennalen, could you point us to a diff of your participation in that AfD? Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Silence peasants, the autonomous collective has spoken! Ꞇewꝺar (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't involved. Had I been, I would have cited WP:COMMONNAME against there being a page with that particular title. The content however was legitimate, and there should have been more effort to WP:PRESERVE it at Western Marxism. Sennalen (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Your view that "Cultural Marxism" is a synonym for "Western Marxism" seems rather peculiar, and isn't really supported by any of the names you dropped when you made the suggestion above. I don't think anyone watching this page is likely to take that claim very seriously, but clearly YMMV. Newimpartial (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- I believe that The Handbook of Economic Sociology, Second Edition by Smelser & Swedberg p. 605 (ISBN 0691121265) treats these terms as synonyms. Ꞇewꝺar (talk) (contribs) 17:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- You keep saying that, which is why I attached full quotes on the citations at Marxist cultural analysis. Sennalen (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Quotations that did not demonstate the point you are claiming to make. I remember. Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Your view that "Cultural Marxism" is a synonym for "Western Marxism" seems rather peculiar, and isn't really supported by any of the names you dropped when you made the suggestion above. I don't think anyone watching this page is likely to take that claim very seriously, but clearly YMMV. Newimpartial (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)