Talk:Frankfurt School/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

"refers to"

Re this revert [1]: I'm open to alternatives, but I still think that the previous wording (now reverted to by User:Newimpartial) is logically and semantically nonsensical. The sentence "Cultural Marxism refers to a […] conspiracy theory" means that the conspiracy theory itself is called "Cultural Marxism". Of course it isn't. Cultural Marxism is not the name of the conspiracy theory; Cultural Marxism is what the conspiracy theory claims to be against.

My suggestion was "The term 'Cultural Marxism' has been the object of a […] conspiracy theory". I find this fairly straightforward and I don't see how it implies anything of the sort Newimpartial sees in it, i.e. that it "assumes that "Cultural Marxism' preceded the conspiracy theory". I can think of other alternatives ("Cultural Marxism is the catchphrase of a conspiracy theory..."?), but one thing is certain, "refers to" simply doesn't work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

"The term 'Cultural Marxism' is the boogeyman of a conspiracy theory ..." would certainly work. Sadly, not only is that probably not wikivoice, it may also be COPYVIO of some leftist euro rap outfit from the '90s. Newimpartial (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

So, seriously, what alternative would you suggest? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but my initial problem was that "is the object of" really does seen to me to interpolate "Cultural Marxism" as already existing and then becoming an object. But none of the terms I've thought of so far - boogeyman, bugaboo, straw man, or even your catchphrase - seem to me to work, yet. Newimpartial (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to come up with a compromise. I agree with Future Perfect that the original wording was semantically questionable. RGloucester — ☎ 14:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that version [2] looks good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Independent page for / Cultural Marxism /

I initially noticed that searching "Cultural Marxism" on Wikipedia redirects to the conspiracy theory section of this page. Though I attempted to update the redirect page to stand alone as its own article, NorthBySouthBaranof informed me that I would have to discuss such change here first.

I am not proposing any changes to this article itself or the specific section. Rather, my intentions are to remove the redirection of "Cultural Marxism" to this page, as I believe the phenomenon to be significant enough to warrant its own article. Though the term does exist as part of the mentioned conspiracy theory, I agree with sylv that the section is considerably unbalanced. This is especially true if the section intends to hold a monopoly on the concept of "Cultural Marxism" (which it should not, in my opinion). To be more blunt, to insist that the conspiracy is the only—or even the dominant—formulation of the concept of Cultural Marxism is disingenuous and ultimately discounts the integrity of this encyclopedic resource if we choose to disregard such information.

Not completely sure how this works, but I've pasted my initial edit into my user sandbox for consideration. I've already included various citations on the proposed page, as well as marking it as a "stub" to indicate its need for further development. This page would also include content regarding the conspiracy theory (I just copy and pasted for now) with a hatnote linking to the Frankfurt section. See the proposed article here. Thank you, --Guavabutter (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see: [3].--Jack Upland (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Your proposed article is a disgrace, unsourced, and WP:OR. I can see that a lot of the relevant content comes from the old deleted version of the article. The article was deleted by community consensus, and a recent deletion review upheld that decision. The essential nature of the decision was that 'there is no notable "cultural marxism" other than the conspiracy theory', and this is true now as well. I suggest you tread carefully, and read all of the past discussions on this subject. RGloucester — ☎ 14:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

As RGloucester himself remarked several times, I probably lack experience with Wikipedia's editing process, but I have trouble understanding how a watchdog is allowed singlehandedly to defend a "long-standing consensus" by reversing a (my) substantial edit to this page multiple times (which does not appear to follow Wikipedia protocol) or by dismissing new content wholesale in a barely civil manner (Guavabutter's entire long proposed edit as a "disgrace"). Has RGloucester been officially appointed as the defender of this "consensus"? Is there some place we can refer to to identify "long-standing consensus" that ordinary users are not supposed to alter in any way, so that we don't waste our time trying? sylv (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

If you think I'm the only person who participated in the decision about the content of this article, you are sorely mistaken. The relevant discussion has been linked in this very section. RGloucester — ☎ 13:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The conclusion of previous discussions was that cultural Marxism existed only as a conspiracy theory. Ironically, one of your sources "Just Because Anti-Semites Talk About ‘Cultural Marxism’ Doesn’t Mean It Isn’t Real" acknowledges that is the mainstream view in its first paragraph. TFD (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Words to watch

This cited style guide is a reminder about the possible misuse of those terms, not about completely avoiding them. There are contexts where to prevent confusion they are very adequate. I had to read the sentence I modified more than once as well as the surrounding text to grasp its context, so considered that clarifying it was probably the solution. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems this page has been hijacked

It would appear that a certain user, User: RGloucester, has managed to exploit his way through and is now in complete control of this article - all edits are being overseen by him, and contain heavy political bias. Any Wikipedia user critical of the article is quickly barred from editing by him. It comes to no surprise then that this article has lost its Featured Article nomination, be vary that material here must be taken as it were from any other political source, rather than an unbiased Wikipedia article. In the future it may be wise to consider major overhauls to this article in order to remove any political bias Azaan Habib 21:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Reply in support of RGloucester

Sorry, Azaan Habib, but you are incorrect about our colleague, RGloucester, acting as or being the owner of the Frankfurt School page, especially the precious-virus "Cultural Marxism" subsection that cannot stand on its own, because it does not exist in the real world; read the sources to be fully informed. Please, do not assassinate the character of the Editor RGloucester by using the weasel words "certain user" and "seems" in order to realise a personal attack, because the skeleton of this dead donkey is dust, but a potion of right-wing sweat and eye of newt has metamorphosed a donkey into a vampire; hence the page protection from frivolous editors.

Read the 2019 archives, last year a "retired" editor returned just to resurrect the two-headed donkey you want to ride, and he said similar weasel-word calumnies against Commie-Pinko-Liberal-Socialist-Democrat editors, calumnies you now are implying about the character of RGloucester. Abide the Wikipedia guidelines, rules, and regulations, statutes, statues, and laws. I shall be watching as you '"eliminate Liberal bias"' from Wikipedia.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I fact did not say half the stuff you just mentioned. Perhaps get some glasses? Azaan Habib 12:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Azaan Habib: You don't get to delete threads that have been responded to. Chas. Caltrop's assessment of you making a personal attack on a user for sticking to a variety of sources (instead of the far-right ones you clearly want) is accurate. And yes, the fact that you clearly want us to present the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as true does mean that you want us to stick to the WP:FRINGE minority of far-right sources that believe in that CT. To put more clearly what you missed last time, you are missing that the majority of scholarship and journalism is not Marxist just because it doesn't believe in the conspiracy theory you so strongly worship. Perhaps stop editing political articles? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The policy you'd be looking at would be WP:OWN. ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. --

‎Criticism of the conspiracy-theory theory of cultural Marxism

Regardless of the debate on splitting or renaming the Cultural Marxism section, the section is extremely unbalanced. I have myself attempted to add a criticism subsection, which was almost immediately reversed wholesale, without even attempting to discuss my changes. I don't understand the argument that Zubatov or Mendenhall are not relevant scholars or that their articles are opinion pieces. Both present arguments that should be addressed at face value, all the more so as they somewhat rectify the current extreme unbalance of that section. sylv (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

They are not 'relevant scholars'. Mendenhall is a professor of law, not critical theory, marxism, or anything else. Zubatov is likewise a lawyer, but not even a professor of any kind! Both cited articles are opinion pieces. One appears is a small Jewish online magazine, the other in the website of a North Carolina regional conservative advocacy group. If you want to counter the widespread scholarly consensus on this subject, which is, for better or worse, already well-documented in this article, you need RELIABLE sources. We don't include fringe positions. Peer-reviewed journals, books, by scholars IN THE FIELD! That's what you need. The opinion of some lawyer somewhere does not magic 'cultural marxism' into existence, and we cannot give such an opinion WP:UNDUE weight. In any case, you won't find the sources you need, because they don't exist. I think you need to understand that Wikipedia WP:NPOV is not about balance, or WP:FALSEBALANCE, but about stating the verifiable consensus of WP:RS. The present section may be 'unbalanced' to you, in that in does not include all possible positions, but it is balanced in view of the consensus of reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 02:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that's just not how it works buddy. Are you telling me the Wikipedia page on Capitalism is not allowed to cite any sources which are not from self-proclaimed capitalists? Especially here where you are essentially claiming that the critical section of a Marxist page is not allowed to cite anyone aside from actual Marxists. How biased can you get? Azaan Habib 22:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of scholars who are not Marxists who will say that the idea of the Frankfurt School trying to push some sort of Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory. The only authors describing the accusation that the Frankfurt School pushed Cultural Marxism are either advocates (who are almost never academics and all of whom show a clear political bias) or are journalists and academics from a variety of political positions who agree that Cultural Marxism is just an updated version of the Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory.

The Witch trials in the early modern period article does not treat Nicholas Rémy or Heinrich Kramer as accurate or reliable sources, it would be stupid to pretend that the only other alternatives are pagan, and it would be tendentious to insist that we "present both sides" by dividing everything into anti-witch vs pro-witch (when almost all historians think there were no real witches). The Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory article does not treat Juan Tusquets Terrats or Augustin Barruel as accurate or reliable sources, it would be stupid to act as though only Jewish Masons are cited in opposition to them, and it would be tendentious to demand that we falsely divide everything into Zionists vs Antisemites (when most Jews are not Masons, most Masons are gentiles, and most gentiles get that antisemitism is wrong and that the overwhelming majority of Masons are unusual but harmless). This article does not treat far-right conspiracy theorists as reliable sources, one does not need to be a Marxist or a member of the Frankfurt School or anti-Western to realize that it's a conspiracy theory, and acting on the assumption that the sources in this article are all secretly Frankfurt Marxists because they all call Cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory is a sign that one should find a different topic to edit (if one should be editing at all). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have gone on a massive strawman by pretending that I think Cultural Marxism is real. Look at the critical section of this page, it doesn't require me writing three paragraphs, the only people on the critical section are other Marxists! One of them it seems was a former Marxist though. That is essentially a false opposition. It would be like getting Calvin Coolidge to write the critical section of Adam Smith's biography. As I said, you don't have to believe in Cultural Marxism to write about it, but you don't have to be a Marxist yourself either.

On your comment about Witches, of course we now know through scientific evidence that they do not exist. However, what you are essentially claiming is that in a Witch trial:

A.) People who believe in Witches should be excluded and barred from acting as judges ect.

B.) The only people allowed to act as judges, lawyers ect. are people who have dedicated their lives to proving Witches do not exist.

And to use this logic on a topic which is very different from Witches and an entire philosophy, seems remarkable. But then again, I'm not suprised it came from Marxists, given their history. Azaan Habib 09:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You may need to refresh your understanding of WP:Weight -----Snowded ^TALK 09:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Azaan Habib: So it'd turn out much better if people who believed in witches were allowed to judge if they exist? Would that really turn out well? Would it really be better if people who believed that Jews control the left and the masons were allowed to decide for others if that conspiracy theory is real or not? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you have some kind of problem with reading? I said that the notion that you're not allowed to criticise Marxism unless you're a Marxist yourself, just doesn't make any sense any not applied to any field. Are you suggesting that the Holocaust happened because someone made a fair, unbiased article about Marxism on Wikipedia? Using this tremendous logic I can also go The Wikipedia article about Nazism is not allowed to cite anyone apart from actual Nazis, and if you try and cite anyone apart from Nazis then this and this will happen. Try to stay on one line of debate instead of strawmmaning from a million light years away. Azaan Habib 13:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

"Cultural Marxism" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Cultural Marxism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 11#Cultural Marxism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 10:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Split?

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.

---

Article is unbalanced with excessive information about a conspiracy theory which is only tangentially related to the topic of this article. Since it's clearly notable, why not split it to a separate article titled Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory? (t · c) buidhe 08:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

We had an RfC on this subject last year, at which this proposal was rejected. Check the talk archives. RGloucester — ☎ 13:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Close on that discussion was questionable and reads like a supervote. More than twice as many users including you supported a split, there were plausible reasons for it and clearly these were more persuasive to most users taking part in the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 19:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to start a new RfC if you see fit. To me, however, it's better to let sleeping dogs lie with this article. RGloucester — ☎ 19:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources

For future reference, a list of peer-reviewed sources which are specifically about the conspiracy theory. Most only deal tangentially with the actual Frankfurt School. (t · c) buidhe 02:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

References

RfC: Split (2020)

Should the section of this article "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" be split to a stand-alone article titled "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory"? (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Support split: Excluding quotations, about 2,800 words in the body of this article describe the actual Frankfurt School, while 1,400 words are dedicated to the conspiracy theory. Comparing with the results of a Google Scholar search for "Frankfurt School", makes it clear that this is granting WP:UNDUE weight to a conspiracy theory in this article. In addition, reliable sources treat these as separate topics: see an above list of six peer-reviewed sources about the conspiracy theory which only tangentially deal with the actual Frankfurt School. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support split – I supported this last year, and I still support it now. The conspiracy theory is clearly independently notable, and the sources for this are in the article already. It makes much more sense to remove this content from the Frankfurt School article, as it is largely tangential to the actual Frankfurt School as it existed. Allowing this article to have a fresh start as an article purely about the school as it was could do a lot of good for Wikipedia. Furthermore, segregating conspiracy theory-related content to its own article avoids the appearance of impropriety on the part of the Frankfurt School itself, dragging it down with the conspiracy, and contains what is the sole flashpoint about this article, which has filled so many talk page archives. I want to clarify that, as somewhat who participated in the deletion discussions related to the old Cultural Marxism article, this new article, at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, would by definition not have the problems of the old article because of the clear scope established by the title. The old article was used by conspiracy theorists to try and legitimise their theory, portraying 'Cultural Marxism' as an extant phenomenon, but such would be impossible in a new article limited in scope to the only notable topic, the conspiracy theory itself. Therefore, I don't think we should have any concerns about 'restoring' what was deleted, because what was deleted is not coming back with a split. That content is long gone. RGloucester — ☎ 02:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support split it distorts the article and gives unwarranted prominace to a conspiracy theory - I see no reason for any mention in the article -----Snowded ^TALK 05:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support split: Just like I did last time I came around. The conspiracy theory is independently notable from the actual school of thought, and also has very little practically to do with it. The article currently reads like two separate articles mashed together, which I think is a great sign that they need to be split from each other. Loki (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support split There are sufficient sources to establish notability which justifies a separate article. TFD (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support split Split then merged with anything of any relevance from here: User:Jobrot/sandbox/Cultural_Marxism_(culture_studies) --RecardedByzantian (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY NOT! That 'draft' is a recreation of the old article, using the same sources, and is an attempt to legitimise the conspiracy theory. The sources there do not support the text. Basically, Jobrot would take anything related to whom the conspiracy theorists call 'cultural marxists' and put it in that article, even though the sources themselves never discuss 'cultural marxism', and no academic sources support such a classification in the manner he wrote. RGloucester — ☎ 19:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The first few sources seem fine, the very first one seems to be from a reputable academic in the correct field. I'm not seeing what you're seeing. ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. --

The first citation is misleading, as the chapter in Ritzer doesn't talk about "Cultural Marxism" but rather "cultural Marxism", and doesn't actually reify cultural/Cultural Marxism as an object of study in the way the first sandbox sentence does, where it is used as the sole reference. It is a fine source, but not for the purposes for which it is used here.

Also note that it is precisely this question, "should WP treat 'Cultural Marxism' as an actually existant phenomenon?", that was answered definitively in the 2014 RfC with three closers, etc. Relitigating that question would take more than a few !votes in the current RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that why it's a draft though, so we can correct it to what the source does say. I mean, a source doesn't become less reputable just because an article got salted. Academic integrity should be put above all else. Aren't there some Douglas Kellner references that use in the way the draft describes. ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. --

I looked at all of the extant sources I could find five years ago, and my answer essentially is "no" - neither Kellner nor Ritzer actually uses "cultural Marxism" to mean "a Marxist school of thought or project to transform consciousness through ideological production and education", which is essentially what the conspiracy theorists mean by it, nor do they treat it as, as the Draft says, "post-hoc terminology for a select category of analysis found within Cultural Studies". The Draft wafts between Gramscian and Frankfurt School approaches in a frankly unhelpful way, while the Feminism section of the draft prepares the ground for conspiracy theory uses of the term. Given the state of the historiography, there isn't any way I can see for an article on such "post-hoc teminology" that would not turn into either WP:OR or a regurgitation of the conspiracy theory - or, more likely, both. Newimpartial (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

As Newimpartial says, we spent ages discussing Kellner, &c. in 2014. I can't believe we're still rehashing this. If you can't see what's wrong with that draft, all it means is that you either 1) haven't actually looked at what the cited sources actually say (to start, none of them say that 'cultural marxism' is a post-hoc terminology for a select category of analysis found within Cultural Studies') or 2) just want to continue to push the idea of 'cultural marxism' as a distinct and extant phenomenon, which as Newimpartial says, is completely unacceptable. Take Joan Braune's word for it: 'Cultural Marxism does not exist—not only is the conspiracy theory version false, but there is no intellectual movement by that name'. RGloucester — ☎ 02:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Well guys I wasn't actually saying "Hey, this DRAFT is perfect, let's use every bit of it". So I think you're both having a bit of a knee jerk reaction. I'm saying; there are reputable academic sources from the correct fields which seem to substantiate a usage of Cultural Marxism (or cultural Marxism, I don't really believe capitalization to be a defining factor). So we should look at those sources at try to represent what they're saying honestly. Not AVOID looking at those sources because "we did that in 2014" or because "including that reliable academic source will somehow lead to me performing WP:OR later" - Wikipedia is here to represent a topic, not to police academic inclusion due to past or future experiences an editor is predicting, or because something was looked at briefly in 2014. Anyways, I'll leave you with this quote from Kellner (which agrees with Ritzer):

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.

Cultural Marxism (as you can see from that last sentence) is the "analysis of cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life." What this means in short, is Cultural Marxism is an analysis of the Capitalist mode of cultural and social production, and its impacts on our behavior within society. Anyone whose familiar with The Frankfurt School already knows that this was their focus. This is NOT the conspiracy theorist viewpoint - it is a viewpoint explicitly expressed in the above academic quote, and reflected in other sources. I'm simply suggesting those are legitimate and important points to include (that it can refer to a mode of analysis). To erase that history simply out of paranoia about a popular conspiracy theory taking hold - is in my opinion - throwing the baby out with the bathwater (especially in a day and age where capitalism is manufacturing and manipulating digital-cultural consumption more than ever). If you can see the point I'm making, you should probably vote against the ghettoization/balkanization of knowledge or of specific academics. The Frankfurt School and other cultural critics of capitalism IMHO shouldn't be swept under the rug because Wikipedia doesn't want to properly represent academic experts in a field. That's shonky as hell. That it's too difficult or will cause problems, isn't really an excuse for dishonesty. Cultural Marxism (or cultural Marxism if you prefer) seems to exactly be a "post-hoc terminology for a select category of analysis found within Cultural Studies". Separating the mode of analysis from the conspiracy theory should probably be the goal of any honest Wikipedian. ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 05:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Here we go again! No one denies that a number of Marxist theorists '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'! This doesn't mean, however, that there is such a thing as 'Cultural Marxism', and the relevant source says nothing of the sort. Again, there is no academic movement or school of thought called 'Cultural Marxism'. Full stop! RGloucester — ☎ 18:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The relevant source being "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies" by noted Frankfurt School historian, Douglas Kellner Ph.D. ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. --

Even if it is correct that Kellner is an expert in the field, this particular essay doesn't seem to be published anywhere - it's unpublished, and just sits on Kellner's personal website. Mvbaron (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

We discussed exactly that problem in 2014, but, putting questions of the essay's validity as a source aside, it does not support the idea of the existence of such a thing of 'Cultural Marxism'. The word doesn't appear once in the the damn essay!! The title is a form of general, niche usage, basically meaning 'marxist analysis of culture'. However, this descriptive usage does not actually constitute a coherent subject, anymore than would the phrases 'culture and marxism' or 'apples and marxism'. RGloucester — ☎ 21:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"The word doesn't appear once in the the damn essay!!" You're just making things up now, it occurs 10 or 11 times in that essay. [4] It is exactly and explicitly the subject matter of the essay. If you're going to just make up claims about sources without checking them, then this is not the place for you. This may show you're an inappropriate editor for this topic, which requires verifying sources. ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 05:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I made a typo. I meant capitalised 'Cultural Marxism', i.e. 'Cultural Marxism' as a discrete subject does not appear in article. The usage I discussed above does, but again, that is not a discrete subject. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps not every academic of the correct field out there writing on the topic knows of your capitalization theory? Perhaps different variations of the term have always existed? Perhaps we are viewing documents from a time the term was still coming into use. None of this is reason to say "We should disregard this academic, and this source - because I have a theory!". I understand implementing your argument for some point of history discussion, or if one is trying to be pedantic with nomenclature - but I think that the term is being used by someone in the correct field and from a reliable academic institution - I'm afraid, these things supersede your peccadilloes about language. How about we just include all academic viewpoints from WP:RS sources with the appropriate credentials instead. ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 04:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

If you read the Kellner paper correctly, "cultural/Cultural Marxism" isn't used as a term in it, in either capitalization. It is simply one word following another. The meaning of the two words, in the title or the paper, is imply "Marxism in relation to culture" or "Marxist approaches to culture" and does not mean any of the things that the conspiracy theorists mean by it, when the do turn it into a term. Therefore, the Kellner paper provides no justification for interpreting "cultural/Cultural Marxism" as an actual object of study or unit or analysis, since he doesn't use it as either. Byzantian, your reading of "currents of cultural Marxism" as if it were a term Kellner uses and then defines in the next sentence is a simple misreading of the text, and probably wouldn't have occurred to anyone if it weren't for the conspiracy theory usage. Newimpartial (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a pretty embarrassing response considering Kellner uses the term multiple times in that essay, and in other essays, and that there's also a source from George Ritzer (again, reliable and from the correct field) that has a whole encyclopedia entry about it. Or am I also to believe that encyclopedia headings no longer relate to their topics? - and that words are to be take as abstract individual sounds with no apparent meaning or connection - despite it being described in plain language, from multiple sources, multiple times. I'm not saying the unreliable conspiracy theory version is real. But please, don't patronize me by telling me words don't mean what they mean, and that encyclopedias and essays don't intend their content to relate to their headings and titles. As a wikipedian you should be ashamed of the irrational and obscurantist argument you're putting forth here. Headings DO relate to their content, lead sentences do relate to their paragraphs. Words do have meanings when put next to each other. Please, let's have a little academic honesty. At least admit to yourself that credentialed academics and critical theorists probably know their content better than you. We should probably include their viewpoints as legitimate rather than sweeping it all under the rug as "conspiracy theorist". In actual fact, much of the anti-consumerist, anti-corporate, and anti-capitalist sentiment in the modern left stems from the cultural anti-capitalism of the Frankfurt School, which was sometimes referred to as a "Cultural Marxism". It's not that scary. It's not a "win" for conspiracy theorists. It's a win for academic honesty. ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 01:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but treating two consecutive words - which are capitalized in the title but not in the main text and are never defined as a term - as though they constituted an object of study or analysis is simply a conceptual error. The fact is that, if "Cultural Marxism" were a meaningful object, it would appear in the copious literature on the Frankfurt School - or the Birmingham School of Cultural Studies - more extensively than in the disputed cases of one unpublished paper and one encyclopedia entry, neither of which treats "Cultural Marxism" as a substantive object of inquiry.

And I am not saying this out of obscurantism or ignorance. The fact is that I have published in this field, have met a few of the principals, and have a pretty good idea of what critical theorists mean and don't mean when they write. You don't need "Cultural Marxism" to do a genealogy relating contemporary left politics back to Horkheimer and Adorno: in fact, this supposed term doesn't even help with that project in any way. Newimpartial (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Claiming that a neologism has to fit your WP:OR rules for how a term would emerge is not an appropriate argument for excluding specific academics, reliable sources or historical context. 1, 2, 3, 4. You're either here to be honest with the subject matter at hand, or you're here to play games with the rules in order to WP:OWN the topic for non-NPOV reasons. The section already acknowledges it's a newly popularized term, ergo it's WP:NEO and arguing it should be unchanging for all eternity is irrational and biased. Apart from the original two sources I've cited, there's the above 4, and this conservative WP:NEWSBLOG can also be included 5. You may not like that all of this can be included, or that it's a complicated topic. But all of this can be included, and it IS a complicated topic. I'm not here to dumb it down, are you? ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. --

RecardedByzantian It is time to stop throwing around passive-agressive remarks and listening to the arguments people have been put forward. (1) Again, source 1's use of the term cultural marxism has zero to do with the Frankfurt school ("Hicks states that a cultural marxism is needed to reach and incorporate broader groups of people into a socialist movement" etc) cultural is clearly used as an adjective modifying Marxism here. (2) "Instead, the Thompsonian project envisaged a humanist Marxism (sometimes called ‘cultural Marxism’)." another unpublished paper, by a non-expert. and has already made it into the sandbox above (3) one unclear passing mention in a book about Gramsci? come on. (4) this is actually the only use of the term as you envision it: "Dobb and the group of historians who followed his lead heralded both a departure and continuity in the application of historical materialism to the study of the past: continuity because it can be traced to Marx and Engles and departure because it meant a reorientation in historical analysis. The cultural Marxism, as this tendency has been labeled ..." Unfortunately, the author does not say who labelled them that way, and in the absence of other literature it seems week. (5) we can absolutely not use a blog. Mvbaron (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

and has already made it into the sandbox above - yes, and I support including the fact that the term (regardless of capitalization) has a history within left-wing academia. I believe their take on it is valid.

we can absolutely not use a blog. - Wikipedia policy disagrees with you, see WP:NEWSBLOG. I move that viewpoints that fit Wikipedia policy, should be included in any page on the topic Cultural Marxism. This means including what that combination of words meant to early leftists, what it means to conspiracy theorists, AND what it means to individual right wing journalists should they be published under an opinion blog associated with a verifiable and reliable news source. Absolutely all these viewpoints/usages should be included as they all have grounds to be according to Wikipedia policy. ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 07:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop taking everyone else here as fools, assume that we all read your links and understand them: from WP:NEWSBLOG "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution". Ed West (the author of your blog) has *zero* credentials and is not a professional, or by any measure reasonably taken as an expert on the subject matter. And you keep saying that the capitalization doesn't matter - and you keep ignoring the arguments put forward against this stance. What is needed is a (preferably more than one) reliable source actually talking about the concept or school Cultural Marxism, so far that has simply not been provided (2 unpublished papers mentioning cultural Marxism in passing are little more than WP:FRINGE. --Mvbaron (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Ritzer and Kellner aren't fringe, and they're both published - there's also British Cultural Marxism in post-war Britain, a book which mostly focuses on the British school of thought... and I believe my response to the discussion on 'cultural Marxism' vs 'Cultural Marxism' was that that's the nature of a neologism, it's a term that changes over time. That they are entirely different things with no relation to each other is completely unknown to us, and is currently just a theory RGloucester and others have inferred from their ideas about language (perhaps if this claim was backed by sources). I think it's on us to describe the origins of the neologism honestly - citing the facts (historical and current) as they are. The idea that 'cultural Marxism' and 'Cultural Marxism' as topics overlap in so many obvious ways, in their histories, in their origins, locations, in the new left, in critical theory, ect... ect... but that they CAN'T appear on the one Wikipedia page... that's preposterous. ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 14:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Dworkin doesn't use the neologism either, though. His "cultural Marxism" is still two words one after the other, not a school, a tendency or even an object of study. Newimpartial (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Look, a neologism is OBVIOUSLY a "new" term - that's what NEO means. The introduction of capitalization is not a good point to decide a neologism is born. That is just a ridiculous cut off point to claim (many Wikipedia 'history' sections would be irrelevant if that were the case, see post-modernism and neoliberalism), and you're only claiming it because it's convenient for you. Anyone with a modicum of honesty on the subject will at least acknowledge that the term started with Trent Schroyer. This fact has appeared within the article at various points, and is not really a point of contention. Stop applying your ORIGINAL RESEARCH to the topic. ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 04:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

RecardedByzantian: the new five links are even less convincing than the old sources. The only somewhat promising one is the 2009 paper from India, and there is no way that would be enough to make the Neologism due. As for Dorothy (and E.P.) Thompson, they are among the principals I've met - lovely people - but cultural Marxism as a synonym for "humanist Marxism" is entirely orthogonal to what cultural Marxism means either in the Indian paper or in the CT usage. The fact remains that only the CT usage is an actual neologism employed in any kind of discourse, so that is the way WP must treat the term. Newimpartial (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, did you notices how you discussed sources interacting with the term in another manner - describing and discussing it like a school of thought, or view of the world... and then you turned around and said it's only ever discussed in a CT context? You've contradicted yourself there - the sources are people discussing it too. Published academics, in relevant fields. Also; you've just made an argument ad populism... besides which, terms often have a 'history' or 'origins' section. The term was 'live' in academia so to speak, when conservatives started with the Conspiracy Theory stuff, we should honor that fact. ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 14:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I did not do the either of the things you said I did. People putting two words together are not necessarily "discussing the term", or they may be discussing an entirely different term, e.g., Marxist humanism. I was there, and Cultural/cultural Marxism was not 'live' in academia when the CT usage developed - they invented it (probably saw the two words sitting next to each other, and thought it fit their world views). Something like the 2009 paper you cited above probably represents an injection of "Cultural Marxism" from CT and pop culture usage into scholarship - and unless there is a lot more of it out there, it remains UNDUE for any WP article.

My essential point here is that you are getting the origins wrong: it wasn't "live" in the left academy and then co-opted in the conspiracy theory. It was created in the conspiracy theory, and retconned as "origins". My frustration in this area is that people keep falling for the CT account of the term's origins. Newimpartial (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The idea that the conspiracy theory was cut from whole cloth is ridiculous. The idea that the term 'cultural Marxism' as found in left wing texts of the era (and prior), referencing the same group of thinkers, from the same schools... but somehow magically 'cultural Marxism' is under some dark cloak of invisibility where as 'Cultural Marxism' is cut from whole cloth, a finished and complete concept constructed by conspiracy theorists with no other viewpoints being valid is atrocious. The conspiracy theory shouldn't be given carte blanche to erase the academic history of the term. The Conspiracy Theory originated in the 1990s - well here's a plethora of books using the term prior to the 1990s (not suggesting them as Reliable Sources, just showing the term was about):

• 1981 - Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology - Richard R Weiner
• 1973 - The critique of domination - Trent Schroyer
• 1992 - Cultural Studies as Critical Theory - Ben Agger <--- Capitalized as Cultural Marxism
• 1990 - Culture and Society, Contemporary debates - Cambridge University Press
• 1981 - Women and Revolution - Lydia Sargent

So please, I've now issued you a range of sources (coming into the double digits now) leading up to the 1990s that use the term. Some with capitalization, all from academics and experts in the correct fields, all with legitimate publishers most of whom are academic. So PLEASE don't go back to making your "They're unrelated due to capitalization!" argument. The real world doesn't work like that, neologisms don't work like that, etymology doesn't work like that, Wikipedia sections entitled 'history' don't work like that. It's a childish and a dead horse argument, and by repeating it you're only introducing a failure to WP:HEAR what I'm saying, which starts to seem like bad faith. Terms change as they solidify, not everyone will run on your timeline of when capitalization occurs (as the source above shows), and it's widely acknowledged that the term originated with Trent Schroyer's critique of domination (see above). Please stop wasting people's time. Get honest with the subject matter if you want to have a constructive discussion. Stop erasing past usages. ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 04:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Since you insist on citing sources that simply use the two words, one after the other, as though they were using a term with a specific meaning- a claim you provide no support for in any way - I don't think I can help you. Some of your "sources"- like Lydia Sargeant and Richard Weiner - are very clearly not using these two words in the way that later becomes a "term", and neither does Trent Schroyer, ar least as far as I can tell from Blackford's post. As far as Stop erasing past usages is concerned, first there would have to be a "usage" to erase, and a usage is more than two words one after the other. Sorry. Newimpartial (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This has all been discussed and discredited about ten-thousand times. I'm starting to wonder if our Byzantian might be a reincarnation of Jobrot...? RGloucester — ☎ 01:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I would sit around gossiping too if I'd just be shown the facts: 1) Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory, it is a right-wing neologism based on the left wing usage of 'cultural Marxism'. You have both been shown sources you denied the existence of. Reliable sources published by academics in the correct fields. All you have left to do is gossip and lick your wounds. ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 02:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose split It's better that the actual views of The Frankfurt School, their mode of analysis (which some have referred to as "Cultural Marxism" even though it's a critique of Capitalism), is represented side by side with the conspiracy theory on the same page. We shouldn't facilitate the teaching of the conspiracy theory over, and without including, what The Frankfurt School were actually on about. Specifically, their anti-capitalist, anti-consumption, anti-dehumanization viewpoints. ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 05:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support split per the "support" a. There are notable sources supporting the separate topics. Idealigic (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Just as an exercise - do you have a single reliable source that uses the phrase "Cultural Marxism" but doesn't link it to The Frankfurt School? ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 01:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support split Notable enough to warrant a separate article. desmay (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the split that would legitimize the CM conspiracy theory with a discrete article. This recylced anti-semitic canard from 19th-century Russia has no page-two, because Cultural Marxism recycles the conspiracy of "Jewish–Bolshevik subversion of the West" — only with less cowbell. Wikipedia already has legitimate articles about cultural studies, which void the creation of an American shrine to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, which has been metastasised to thematically connect the articles Kulturbolshevismus and Newspeak to the Frankfurt School article; the edit summaries so confirm. I don't know it for a fact, but I know it to be true, in my gut. From the Commie-Pinko-Liberal-Socialist-Democrat perspective: Under pretence of providing "sourced-examples of Cultural Marxism used to attack white folk and the West" the advocates of CM would be legitimised, because, in A.D. 2020, Wikipedia is part of the real world, hence the strained efforts to publish the anti-intellectual lie that Wikipedia has an article about Cultural Marxism, therefore, CM is a thing in real life. The participants of the 2014 AfD were correct in their factual evaluation that Cultural Marxism contains no verifiable facts.

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we do not create articles because something is real or not, we create based on whether it's notable WP:N/WP:NFRINGE. There are many independent articles on various false conspiracy theories that don't really exist, see Category:Conspiracy theories. Having "conspiracy theory" in the title should help that no one mistakes it for a real thing. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The term had a pre-existing left-wing usage in academia prior to becoming an alt-right conspiracy theory. Here are academic references to prove it:

1973 - The critique of domination - Trent Schroyer

1981 - Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology - Richard R Weiner

1981 - Women and Revolution - Emily Hicks (ed. Lydia Sargent)

1990 - Culture and Society, Contemporary debates - Cambridge University Press

1992 - Cultural Studies as Critical Theory - Ben Agger <--- Left-wing capitalization.

1998 - Dorothy Thompson and the Thompsonian Project by Penelopy J. Corfield first published 1998

1996 - Marc Stienberg's commentaries

2001 -Replies to Marc Stienberg's commentaries 1

2012 - Replies to Marc Stienberg's commentaries 2

2001 - Cultural Studies and Social Theory: A Critical Intervention by Douglas Kellner

2004 - Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies by Douglas Kellner

2004 - The Encyclopedia of Social Theory George Ritzer ed.

---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 07:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you weave a coherent concept based on these references? I don't know. I think all references are made in a context, whether that's the academic context, the historical context, the political context or a psychological context. I think the context for these references is academic, and often is found in what The Frankfurt School actually wrote. I think "Cultural Marxism" is a sludgy term, but that this draft is fairly accurate within the context of The Frankfurt School as 'Marxist'. Today, they may well be called neo-liberals or even progressives. Is there a coherent ideology known as "Cultural Marxism" - probably not. Is there something that can be said of Frankfurt School as a whole? Maybe. They were mostly humanists critical of Capitalism. Political freedom dictates that these histories and references shouldn't be hidden or avoided. Marxism should be taught as openly and honestly as any other school of politics. Political freedom entails letting the people choose what offends them. But if you're GOING to separate out a page on "Cultural Marxism" even if it is targeted at the conspiracy theory - you should probably be honest about it and include the fact that it had some references in left-wing academia. There should probably be some investigation into what it means in the academic context. ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 03:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support split the word count issue alone points to this article needing to be split. Teishin (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support split as undue because too much weight is given in this article and perhaps merge with Cultural Bolshevism per "The Alt-right's Favorite Meme is 100 Years Old", "a New York Times piece in which professor of law Samuel Moyn reported that social fear of Cultural Marxism is 'an American contribution to the phantasmagoria of the alt-right'; while the conspiracy theory is 'a crude slander, referring to Judeo-Bolshevism, something that does not exist.'" Davide King (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

  Judging from Google Scholar, it seems the bulk of scholarly sources state that it is related, but distinct:

  The term Cultural Marxism is indeed reminiscent of Kulturbolshewismus (Cultural Bolshevism), an antisemitic epithet used by Nazi Germany to denote the degeneracy of German society (Mirrlees, 2018).

  — https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504630.2020.1787822

  Most of [these commentaries] claim that the paleoconservative myth of cultural Marxism is simply an updated version of NAZI propaganda about “cultural Bolshevism” and “Weimar degeneracy” (both tropes depended on obscene and offensive anti-Semitic caricatures). While the Frankfurt School conspiracy has anti-Semitic components, it is inaccurate to call it nothing more than a modernization of cultural Bolshevism.

  — Springer, 2019 [5]

  [Volker] Weiss (de:Volker Weiß) applies quotations from Adorno's lecture directly to contemporary movements – and to National Socialism – with too little historical mediation, for example, when he calls current discourse about 'cultural Marxism' an equivalent to what Adorno called the ‘Gummibegriffe’, or elastic concepts, of ‘communism’ and ‘cultural Bolshevism’ in Nazi and neo-Nazi polemics

  — 10.1080/23254823.2020.1742018

  (t · c) buidhe 07:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Note: A previous RfC a year ago found a majority of users favoring a split. However, the RfC was closed as not to split. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Also note that it was the 2014 RfC, with extremely wide participation and a panel of 3 administrators to write the close, which resulted in the conspiracy theory material being moved here and the Cultural Marxism topic salted. That is not a decision that should be overturned lightly, and should not be overturned at all unless the situation has changed appreciably since 2014. By ignoring this key context, the RfC mover is mischaracterizing the 2019 RfC IMO, as it generated nowhere near the participation of the 2014 RfC nor did it generate any clear policy-based consensus for a split. Newimpartial (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree that it is a mischaracterization. First, consensus can change. And second, all of the sources that I found were published 2014 or later, indicating that the conspiracy theory has significantly more reliable coverage now than it did at that point and enabling us to write an article that is not from a conspiracist perspective. (t · c) buidhe 01:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

    The 2018 DR closed as "no consensus", and there are new sources even since then. (t · c) buidhe 01:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

    This is a pointless argument, because it is clear that neither of you are familiar with the content of the old article. It was deleted because it treated 'Cultural Marxism' as a real, extant phenomenon. It portrayed 'Cultural Marxism' as a 'school of thought' in Marxism along the lines of that proposed of the conspiracy theory, and thus was used by the conspiracy theorists to legitimise the theory. The present content in this article has nothing to do with the old article's content, which was completely expunged. It deals with the conspiracy theory itself, which no one here will deny is a notable topic. This split would in no way contradict the AfD closing, or otherwise recreate content that was deleted. It would simply separate out conspiracy theory-related content to its own article. RGloucester — ☎ 02:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

    RGloucester, please comment on the contribution, not the contributor. I for one am well aware of the pre-2014 content of the article, and my argument in the 2019 RfC was that the proposed split would only encourage a POV fork as editors return to the conspiracy theory article to try to reinterpret it as a real phenomenon, q.v. Great replacement conspiracy theory. Based on recent comments here at Talk, I don't think the likelihood of this has diminished in any serious way. It is fine to disagree, but don't pronounce that it is clear that neither of you are familiar with the content of the old article, which is a large load of codswallop. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

    I was just stating a point of fact. I do not remember you participating in the debate then, and your discussion of the topic seems to imply a lack of familiarity, even now. A cursory glance at your edit history suggests you were not active here at the time. Perhaps I am mistaken, however. Either way, the problem you suggest is just as present here as it would be in a split article. The benefit of the split, however, is that it starts by clearing the establishing the scope as a 'conspiracy theory', per RS. I have confidence it can never become the old article, because the old article was literally a page that just wrote the conspiracy theory out with no context, as if it were real, tricking editors and readers alike. Given that we will now provide the article context, we should well and truly be safe from that kind of distortion. RGloucester — ☎ 12:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

    Ah, I was not familiar with the article you linked (I don't by habit frequent 'conspiracy theory' articles). It seems as if that article was hijacked and renamed to remove conspiracy theory from its name, compromising its integrity? Is that what you are suggesting might happen here? RGloucester — ☎ 12:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

    Just to be clear, it is not the title of the split article that concerns me (a redirect from Cultural Marxism to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory - while it would involve unsalting - would be alright). My point is that the split would only encourage what already happens here from time to time, and what happens more often at Great Replacement, which is people arriving and trying to prove the hoax real.

    No, I did not participate in the 2014 RfC (since I was avoiding all Gamergate topics at that time to protect my sanity), but I read it and the proposed sourcing for the Cultural Marxism article from the conspiracy theorists, so when I !voted in 2019 I knew what I was discussing, thanks. While I haven't felt compelled to !vote this year, I want to point out that if the split goes ahead there will be attempts to POV fork back to the conspiracy theory as real - one of the advantages of having the redirect here is that it ensures eyes on the page that are literate in Marxism.

    (I am otherwise indifferent in principle to this redirect, since I think the variant of Western Marxism most relevant variant to the conspiracy theory is actually Gramscian cultural studies, though the CT's proponents have seldom been literate enough to note the fact, and the antisemitic canards become a bit more obvious in that framing.) Newimpartial (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: This is not an RfC matter. Please remove the {{rfc}} tag from this section, and in accordance with WP:PROSPLIT, add a {{split section|Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory|discuss={{TALKPAGENAME}}#RfC: Split (2020)|date=August 2020}} to the top of the relevant article section. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  I've been party to nigh endless discussions of this sort, and they've always been carried out via RfC. It seems a bit bureaucratic to suggest that an RfC is not sufficient to determine this matter in this case, and to request the use of a new, alternative process. RfCs generate a wide audience that, for this controversial article, is both necessary and appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 16:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  Is that policy Redrose64? I've seen lots of these handled by an RfC and as its underway .... -----Snowded ^TALK 16:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  Using {{split section}} will put the article into Category:Articles to be split from August 2020 and Category:All articles to be split; {{rfc}} will not do this. WP:Splitting is not "a new, alternative process" - it's been around for something like fifteen years: the templates ({{split}}, {{split section}} etc.) and related categories have existed since 2004/2005. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  I never said it was a 'new' process in terms of age, merely that it would be Kafkaesque for us to now go back and close the RfC, and start a new alternative process ('splitting'), when an RfC is perfectly capable of handling the job, and does so on a regular basis. I for one am not a new editor, and have participated in many discussions about splitting, and have even carried out plenty of splits, but I've never once used that process... RGloucester — ☎ 19:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not asking for a new discussion to be started, just the {{rfc}} removed and a {{split section}} adding to the article. I even provided the exact syntax that would cause this discussion thread to be linked, so that existing comments could still stand. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

POV at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

Please note that the phenomenon I predicted here has already happened in the first day of the split: editors have arrived to demonstrated that treating Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory violates NPOV and that the "conservative narrative" of Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy theory. Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

A reply in support

I concur with you. This is happening because of the paid editor who runs these people of the right wing. Perhaps Wikipedia might append a warning label indicating that Right-wing Bullshit Has Rights, especially the lies of anti-Semites and crypto-Nazis that are the substance of U.S.-made Cultural Marxism. Fascinating, is it not? These fanboys are anti-intellectuals who insist that the truth of Cultural Marxism is in the gut, not the mind. This is so choice for debate!

In the essay On Bullshit (2005), the philosopher Harry Frankfurt said that the liar knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth, whereas the bullshitter only seeks to impress, that: “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.”

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial: I guess we'll just have to deal with it... the conspiracy theory itself deserves in-depth discussion, and doing so in the Frankfurt School article would be undue weight. --MarioGom (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is certainly cleaner now. But the split absolutely painted a target sign for the sea lions at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, and that continues to be a pain. On the third hand, we now have an improving article for Marxist cultural analysis ... if only I could "encourage" someone else to work on Birmingham School of Cultural Studies: I've certainly dropped enough hints. :p. Newimpartial (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Op-ed insertion

3Kingdoms has been edit-warring to insert this opinion piece. This doesn't seem plausible to me (and Dominic Green is either a redlink or a fictional character from James Bond), but in any case the proposal should be discussed here. Newimpartial (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This Dominic Green [6]. I don't think I am edit-warring, I planned to create a talk page before I saw this. I added this cause is Green mentioned on the cultural marxist page as a conservative critic of the term. In his article, while arguing aganist the conspiracy angle, voice criticism of the school and its influence in modern academia, so I though this could be added. Also mentioning rs for Specator made little sense since their is no agreement on it as reliable or not. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

So I don't see how "this Dominic Green" has any relevant expertise - he seems to have published only concerning the former British Empire and in music history, and his comments about Marxism don't relate to either topic. This seems like a generic op-ed, TBH.

Also, when an editor inserts the same Bold content change three times in a few hours, I think that is usually considered edit-warring. Newimpartial (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Green's knowledge "Dominic Green, PhD, FRHistS is a critic, historian and the deputy editor of The Spectator’s US edition. The author of four books, he writes widely on the arts and current affairs, and contributes regularly to the Wall Street Journal and the New Criterion." One of his degrees is in Jewish Studies, since so much of the talk regarding the School deals with anti-Semitism, and that it is mentioned on the Cultural marxist page I don't really see why this article can't be used, maybe he quote can be shortened but I don't see the problem. Also I do understand that rule, which is why I planned to stop after it was undone the third time. Sorry if you feel I went too far reverting for a second time. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC).

A Jewish Studies degree might be relevant to the specific question of whether the Cultural Marxism CT is antisemitic, but that isn't the way you were proposing to use the Op-ed, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

3Kingdoms, Greene is not a historian, he has a PhD and had a post doctoral position - but as far as I can see he never taught anywhere, or is published in this field. And frankly, the quoted opinion piece is little more than a short polemic with embarrassingly little academic merit. Mvbaron (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

He is an historian he has published books on history, look at his wiki page. Criticism by its nature are opinions, so I don't really see the problem being put here. He is also a "adjunct lecturer in politics at Boston College, a fellow of the Royal Historical Society and the Royal Society of Arts" [7] 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

He has published two popular history books, and has taught one class at boston college in 2017, and is not listed as staff at Boston College. His opinion (and a polemic at that) is really not WP:DUE on a topic such as the Frankfurt School with a massive academic literature. Mvbaron (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally I disagree, I think I have provided enough evidence that he can reasonable be considered someone who has enough knowledge of Politics, history, etc that his view criticism of the School can be added to the criticism section. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

How so? The only thing I can see going for him is that he’s a fellow of the RHS - but he has no academic record in the field. And secondly, the content of his polemic is also not DUE: this is nothing is or will be taken seriously by anyone working on critical theory; it is not something that is fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Like is said in my initial edit comment: it is non-notable. Mvbaron (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

His writing and studies are in politics, history, Jewish studies, etc all of which connect to the Franksfurt school. Being "polemical" I really don't see as a problem for a criticism section. His comment on the negative legacy of the school in regards to academia and the New Left are fine to have in a criticism section. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• If we took the quote at face value, he's pressing elements of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, which would plainly make his position WP:FRINGE here - we would need a much better source than an opinion piece for statements like these. But I also disagree with the way it's being used; given his past statements, I'm skeptical that Green is being entirely serious, especially given that he goes on to note that the views he just stated are those of Nazis. Even if we were to use it (which I definitely don't think we should), it is plainly misusing the source to cut that part off. --Aquillion (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  You have misread what he wrote, from some reason the article is cut out, but his point is that the school had influence on the New Left that was negative for the humanities. He then goes on to say his issue with the term "cultural marxism" due to said links with the Nazis, instead saying Neo-Marxism and Maoist third-worldism is a more accurate term with less historical issues.3Kingdoms (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Dishonest article

It is dishonest that Scruton's dismissal of Adorno is the only thing that appears in the philosophy of music section, as though Scruton's view represents the sum of what people think of Adorno and his influence. Adorno's views on capitalist pop music have had a larger influence beyond a mere mention by Scruton. There are others who believe Adorno's criticisms of capitalist pop culture are relevant such as Alex Ross. They should be cited as well to give a difference of opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D96F:4801:85DB:77CD:CF16:1B64 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

No need to be so aggressive. Whoever put in the reference did not necessarily make any other contribution to the article. Personally, I would remove it, because who cares what Scruton thought. TFD (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m removing that reference. Scruton is undoubtedly not a productive or representative view to overshadow adornos influence. That section reads rather jarringly. WesPhil (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism

Given that "Cultural Marxists" is usually bandied about by far-right conspiracy theorists, wouldn't it be better to talk of "Neo-Marxist Cultural Theorists"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.142.86 (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2022

Correct the spelling of 'introdcuce' in the section 'Art and music criticism' to 'introduce'.

'... In it, Benjamin is optimistic about the potential of commodified works of art to introdcuce radical political views to the proletariat ...' Uhrentick (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 08:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Positivism dispute duplicate text

I noticed that most of the text in the "Positivism dispute" section is identical to text at Positivism dispute. It looks like Bustamove1 added both. I think the section here should be trimmed to a lighter summary. Sennalen (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I added, and tailored, it to the main p.d article as an afterthought. I also wasn't sure of principal author preferences. I'll "trim" it down later tonight, although I can't guarantee it'll be "lighter." Thanks for the preference/catch. Bustamove1 (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bustamove1: Thanks for the effort Sennalen (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hibernation

In Grand Hotel Abyss, Stuart Jeffries says that Habermas suggested a "strategy of hibernation" about student protest movements. The footnote on that paragraph indicates Müller-Doohm's biography of Adorno. The only mentions of "hibernation" in the biography relate to the nazi period. I've also seen this phrase "strategy of hibernation" in Martin Jay's Splinter in Your Eye. The context there is about Lukács Hotel Abgrund comments. Jay has a footnote that traces it to Habermas' Consciousness-Raising or Redemptive Criticism: The Contemporaneity of Walter Benjamin (1979). That's an article contrasting Benjamin's and Adorno's views on mechanical reproduction in art. It may be a good addition to this article's comments on Benjamin, which are still under-developed. I don't see any relevance to student movements of the 1960's however. The most likely explanation to me is that Jeffries was mistaken on this point (perhaps misreading this same passage of Jay's). Does anyone else have another insight? Sennalen (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Both Jay and Jeffries toss out this phrase "strategy of hibernation" without clearly explaining when Habermas said it or what he meant by it. The sources that specifically address the quotation relate it to the 1930s. The context in Jeffries gives the impression it relates to the 1960s student movements, but Jeffries does not explicitly say so. In light of this, I don't believe the article should say so either, so I have removed it. Sennalen (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

While reading Martin Jay Reason After its Eclipse I stumbled across another instance where he highlights this phrase "strategy of hibernation". This time it has Habermas referring to Horkheimer's desire to rescue some kind of non-instrumental reason from Horkheimer's own line of critique in Dialectic of Enlightenment, which Horkheimer seeks in a reading of Benjamin. Jay still doesn't lay this out in a very explicit way, but this instance feels like it has a degree of truthiness the others lacked. Sennalen (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

According to this https://www.mediaartlab.ru/books/east/english_version/texts/Adorno%27s_Strategy_of_Hibernation.htm#2-p

It's from "New German Critique" no. 17 (Spring 1979), (approximately p. 4S-44) and may be Habermas characterizing Adorno's desire for constant reinterpretation, which Habermas (who I understand never felt fully recognized by Adorno) considered a "royal road to bourgeois individuation". So I think the phrase, has become a sort of short hand for Habermas not feeling Adorno's position was tenable. 203.129.56.22 (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

It has been noted that in the section termed, “Praxis,” a previous editor attempted to inject the viewpoint of a right-wing conspiracy theory. Future editors should be wary of the tendency of promoters of this conspiracy theory to use terms such as “Cultural Marxism” and “Cultural Marxists” when referring to the influence of the Frankfurt school. These terms are not used by neutral historians to describe historical facts, but rather are used to advance a specific, right-wing and often anti-semitic agenda. Tomabird (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The editor adding the conspiracy theory in wikivoice was, of course, Sennalen (complete with Easter egg links]. Newimpartial (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

There was no conspiracy theory related content in that section. With the edits, you are now accusing several left-wing scholars operating prior to the invention of the theory of being conspiracy theory proponents. Sennalen (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Sennalen, you literally added "Cultural Marxism" content while linking to "Marxist cultural analysis". That's conspiracy theory related content, Ma'am. In your original and selective reading of Gottesman, you are doing the work of the conspiracy theory all on your own. Newimpartial (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Mere use of the phrase "cultural Marxism" is not a characteristic of the theory. That is the phrase used in Gottesman and many others. If there's a problem with what I wrote, it's that I followed the timeline of ideas further than what fits neatly under the heading "Frankfurt School". Since writing it I've come to understand that Gottesman, Freire, etc. fits better at a broader article like Western Marxism or Critical Theory so I don't mind it being trimmed here. I would have done that after adding content elsewhere. There's still no cause to inject the conspiracy theory squabble theory here. That was entirely spun out of this article for good reason, and shouldn't be reversed. Sennalen (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the digression in question. Also, you added "Cultural Marxism" as the easter egg link, not "cultural Marxism", so perhaps you should listen for your own dog whistles. Gottesman, for example, refers exclusively primarily to "British cultural Marxism", not "Cultural Marxism", and therefore does not support any of the content you added to this article on the Frankfurt School - except of course for your a priori assumption that references to "cultural Marxism" are always references to the Frankfurt School, even when they aren't. Newimpartial (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC) correction by Newimpartial (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

You're putting words in my mouth. From a quick glance over the edits, it seems fine. I don't have a lot of time for Wikipedia right now, but I've recently come across a few texts that will be helpful in clarifying the relationship between cultural Marxisms of the British and Frankfurt varieties. Particularly https://doi.org/10.1515/culture-2018-0067 and https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3521-5 Sennalen (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Sokal Text is a British cultural Marxism journal..?  Tewdar  09:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM 220.240.211.68 (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't find any passages in Gottesman that referred to Social Text as cultural Marxism. Did I miss one? Newimpartial (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This will be my final communication with you, because your perpetual ABF BATTLEGROUND approach is upsetting, impossible to work with and, I think, unfixable. But yes, you did miss a few, including that one: This connection is perhaps made most visible by the publication of articles by Apple and Giroux in the cultural Marxist journal Social Text in 1982.

Oll an gwella.  Tewdar  16:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

So yes, I did miss at least that one. My apologies, and I have corrected my prior comment. I don't entirely know where you're getting BATTLEGROUND vibes from, but they don't reflect my intention as a writer. Peace, out. Newimpartial (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

"That was entirely spun out of this article for good reason, and shouldn't be reversed." - good, let's avoid using the term here then, as to save the readers any confusion. 220.240.211.68 (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

...terms such as “Cultural Marxism” and “Cultural Marxists” [...] are not used by neutral historians to describe historical facts - This is total bullshit, and your edits to the article were a grotesque distortion of the sources. Did you even read the cited articles before adding this?  Tewdar  09:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)