Talk:Frankfurt School/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

"long march through the institutions of power" never did happen? Its a hoax?

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:IDHT, WP:NOR, etc.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Rudi Dutschke, the German student leader that had so heavily influenced the 1968 student revolt and the new left summarised Antonio Gramsci teaching in the now famous words "Der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen" denoting the war of position, an allusion to the Long March (1934–35) of the Communist Chinese People's Liberation Army, by means of which, the working class would produce their own organic intellectuals and culture (dominant ideology) to replace those imposed by the bourgeoisie. That is also what later happened, as illustrated by this series of movies with intervju of Herbert Marcuse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pzfy2izu44 . I can provide tons of more evidence on this, and i will. To deny this historical fact and try to blame a few conservative intellectuals for creating a conspiracy is similar to what some Nazis are trying to do with the German holocaust where five million Jews where killed. It did never happened, its a "conspiracy theory" that this horribly crime ever was committed. Who is really creating the "conspiracy theory"? Its of course those who denies the holocaust and those who denies the impact of cultural marxism. That the holocaust didn't happen is a conspiracy theory just as denying the cultural marxism. Look what the article says in the "Conspiracy theory" section: "...movement in the political left to subvert traditional western cultural norms". Its a claim that no such thing was attempted and that it certainly did not happen. Really ? Lets go back to Rudi Dutschke's famous words: (1) "long march through the institutions of power", fact or fiction? (2) This is from wiki, from cultural hegermony (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony) "In 1967, the German student movement leader Rudi Dutschke reformulated Antonio Gramsci's philosophy of cultural hegemony with the phrase Der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen (The Long March through the Institutions), denoting the war of position, an allusion to the Long March (1934–35) of the Communist Chinese People's Liberation Army, by means of which, the working class would produce their own organic intellectuals and culture (dominant ideology) to replace those imposed by the bourgeoisie."[13][14][15][16][17] Its followed by four sources, i dont know how to merge them in. Fact or fiction? Can there be any doubt in anyones mind that this was the attempt, the plan? So did it work? I give you a a quote from Sweden: Janne Josefsson, known from "uppdrag granskning" and regarded as sweden's most influential journalist: "The Journalist-university["Journalistskolan] was called the kommunist-university in those days (when he became a journalist). The 1968 spirit was alive and many of the students did have an political agenda with their choice of profession. It was something frightening in that." Sweden's two most left-winged parties (mp and V) who in the public have support from 12% of the population have in the media well above 50% (MP itself have 52% of the votes in the state television SVT). If we go to USA then the cultural war have to be denied, it did never happen. Its a "conspiracy theory", the wiki article must be remade. We have books like "Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America." Marxist inflicting a cultural war and its wrong to call them "cultural marxists"? In the end we will have only one versions of history in wikipedia. The political correct one, and the rest is "conspiracy theories" . Kaffeburk (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Look at the "experts" cited in the article: Martin Jay (born 1944) ...He is an intellectual historian whose research interests have connected history with other academic and intellectual activities, such as the critical theory of the Frankfurt School, social theory, cultural criticism, and historiography. Born 1944, a baby boomer went to the university during 1968 and so on. Its like having a nazi as an expert on holocaust. All the "experts" cited have this leftist bias and so probably the wiki editors also, but i cant find their names. Should wiki be ruled by an leftist elite who uses it as a propaganda tool in order to hack democracy and subvert it from inside? They want us to be communists? Geate, go out on the streets och rooftops and spread the word, go from house to house but don't do it under a false flag. Do it as an politician, don't camouflage yourself as academics but then again maybe you just did as Antonio Gramsci suggested in the words of Rudi Dutschke "long march through the institutions of power". But the never did happen, did it? That's not why you have the job you have, and doing what you are doing here on wikipedia? Thats all a conspiracy theory! Maybe Antonio Gramsci and Rudi Dutschke never existed, its just what Pat Buchanan fantasised. Tin foil hat on! Kaffeburk (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC) No one is denying the existence of The Frankfurt School, hence there being a whole page about it. However Cultural Marxism is another matter entirely, replete with it's own claims - from the claim that Hollywood is run by Cultural Marxists, to it being the cause of an STD crisis across Europe, to it causing the end of language, the end of "the family", the end of western civilization and any number of other ridiculous and falsifiable claims (I can show you key sources that make those claims, and even the more run-of-the-mill claim that The Frankfurt School created 'Political Correctness' doesn't pass basic fact-checking - search this talk page for 'Foucault' to see what I mean). So to repeat myself; no one is saying The Frankfurt School doesn't exist - but "Cultural Marxism" coloured as if it's a unified movement responsible for current social trends is another matter entirely. Individuals acting on their own self-determined values can hardly be said to be a unified movement. Conservatives in the US may agree on some matters with Conservatives in Russia - but this does not make them a unified force. --Jobrot (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC) That's a straw man. Nobody denies that the Frankfurt school have existed since the 1920's. The logic You apply is at fault. If critique against communism och nazism is exaggerated or even wrong does not make communism or nazism non existent. Of course you can find statements against culture marxism that can′t be proven or that is wrong, that does not prove that culture marxism doesn't exist. You have to check the basic meaning of the term "culture marxism" to see if its valid or not. The method You apply is at fault. Look at the basic issue of this; the article claims that "movement in the political left to subvert traditional western cultural norms" is a myth, that its false. The Frankfurt school and also people associated with the school, or influencing the school (like Antonio Gramsci) did create a new version of marxism and did create or at least influence the flower power and the post marxist movement. The "long march through the institutions of power" did take place. Herbert Marcuse′s (from the Frankfurt school) books "the one dimensional man" and "Eros and civilization" where like bibles for the flower power movement. The students from those days went very radical left and the ideology they chose where not traditional, but the new marxism from the frankfurt school, but they did not enter the school as students. Therefore the students influenced by the marxist school can not be labeled "Frankfurt School". The ideology of the flower power and sibling movements is called cultural marxism. Then we can debate just how influential it is in Hollywood and elsewhere, but to deny that the movement exists and is powerful is either lack of knowledge or lack of honesty. Marcuse is often called "Father of the New Left" (wiki). Cultural Marxism and the New Left is in many way the same, but Cultural Marxism also include the forming of the ideology that took place mostly in the Frankfurt School. Most important of all, Cultural Marxism is the critiques label. Just like we don't want the nazis to write their own history, neither does we want the New Left/Cultural marxists to write theirs. You mention the French "philosopher" Michel Foucault. Perhaps you also should mention that he is a well known marxist and in all and every way a part of the New Left, of course he put up a smokescreen. The whole concept of the long march is to operate under false flag. Instead of openly being politicians the strategy was to get the academic title and then join organisations of power, like becoming a journalist. That is the "long march". So what have Foucault proven in the above text? That it was Dutschke who coined the term "the long march" and not Gramsci? Yes.Wiki: "This was an idea he took up from his interpretation of Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt school of Critical Theory". So it is a repack of Frankfurt and of Gramsci. There is not a single evidence in this "talk" section that the core theory of cultural marxism is wrong, its just straw man argument attacked by a bunch of people who them self are part of the new left and all have done the "long march through the institutions of power".Kaffeburk (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Do you have published mainstream academic sources* to properly cite? Wikipedia does not use original research, it only summarizes published mainstream academic sources*. If you are here to "prove" anything, you have come to the wrong place. This is not a general discussion forum, so unless you can cite specific published mainstream academic sources*, please go find something else to do. *(I keep using that phrase conclusions you reached about a pirated video cannot be used, and it is your responsibility to let us know what part of the video you're citing.) Ian.thomson (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Edit conflict so i post this first than i get back to Ian: I You claim something to be false, to be a "conspiracy", then You have to provide some proof. What proof is provided? 1. Because the theory is distributed on Youtube it must be false. 2. Because it conservative thinkers behind it must be false. 3. Because Anders Behring Breivik believes in it it must be false and so on. But no attempts to falsify the basics claims of theory itself. Why? They cant. Feminism, affirmative action, sexual liberation, gay rights, Europe's mass immigration and so on did all originate as major political movements during the 1970 as a part of the New Left's agenda trough out all the western world. Who denies this? Its a well known fact. Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School is regarded at the "father of the New Left". Another fact. Rudi Dutschke who coined the expression "the long marsh" was inspired by the Frankfurt School and Antonio Gramsci. Another fact. The long marsch did take place in all the western world. During the 1970 there was a surge of left wing students in the universitys. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_of_1968#Capitalist_states Another fact. Thats how the New Left got into power. Now - disprove any of the links in the chain or put back the article. Kaffeburk (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Burden of proof rests on those who make the claim. Claims that the Frankfurt school was trying to organized some world-changing conspiracy requires good evidence. If published mainstream academics who have reviewed the claims regard Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory, then so does Wikipedia. The "conspiracy theory" aspect is the assumption that all of these things are related by a unified ideology, when they were independent and often unrelated. The three claims you raise are strawman arguments. Published mainstream academic sources, are you going to cite any or not? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Some "published mainstream academics" who all are marxists and part of the New Left claim its a conspiracy. Other "published mainstream academics" like Pat Buchannan who is not marxist or part of the New Left claims it's not. You write "all of these things are related by a unified ideology". All ideologys are moving and and channging over time, but yes to quite a large extent it is so. Herbert Marcuse is called "the Father of the new left" for a reason. Douglas Kellner. "Illuminations: Kellner". Retrieved October 1, 2012. Marcuse IS the Frankfurt Scool. He and his books are the main links between the Frankfurt School and the New Left. The political ideas of the Frankfurt Scool is to a large extent the ideology of the New Left. Who denies this? You write: "Claims that the Frankfurt school was trying to organized some world-changing conspiracy requires good evidence" Yes, I agree exept for the conspiracy part. They where quite open and I have provided those evidence a number of times in the text above. I can do it one more time: "In 1967, the German student movement leader Rudi Dutschke reformulated Antonio Gramsci's philosophy of cultural hegemony with the phrase Der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen (The Long March through the Institutions), denoting the war of position, an allusion to the Long March (1934–35) of the Communist Chinese People's Liberation Army, by means of which, the working class would produce their own organic intellectuals and culture (dominant ideology) to replace those imposed by the bourgeoisie." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony#Gramsci.27s_intellectual_influence Ref: Gramsci, Buttigieg, Joseph A, ed., Prison Notebooks (English critical ed.), p 50 footnote 21, Long March Through the Institutions21 Buttigieg, Joseph A. (2005). "The Contemporary Discourse on Civil Society: A Gramscian Critique". Boundary 2 32 (1): 33–52. doi:10.1215/01903659-32-1-33. ISSN 0190-3659. Retrieved 2010-06-30. Davidson, Carl (6 April 2006), Strategy, Hegemony & ‘The Long March’: Gramsci’s Lessons for the Antiwar Movement (WEB LOG). Marsch durch die Institutionen at German Wikipedia. Antonio Gramsci: Misattributed at English Wikiquote for the origin of “The Long March Through the Institutions” quotation. Is there anybody who denies that this "long march" was a central concept for the New Left? Is there anybody who denies that the "long march" also was implemented on a global scale, or at least all over the western world? My spellchecker wet down; hope You can accept my bad English. Kaffeburk (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC) If "The Long March through the Institutions of Power" was implemented by the New Left on a large scale all over the western world, then how can it be a "conspiracy theory" to make that claim? Kaffeburk (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC) I'll restate my position; No one is denying the existence of The Frankfurt School - but The Frankfurt School and "Cultural Marxism" are two different things, described in two different ways. "Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood)." -William S. Lind "every major Hollywood motion picture is green-lit by the same 21 politically liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage who police the screenplays to make sure 'androgyny' and 'critical theory' are properly implanted in the writing." -James Jaeger (producer of films on 'Cultural Marxism') "[The] Sexually transmitted disease (STD) epidemic in Western Europe [is] a result of cultural Marxism" -Anders Behring Breivik "The homosexual agenda is cultural Marxism masquerading as “progress.” Its goal is to redefine the family into an appendage of the homosexual movement, seeking to transform men and women into interchangeable parts... ...The cultural wreckage, however, will be immense. America is sliding toward Sodom and Gomorrah." -Jeffrey T. Kuhner Now there's already a page on the New Left (if you'd bothered to look). There's a page on Rudi Dutschke, and one on Marcuse, there are pages for critical theory and feminism detailing the history of those movements... and those movements are not reducible to a phenomena named "Cultural marxism" - as I've stated before "Cultural Marxism" in it's common meaning today is different from The Frankfurt School. There is no page on the quote "the long march through the institutions" or whether it's been "proven" - and there's not likely to be one anytime soon. Wikipedia has a common names policy, WP:COMMONNAME - please obey it and cease using wikipedia as a soapbox WP:SOAP for your unproven political ideas. Also, please read through and respect this administrative decision before engaging further: AfD on this subject. If you have a problem with "working class people" becoming "intellectuals" - please discuss it on a political forum - and leave it off wikipedia. This is not a place to simply spout your personal viewpoint. --Jobrot (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Jobrot I understand you have no real arguments and try to get under my skin and that You want to use Wikipedia to make propaganda about Your unproven political ideas. That the "Long March through the Institutions of Power" did take place is a matter of fact that also the left wing [normally] acknowledges. Pls read "The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America" by Roger Kimball. I can give You quite a large reference list on the subject. Its not a matter of "movements are not reducible". Its about combining critical theory from the Frankfurt School with the New Left, because it is in many ways the one and same movement divided into two phases. Without the Frankfurt School there would be no New Left as we know it. You might argue with some of the conclusions of individual's who advocates the theory, just as I can argue with what the left says about capitalism, but that does not make capitalism a "conspiracy theory". You mix cause and effect. Can we agree that the central issue is the "Long March"? If it did take place, then culture marxism is not a "conspiracy theory"? From the article itself: "Frankfurt School critical theory particularly influenced some segments of the left wing and leftist thought, particularly the New Left. Herbert Marcuse has occasionally been described as the theorist or intellectual progenitor of the New Left. Their critique of technology, totality, teleology and (occasionally) civilization is an influence on anarcho-primitivism. Their work also heavily influenced intellectual discourse on popular culture and scholarly popular culture studies. Kaffeburk (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia does not use original research, which has been explained to you before. To claim that the Frankfurt School's influence amounts to Cultural Marxism makes about as much sense as claiming that The Heritage Foundation is the head of some "Cultural Birchism" that includes the Tea Party, the Sovereign citizen movement, Timothy McVeigh, Josh Duggar, and the Westboro Baptist Church. Shared influences only mean shared influence -- nothing else on its own. You need to properly cite multiple published mainstream academic sources (at least as many are as in this article) which explicitly document the supposed existence of Cultural Marxism. That does not include Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is written by volunteers. This does not mean grabbing citations from our site without actually having looked at the book, as you clearly did earlier. Start with a book that you've actually read instead of looking for stuff that's already here that you've obviously never read. Citations are not magical words, they represent work on your part. It is not our job to read Roger Kimball, it is your responsibility to state which page numbers contain passages that explicitly support your claims. If you are not willing to do your end of the work to provide actual citations, there is no reason for this to continue. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Ian Thomson i will provide what You ask for, but first let me clarify a few things: (1) A conspiracy theory requires a conspiracy. Wiki: "secret planning and deliberate action". Where is the accusations from Buchanan and and the others about a conspiracy? On the contrary, open sources are quoted. Please define the conspiracy. (2) The nature of cultural marxism. The concept is quite simple. Its the ideology of the Frankfurt school combined with the new left and their political impact on the western world viewed from a conservative perspective. Why should conservative views of the new left be ridiculed and called a conspiracy? The left can have views about conservatives without accusations of conspiracy. (3) Independent sources. Jérôme Jamin, part of the New Left according to french sources. Chip Berlet, A member of the 1960s student left. Born in the 1940's went to university during the 1960's George, John; Wilcox, Laird M. (1996), American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists & Others, Prometheus Books, p. 295, ISBN 978-1-57392-058-2 Martin Jay, part of the new left. Born in the 1940's went to university during the 1960's Author of books who promote Ardno, Lukács and the Frankfurt school version of marxism. Author of "1985 Permanent Exiles: Essays on the Intellectual Migration from Germany to America". A book about how the founders of the Frankfurt School had to flee from Germany to America! Can the sources possibly be more Non-independent? Kaffeburk (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC) More on Martin Jay: The Discourse of Domination: From the Frankfurt School to Postmodernism page 22 by Ben Agger: "...largely because he[Martin Jay] sympathizes with the philosophical and political oriantation of the [Frankfurt] school..." https://books.google.co.th/books?id=-dpqBXt-FosC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=Martin+Jay+1960s+student+left&source=bl&ots=oAePOOCsNl&sig=k_YiYfHWkI9v6ar0KcweSg7wVhM&hl=en&sa=X#v=onepage&q=Martin%20Jay%201960s%20student%20left&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaffeburk (talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Those sources do not mention Cultural Marxism, so concluding anything to that effect is original research, which we do not use, which has been explained to you repeatedly. You are still obviously just looking for citations in articles for books you never even touched to use as some sort of magic word to win the argument. You clearly have no idea what you're doing here and are not interested in learning how things work here. If you are not interested in learning how things work here, you're welcome to blather elsewhere. If you are incapable of being of use to this article, I see no reason to let this continue. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Those sources proves that the conspiracy theory is based on Non-Independent sources witch is a violation of Wikipedia's Guidelines. Don't worry, i have a ton of sources on Cultural Marxism coming up soon. Kaffeburk (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Regarding that Cultural Marxism is real. This is an introduction to the subject: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4 Quotes: Douglas Kellner, professor in philosophy: ”Cultural Marxism was highly influential throughout Europe and the Western world, especially in the 1960s when Marxian thought was at its most prestigious and procreative. Theorists like Roland Barthes and the Tel Quel group in France, Galvano Della Volpe, Lucio Colletti, and others in Italy, Fredric Jameson, Terry Eagleton, and cohort of 1960s cultural radicals in the English-speaking world, and a large number of theorists throughout the globe used cultural Marxism to develop modes of cultural studies that analyzed the production, interpretation, and reception of cultural artifacts within socio-historical conditions that had contested political and ideological effects and uses.” Dennis Dworkin, professor "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain:" ”British cultural Marxism grew out of an effort to create a socialist understanding of Britain which took into consideration postwar transformations that seemed to undermine traditional Marxist assumptions about the working class and that questioned the traditional Left’s exclusive reliance on political and economic categories.” Richard R. Weiners (professor in Political Science) "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" ”A thorough examination and analysis of the tensions between political sociology and the culturally oriented Marxism that emerged in the 60s and 70s is presented in this volume. In order to create a strikingly original synthesis, Weiner considers the work of theorists as diverse as Jurgen Habermas, Claus Offe, Alain Touraine, Anthony Giddens and Alvin Gouldner, many of whom fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement.” Encyclopedia of Social Theory / under Cultural Marxism and British Cultural Studies: ”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 and society had predecessors in a number of currents of cultural Marxism. [Jag utelämnar här en lång lista namn som innefattar bl.a. Gramsci och Adorno.] 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.” Kaffeburk (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC) If anyone have access to this book by Paul Edward Gottfried its relevant. "The Strange Death of Marxism: The European Left in the New Millennium" The book advocates that the left denies its existing roots to marxism, and try to present itself as something that developed separately from both marxism and the Soviet Union. That's why they attack the concept of "cultural marxism" so fierce, because it binds them to the roots they try to hide. Kaffeburk (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Possibility of a Conspiracy Theory arbitration case

It's been raised that a possible arbitration case may be on the horizon for this article (in regards to the label conspiracy theory), so I'd like to point any interested party to this partial section of WP:FRINGE:

Main page: Wikipedia:Fringe theories

"Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, [ie. The Frankfurt School] a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,"

Just making sure everyone is aware of the policy in question on this subject (this being an article about a mainstream idea) and WP:FRINGE applying to topics already deemed conspiracy theory by Wikipedia (and in this case by a 3 panel WP:UNINVOLVED admin decision). --Jobrot (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

-

There is no "reliable, published sources" in the article regarding "cultural marxism" being a conspiracy theory. None of the three scholars that is cited does have a neutral point of view. They are not independent sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Independent_sources). Its like citing nazis about the holocaust. All three are part of the "New Left" and highly bias:

(I leave the french out)

(1) Chip Berlet, A member of the 1960s student left. Born in the 1940's went to university during the 1960'

(2) Martin Jay, part of the new left. Born in the 1940's went to university during the 1960's. He sympathizes with the philosophical and political orientation of the [Frankfurt] school" according to Ben Agger. (The Discourse of Domination: From the Frankfurt School to Postmodernism page 22)

Further, there is no details or any kind of evidence of this conspiracy. Where did William Lind, Pat Buchanan, Paul Weyrich and all the others meet and create this plan? Who is the ringleader? How many people is involved is this plot? Is there any proof at all on "secret planning and deliberate action" to smear the left? All I see it that the left is furious because their marxist roots are exposed. Kaffeburk (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Fringe Theory? Google hits on "Frankfurt School 550,000; on "cultural marxism" or "cultural marxist[s]" 500,000. Almost the same number. There is also a list of professors who them self are left who uses the term "cultural marxism" in academic work. Kaffeburk (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

-

Where did William Lind, Pat Buchanan, Paul Weyrich and all the others meet and create this plan? Who is the ringleader? ...well, Paul Weyrich employed William S. Lind at The Free Congress Foundation during the 1990s Culture Wars when the theory of 'Cultural Marxism' was first described as an attempt at "destroying Western culture and the Christian religion" (to quote Lind directly) this was one of the first times 'Cultural Marxism' was aggrandized in this fashion (prior to that it was a relatively obscure term with a rather sedate academic meaning). Through out the 90s Weyrich was extolling the virtues of his new theory to other conservative think tanks in the form of writing letters (here's one to the The National Center for Public Policy Research [1]). Lind (still working for Weyrich) also gave lectures of their version of 'Cultural Marxism' where ever he could (including at least one holocaust denial conference). All of this is documented. It's not unreasonable to assume that Pat Buchanan being an American conservative politician himself interacted with these two either via a conference, via his own Think Tank, or in person. But then again Buchanan also appears in James "androgynous Jews run Hollywood" Jaeger's "documentary" (not the one on ChemTrails, the one on Cultural Marxism and fiat currency) - so maybe Buchanan picked the theory up there. Who knows. If you have any specific quotes you're interested in introducing, we can discuss the sources and whether they'd be appropriate for this article - keep in mind the bulk of the article is about The Frankfurt School (what it actually stood for and wrote), and only one section is about the related Conspiracy theory. --Jobrot (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That academics with similar views collaborate is not equal to an conspiracy. Wikipedia is about facts, and it is not a fact that "cultural marxism" is a "conspiracy theory", it's an opinion and should be presented that way. Its not exactly consensus about this, is there? (understatement) On the contrary, the few academics that push the conspiracy theory have all a strong bias. Kaffeburk (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from using this talk page further unless you have a SPECIFIC suggestion of text you want either included or subtracted from the article. A suggestion which can be discussed in an EDITORIAL fashion in line with WP:RS. Thank you. --Jobrot (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Also please learn how to indent your comments properly as per the WP:TPG talk page guidelines. --Jobrot (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

untitled

This makes the consensus of Wikipedia look suspiciously bias and subversive, by denying readers the ability to read certain articles relating to criticism of liberal politics. Is this not an electronic encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.Fosner (talk • contribs) 18:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

As the comment above yours notes "Wikipedia project is not a soapboax". --Jobrot (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think his point is that it's a soapbox if you're in favor of Cultural Marxism. "Conspiracy Theory" is a serious accusation, especially when there is so much evidence to the contrary linking the thought of the Frankfurt School directly to the counter-culture of the 60's and the politically active left of today.

The article as it stands now simply isn't objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.192.122 (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Frankly I'm not aware of any reliable academic sources on anyone who self-identifies as a "Cultural Marxist" (not from my research thus far). This is part of why it's considered a conspiracy theory. Further response at the bottom of the talk page. --Jobrot (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not self-identify as a "Cultural Marxist"? Perhaps because its more and more their political enemy's term. What conservative like the term "bourgeois philistine"? Kaffeburk (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy or not, the heart of the matter.

More WP:IDHT WP:OR, really starting to violate either WP:NOTFORUM or WP:ADVOCACY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In response to Jobrot's comment: Lind says things like: "Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood)." -William S. Lind Lind is most definitely claiming a small group has taken over and "poisoned" both academia and the mass media. He claims the culture has been "stolen" and says that Karl Marx is "the man behind the curtain". "The next conservatism should unmask multiculturalism and Political Correctness and tell the American people what they really are: cultural Marxism" -William S. Lind Lind is most definitely claiming there has been a planned mass deception of the populous with an intentioned outcome. Hence; he's claiming a conspiracy. (By Jobrot) Lets put things into perspective by moving the discussion to another time and another place, East Germany or DDR during the communist epoch 1949 to 1990. In the west intellectuals claim that schoolteachers are preaching political propaganda to the children. They also claim that state television and other journalist are doing the same to their audience. They even call it "a planned mass deception of the populous with an intentioned outcome". Would this be regarded as a "conspiracy theory" committed by those western intellectuals? No, of course not. People driven by political ideology, specially by a totalitarian political ideology is supposed to do just that. To use their position in society so spread their ideology. The response from East Germany is easy to anticipate. The western intellectuals is accused of manufacturing a "conspiracy theory". Intellectuals in Eastern Germany who claims the same thing will also be branded for manufacturing a "conspiracy theory", and risk both to be put i prison or be declared insane and be forcefully hospitalized. Lets move back to the western wold at present time. We find out that a bunch of Nazis is running a public school. The first thing that springs to peoples mind is that they are subverting the children. Why? Because people driven by political ideology, specially by a totalitarian political ideology is supposed to do just that. To use their position in society so spread their ideology. Nobody would regard that as a "conspiracy theory" except the Nazis them self. We replace the Nazis with Islamist. Same story. Finally we put a bunch, or rather a whole army of Marxists in the western media and educating system. We also expect them to use their position to spread their ideology because people driven by political ideology, specially by a totalitarian political ideology is supposed to do just that. But this time the reaction is different. The logic is flawless, but the response is of a totally different magnitude. Why? Because this groups ability to spread their ideology would be greatly hampered if the public was aware of what is going on. They might even risk their positions. They would hit back with force, as we can see some academic do (but only by persons with obvious left-wing bias). We can see it on Wikipedia where editors with an obvious bias try the same trick (and a whole bunch of other tricks). But that just what to expect from ideological driven people. Kaffeburk (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC) I don't believe "they" (the subverters) are really Marxists, calling them that is hyperbole. They are social justice warriors, politically correct leftists, multiculturalists. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC) I'm sure all leftist view them self as social justice warriors, Marxist or not. Most intellectuals view Cultural Marxism as a flavor of Marxism, Paul Gottfried however think the move from economics to culture put it so much apart that it not longer can be called Marxism, but as far i know he is alone in this. What is a Marxist? Does it include someone who advocate Marxism unaware of the agenda he is supporting? Kaffeburk (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC) someone who advocates Marxism unaware of the agenda he is supporting? oh what, like there's been some willful deception of that person to get them to support an agenda rather than follow their own political compass/rationality/morality... that they've been programed with an agenda - rather than are individuals simply doing what they think is right and following their own beliefs/values? So you're suggesting some kind of Brainwashing?... all sounds a little conspiratorial doesn't it? Anyways, put down the stick and back away from the carcass, this WP:HORSEMEAT was finished at the AfD and consensus was decided by uninvolved admins. So unless you have some stunning new proof that the world is run by Cultural Marxists - I suggest you simply learn that some people disagree with you and do so of their own accord and on their own faculties. They do so legitimately! --Jobrot (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Also, that's a Godwin. This discussion is done. --Jobrot (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC) The way you handle this discussion is borderline to vandalism. You throw wild accusations around you and uses terms like "WP:NOTFORUM, WP:IDHT, WP:NOR, etc." to close valid discussions who i neither. Of course somebody can be sympathetic to Marxism unaware. The widely know term for this is "useful idiot" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot Then you fail to answer the core issue, that its totally normal and expected that if someone driven by a totalitarian political ideology and performed "the long march trough the institutions of power"; then that person will almost guaranteed use his/hers position to spread ideology. That was the plan from start, was it not? After failing to answer that you appoint yourself as the victor. Looks to me that you are violating all the rules in the book, including erroneously accuse other for just that. Is there any difference in your stance and that of Jay Martin of the Frankfurt School in this regard? Kaffeburk (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Brigading and Battleground Status

It has come to my attention that Second Dark has against my request posted this talk page to the Conservatism Portal Talk page (when clearly the Frankfurt School is not an area covered by their purview). I wished to have good faith on this topic, but my good faith advisories have consistently been ignored by this user (as evidenced in various places on this page, and my multiple references to policy, having pointed them to WP:RS WP:SOAPBOX WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:FRINGE many times now only to seemingly be ignored).@DD2K, Wtmitchell, Supdiop, MelanieN, and Ubikwit: Before this goes any further or becomes yet another already hashed out already been through repeat of the AFD on this topic I'd like to call on some of the more experienced editors (just going to go through whoever's most recently edited the page) as I don't know what to do when I feel brigaded against or what the rules are on this sort of situation (being an relatively new Wikipedian myself). Advice or opinions? --Jobrot (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

My question is: Why are you wasting your time trying to reason with this obvious POV sock? The issue was decided in a long AfD discussion. Just ignore this bs and revert the editor. Dave Dial (talk) 1:12 am, Today (UTC−4)

I posted there because the term is mostly used on the Right; this is why the page needs to be moved to its own location. I hardly think it's out of line. You'll notice that I posted it around the time of my last reply to you.Second Dark (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You said "I'd like to" not "I'm going to" - and that's exactly what my experience with you has been. This is a TALK page, not an ANNOUNCEMENTS page. You continue to feign consensus building, then chuck it all out the window by acting unilaterally anyway. Sorry, I've tried to work with you, but when you're trying to make this about ideology rather than Truth, facts and good research you're taking things too far and running counter to WP:SOAPBOX (which has been cited many times now) as well as counter to what Wikipedia is intended to be about. --Jobrot (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems this has turned into a more organized effort to WP:battleground this page. --Jobrot (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

We have some academics, predominantly conservative who that claims that "cultural marxism" is a valid concept. We have some academics, predominantly radical left who claims it's a conspiracy. Why not leave it there and present the theory and the critique against it? There is in no way any consensus regarding this as there is in theories about the fake moon landing. Kaffeburk (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You need to learn how to use Wikipedia. For starters, this talk page we're on right now - it's not a webforum. It's not a place to be used to simply discuss ideas, or talk amongst ourselves. THIS talk page, as with all talk pages is only to be used to discuss additions and subtractions to the wikipedia page it's partnered with. Please cease from using this talk page as a forum WP:FORUM. It is only to be used for editorial discussions. Likewise, please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's sourcing standards, namely WP:RS. --Jobrot (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop creating a straw man of my effort. You distort my input and try to misrepresent it. How did cultural marxism get scrapped in the first place, if not by a discussion? Im sure nobody cut You off that diskussion by accusing You of making wiki into a forum. This article handles a conspiracy fringe theory from a few biased left wing academics as if it where a fact. That's a perfectly valid topic for discussion, because it is against both the guidelines of Wikipedia and what Wiki is about. Before You lecture me on "sourcing standards" take a look at the sources used in the article that you support. They are in clear violation of wikis "sourcing standards". Kaffeburk (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The citations in the article are from academics in the fields in question (they are from the schools the article is about, hence experts on the articles topic. Much like scientists are use for articles about science). I'm sorry, this is a place to act in Good Faith WP:GF and encourage PRODUCTIVE discussion. I've already directed you to the AfD on Cultural Marxism, both here and on your user talk page - so for you to ask a question like "How did cultural marxism get scrapped" is highly disrespectful. Please listen to your fellow editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. If you continue to misuse this place, and not listen to policy-based arguments (and look into what they mean). I'll be forced to report you. Please take some time away from this talk page to read and understand wikipedia's policies. --Jobrot (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Also please learn how to indent your comments properly as per the WP:TPG talk page guidelines. --Jobrot (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't really have the time to read through this entire talk page, but I came across this and believe that the "conspiracy theory" section has little place here and should in the very least be condensed down to just a couple of lines. Though it's appropriate to give relevant academic criticism and opposing views, I'm not really sure what the opinions of Tea Party activists are doing here. In either case if for some strange reason it is deemed noteworthy, then I don't know what it is doing in this article since it seems to refer to Critical Theory over the Frankfurt School specifically. Besides, it does seem a little absurd considering notable critical theorists (Zizek comes to mind) have criticised political correctness repeatedly. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

During the AfD there were a few possible redirects for "Cultural Marxism". Critical Theory was one, as were Cultural Studies and The Frankfurt School. There's arguments for all of them housing this section, but The Frankfurt School won out as most relevant with Frankfurt School thinkers being mentioned directly in most variants of the conspiracy theory. From there variants generally proceed to either 'Cultural Studies' as the source of the "academic takeover by the left" or 'Critical Theory' - so these two terms cleave each other's prominence, leaving 'The Frankfurt School' as the most prominent/common, ergo the section staying here for now. --Jobrot (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Original page of Culture Marxism and talk wanted

Can anyone give me a link to the original page of Culture Marxism and the talk-page? The conversation regarding its deletion, where can it be found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaffeburk (talk • contribs) 12:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The conversation regarding it's deletion is what's known as an AfD discussion, or an "Articles for Deletion" discussion. It can be found here; [2] (and I believe this is the 4th time I've posted this link to you). As it was a controversial topic, a panel of 3 admins who had not edited the page ever, and also had never spoken up on the talk page (and hence were WP:UNINVOLVED) were drafted to make a judgment on the outcome of the editorial discussion found on the AfD. Their synopsis and decision can be found here: [3] --Jobrot (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way when one of the admins summarizing the decision talks about the topic being "subject to entrenched external views" this is a reference to the GamerGate community who were at the time brigading/lobbying Wikipedia and the decision making process on mass, as at the time it was GamerGate's favorite explanation for why feminists had the audacity to criticize some video games (for them [GG] such an act was not free speech, it was part of a Marxist plot). --Jobrot (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have just noticed this problem, and some things seem to have gone wrong here (not unusual for Wikipedia, of course, but this was "administrative", which makes it more serious). As almost always, the topic was "researched" by trawling the blogosphere. So, "cultural Marxism" becomes a "conspiracy theory" held by whacky "conservative American thinkers". Somehow it is even notable that "Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik also contributed to the popularisation of the term" because he used it in his "self-authored [sic!] document". Look, this happens when you take an ahistorical view of a topic, and rely only on the most recent stuff you can find online, and then only consider things written by detractors. This isn't how it should work. Breivik and other crackpots are at best "curiosity" footnotes to a strand of thought that developed during the 1950s to 1980s, and has been described in perfectly respectable publications since the 1980s. --dab (𒁳) 13:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Despite the claims of another Trans-Humanist that Critical theory = Cultural Marxism, that's original research, synthesis and fringe. Neither you nor he can simply overrule community consensus based on a flawed world view. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

-

"I have just noticed this problem, and some things seem to have gone wrong here (not unusual for Wikipedia, of course, but this was "administrative", which makes it more serious). As almost always, the topic was "researched" by trawling the blogosphere." - WP:GF --Jobrot (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism

Some time ago I read about Cultural Marxism on Wikipedia and wanted to read that page again. However Cultural Marxism is now redirected to this article which does not introduce any of the (multiple and conflicting as they may be) commonly used definitions or meanings of Cultural Marxism and essentially gives no information about Cultural Marxism at all. Anyone searching for information about Cultural Marxism and/or the contentious issues will have to find it elsewhere and will remember that they couldn't find anything sensible or relevant about it on Wikipedia. If they in addition read the bulk of comments on this page they will likely consider the entire topic hijacked or destroyed by PoV. Not everyone loses but Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors and contributers certainly all do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.102.57 (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What you read was poorly sourced to the point of being fabrication. The links drawn together and claiming to be definitive on the previous page were so tenuous as to be considered a fiction. You can still read the articles on Cultural materialism (cultural studies) Western Marxism and of course pages for the Frankfurt School, cultural studies and critical theory if you want to know more about modern day leftist interpretations of culture and society. --Jobrot (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why a search for cultural marxism jumps directly to criticism of the Frankfurt school. Surely a search for a theory should take the reader to the closest article about that theory (which will then have a criticism section). To link directly to criticism appears as heavily POV.--05:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)~

Unless the term is predominately used to refer to a criticism. Which in this case it is. Hope that clears things up for you Camipco --Jobrot (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I see there's been no shortage of ink lost on this, I'll leave it be --Camipco (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This certainly should add to this conversation: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/misadventuring-on-wikipedia/ it is painfully obvious to academics that it is absurd to hand wave away 'cultural marxism' as some obscure conspiracy idea. This is simply embarrassing to Wikipedia. Just read the academic papers that routinely use the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.131.220.34 (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have read them, have you? and with their usages varying in meaning, being interchanged with other Schools and concepts, sometimes appearing in the title but not in the body of a work, being used to describe cultures within Marxism, and not actually referring to a movement, and in fact, not even being considered Marxist (a statement made by members of the left as well as the right) - the academic usage (especially post-1980s) is anything other than routine. This irregularity of usage is compounded by the far wider spread of the conspiracy version of the term hence why modern academic usage is now changing to refer to the conspiracy version (see the works of Jérome Jamin). So I disagree with your description of it as 'routine' (as events on Wikipedia have shown, it is most definitely a term important to a conservative culture war). --Jobrot (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Term "Fascism" also has plenty of usages and meanings and contexts, yet nobody disputes its page existence on that grounds. Your reasoning is nothing else than biased excuse.89.142.240.13 (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Your analogy might be accurate if we were discussing 'Anarchism' or one of the other wide and generalist political attitudes, but we're discussing claims which seek to create the illusion of a specific and narrow unified movement. Also, if you want more reasons for the article not existing, I suggest you read through the AfD on the topic. --Jobrot (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This argument does not hold ground. There was never an assertion that Cultural Marxism was a unified movement. The phrase is an apt description of the Frankfurt School's influence on the political left and the counter culture.

Washing your hands of the indirect and direct influence of the Frankfurt School on today's political and intellectual environment and shouting "conspiracy theory" doesn't change that.

And is Jay Martin, who is a Marxist intellectual who writes panegyrics of the Frankfurt School and was friends with several of them a reliable source?

None of this holds up to Wikipedia's standards for objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.192.122 (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The phrase is certainly aimed at the frankfurt school which is why the term re-directs here. I've also responded to you at the bottom of the page, which is generally where new areas of discussion on talk pages should be created. Thank you --Jobrot (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I used that link because you provided it as evidence for your definition of Cultural Marxism. Are you saying the link you provided as evidence is invalid?

Still not addressing my points. Still have not explained why this is a "conspiracy theory." Still haven't addressed why your sources are unbiased when they have direct connections to the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory. Still haven't addressed the fact that all of the pioneers and major political thinkers of criticism of Cultural Marxism are not fringe and many have academic and journalistic credentials. Still have not accepted that not one person who uses the phrase "Cultural Marxism" uses it as a conspiracy theory. Still haven't addressed that Cultural Marxism is a description of what the left believes and is a term used by critics and describes a tendency, not a unified movement. Still haven't explained why a rewriting of the article from a neutral point of view wouldn't add to Wikipedia's quality. Still haven't explained why Jay Martin, a man directly associated with the Frankfurt School and works toward their ideals, is a remotely reliable source

I think you're showing your true colors here. I'm beginning to wonder whether or not there might actually be a conspiracy...(joke). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Dark (talk • contribs) 05:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I spent the better part of a graduate course titled "Critical Theory" reading the likes of Benjamin, Adorno, Habermas, and others, who were talked about explicitly under the banner of "Cultural Marxism," and now I come to find from Wikipedia that this is all just a right-wing conspiracy. Someone really ought to inform the very left-wing, self-identifying Cultural Marxists who occupy professorships all over the Humanities in top research universities all around the U.S. I can't speak for other countries, but "Cultural Marxism" is a normal term for discussion in American universities. To call it a "conspiracy" makes Wikipedia into a joke. blert (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

So you're suggesting we don't bother with WP:RS and just re-write the article, or perhaps even the whole of Wikipedia (the joke) without any sources? --Jobrot (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This is really a missed opportunity to redirect to Political Censorship, it would be a prime example for a contemporary use of the practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.62.204 (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

What are you proposing is being censored here? --Jobrot (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I actually don't know what the IP is referring to, but I have advocated that the term "Cultural Marxism" should direct to a disambig page. With one link to the Frankfurt School(to explain the conspiracy theory), one link to Political Correctness and another link to SJW portion of this article, to explain how some have co-opted(Wikipedias article on the term leaves much to be desired, someone should fix that) the term in modern usage, and not actually referring to having anything to do with Marxism. That may divert some of the seemingly well meaning intellectuals here trying to use 6 degrees of separation to connect Cultural studies, Critical theory and a bevy of other scarcely related terms into a hodgepodge of synthesis. Dave Dial (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a better solution needs to be reached, it's just a question of what that may entail. I find it interesting that even within the article on The Frankfurt School proper it's stated repeatedly that what constitutes it's members (ie. whose in, whose out) "may vary among different scholars" and that "the title of "school" can often be misleading, as the Institute's members did not always form a series of tightly woven, complementary projects." - even Richard R. Weiner (a source often cited for the existence of "Cultural Marxism" ends up writing about theorists who admittedly "fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement" - so to go from a group THAT loosely nit, and apply an even more loosely nit ill defined "grouping" ontop! - ie Cultural Marxism - it seems almost like a second order level of vagueness and ambiguity. I like the idea of having a solid mechanism, a solid separation of meanings in order to take some of the pressure off of Wikipedia and its editors (we are not the thought police, we're the fact police). That said: I don't think Political Correctness should play a part in the disambig. I'm of the view that the modern usage of Political Correctness comes from Michelle Foucault who explicitly denied the influence of The Frankfurt School on his thinking, and was also highly critical of Marxism. So to my mind at least that SJW section looks like a good target... and as for whatever's left here, it would be good to do some tweaking of it and make sure that it's clear for those who haven't bothered to read about the actual Frankfurt School proper that they most definitely weren't unified in their views/intentions. As the article puts it: "it is not the title of any specific position or institution per se, and few of these theorists used the term themselves." Hopefully creating that division (via disambiguation) will inspire some of the agitators to look into what the Frankfurt School ACTUALLY said. On a side note, it's incredibly nice to be having an actual editorial discussion on here for once! --Jobrot (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleting the Cultural Marxism page and redirecting the link to a "conspiracy theory" subsection? George Orwell would be proud. 71.58.1.48 (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Taking a relatively obscure academic term (which was focused in on reading and analyzing culture as a means of liberation from indoctrination), and converting it into a "red-menace" scare campaign about "the enemies within" - yes, George Orwell would be proud, wouldn't he? --Jobrot (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever notions you, or Anders Breivik, or anyone else associates with the term, it refers to the same ideological concept as social constructivism. You could at least attempt to appear less biased by having it redirect to that page instead. 71.58.1.48 (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the origins of the prior academic usage are somewhere during the separation between sociology and critical theory (where sociology was more interested in describing and critical theory was more interested in explaining) - and constructivism may play a part in those tensions. But there's great difficulty in locating the exact position of the academic term as its history has been somewhat wiped out by it's new found mass usage in the right side of politics. I am attempting to research it - but writing a solid wikipedia article that you know will be attacked by a bunch of right-wing thugs, internet trolls and detractors is more difficult than you'd think. --Jobrot (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Older versions of Cultural Marxim

Somehow I am unable to locate the older versions. I want to compare what was written in them vs. what's here now. Can someone link me?

PS: It's disconcerting that in the current form, I learn nothing about the theory itself, but it now resembles this rant-wiki (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism). It's kind of pathetic that Wikipedia is now about opinions and not facts. Nshuks7 (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Which version? The article had existed since 2006 and had gone through various iterations, you can check it here. This was the case till a self-identified Cultural Marxist decided that "Cultural Marxism" doesn't actually exist and is a "Conspiracy Theory" and wanted the article deleted a few months ago. He even put together the panel of "uninvolved" Administrators for the close. It's sad, but this is basically the state of Wikipedia right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.62.204 (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

But the Thory of cultural Marxism has existed since at least 1960. It's not a right wing conspiracy theory it's been academically discussed in universities as followed :- The work of the Frankfurt School and of Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci was particularly influential in the 1960s, and had a major impact on the development of cultural studies, especially in Britain. As Douglas Kellner writes:

Cultural Marxism was highly influential throughout Europe and the Western world, especially in the 1960s when Marxian thought was at its most prestigious and procreative. Theorists like Roland Barthes and the Tel Quel group in France, Galvano Della Volpe, Lucio Colletti, and others in Italy, Fredric Jameson, Terry Eagleton, and cohort of 1960s cultural radicals in the English-speaking world, and a large number of theorists throughout the globe used cultural Marxism to develop modes of cultural studies that analyzed the production, interpretation, and reception of cultural artifacts within concrete socio-historical conditions that had contested political and ideological effects and uses. One of the most famous and influential forms of cultural studies, initially under the influence of cultural Marxism, emerged within the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, England within a group often referred to as the Birmingham School.

That sounds more like an philosophical discussion than any " conspiracy theory "

But it can be traced to:- Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer "Enlightment as mass deception" Dialectic of Enlightenment. London: Verso, 1979, 120-167 (originally published as: Dialektik der Aufklärung. Amsterdam: Querido, 1947)

That's even available online to read if your so inclined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sistersin (talk • contribs) 09:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The academic usage of the term "Cultural Marxism" is poorly defined, and the essay that you're citing was self-published so does not meet WP:RS (in fact most of the sources on the old "Cultural Marxism" page fail Wikipedia's WP:RS policy upon inspection). Academics are comfortable referring to The Frankfurt School as The Frankfurt School, and the term Cultural Marxism is not common or well defined enough in academic writings to warrant its own page. Hence the page "Cultural Marxism" failed WP:DUE and WP:NOTABILITY (as well as other policies) so no longer has it's own page. The Frankfurt School has it's own page, and the more prevalent conspiratorial usage of "Cultural Marxism" has been reduced to a section of that page. You can refer to the Articles for deletion editorial discussion on the topic for further details of why this was done. --Jobrot (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The deletion of the Cultural Marxism article is left-wing hysteria at its finest. The term has existed since at least the 1960s, the page has been around 2006, and now it is being expunged from the record because it offends certain people who don't like the label used on them. Wikipedia, folks! Solntsa90 (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how that is different to my explanation above (which does acknowledge the existence of the academic use, as did the AfD on the topic). Of course your explanation contains much more WP:SOAPBOXING. So I hope you've got it out of your system. --Jobrot (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You guys arbcomm'd a widely known political science and sociology term out of existence is what you did. Solntsa90 (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the article going through an arbitration committee. --Jobrot (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this even a serious statement? You were heavily involved every time this article has come under arbitration, have camped out here FOR YEARS, threaten people who want to change it, and now have had the page locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.169.204 (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:DIFFs or bust. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

-

I think your errant usage of a Wikipedia technical term is confusing the situation. An Arbitration Committee or arb-com is a specific apparatus of Wikipedia's bureaucratic structure. I think what you're talking about is the fact that the topic (and previous page) "Cultural Marxism" (now reduced to a section of the Frankfurt School page) went through an Articles for Deletion discussion contained in this link. What you might not realize is that as with the rest of Wikipedia this process too was guided by Wikipedia's sense of editorial consensus. Namely that the admins said to be judging the outcome - were merely REPORTING the consensus they perceived. A consensus brought about through argumentation.

It's like this, if you argue I'm actually a dog (On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog), and I say, "No! That's a ridiculous argument! We all know dog's can't type yet here I am typing!" - and your response is to simply reittrate "No that user is actually a dog" - then you can't be said to have progressed your argument at all. So the discussion hasn't moved past my refutation of your statement. This is essentially what happened during the Articles for Deletion discussion. Editorial consensus requires that arguments and refutations be addressed. The admins were only in charge of working out how far the argument had got, and where it ended. If you read their statement this is made clear at the end of the second paragraph. I hope that clarifies some things for you: 1) That no arbitration committee was involved, and 2) that editorial consensus was the focus of that decision making process. --Jobrot (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been gone the past few months because I've moved and have a different job. I see things haven't changed much. At this point the section needs a NPOV tag. Enough editors have come hear with differing opinions that it's completely warranted by Wikipedia's rules. I've put one there but the page is locked. I don't see any real way to improve this page short of arbitration. I'm perfectly comfortable with that, so if we can't at least get a tag I'll inform the admins that this is necessary. You still don't seem all that interested in discussion from what I've reviewed on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Dark (talk • contribs) 22:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh feel free to "inform the admins", and no, I'm not interested in your type of discussion. I'm only interested in discussion about editorial changes to the article. I'll probably just delete any NPOV tag you apply if it doesn't meet NPOV requirements:

Main page: Wikipedia:NPOV dispute

"Drive-by tagging is discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag."

"...clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why."

"POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas." --Jobrot (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Pov-pushing is exactly what you're guilty of. I've tried to work with you. You've refused. You've refused everyone who has had a different point of view for the last six months, and have just threatened edit warring. It's going to have to go to arbitration. If you'd like to inform them yourself, do so. If not I'll just do it in a few day.sSecond Dark (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism is a WP:FRINGE theory, and the current section meets the requirements of Wikipedia policy. However there are various places you can take your complaints and content-objections (whatever they may be, as secretive as they are), and I'd encourage any third party interest in the matter. I'm not interested in having yet another political discussion with you. Until then I'm removing the tag for the reason stated above: "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." - Thank you, and good luck! --Jobrot (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Having tried to resolve this issue here by explaining the relevant policies, and re-affirmed to you on many past occasions that this talk page is for EDITORIAL discussions, and not merely for posting your political opinions, I must now report you for edit warring. --Jobrot (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

...and now you've gone and violated WP:3RR. I'm going to revert one more time (approaching 3RR myself), if you revert again I'll leave it in the hands of the admins. This does not improve your situation, I suggest you stop and follow an alternate course of action. Perhaps look into which notice board you want to raise the NPOV issues with (perhaps the NPOV notice board, or as you say arb com - or you could have the decision to review the previous article deletion reviewed if you like. You could try all 3 if you like). --Jobrot (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh the irony of you claiming I won't discuss things on the talk page (as you can see, I've made various comments to you above). So, did you want to have an editorial discussion? --Jobrot (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory?

I propose that the heading "Conspiracy Theory" be changed to simply "Cultural Marxism" since "conspiracy" is emotionally charged language and proponents and critics of the idea of Cultural Marxism don't consider it a conspiracy by any reasonable definition of the word, including Wikipedia's.

The left wing notion that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory can be addressed in the body of the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Dark (talk • contribs) 09:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The evidence for it being a conspiracy theory can be found here and here, it is well referenced as well as fairly self evident from the quotes given in those pages that key proponents believe Jewish Marxists do any number of things from running Hollywood to running Academia. Please don't feign to seek editorial consensus only to go ahead an act unilaterally when you get impatient. It shows a lack of good faith editing. We are not lapdogs here to run on your schedule. As I stated earlier, gaining consensus can take quite some time. Please give others time to respond to your inquiries. Wikipedia is a community based editing platform, not a personal WP:SOAPBOX for individual users acting on their own as judge and juror of facts. All changes to pages have to be well referenced. We're not here to add our own personal opinions to the page off the tops of our heads. We're here to quote people from the hierarchy of sources (with academia being at the top of that hierarchy). So make sure to find sources for any more changes you unilaterally undertake or else I will be forced to report you. It has to be SOMEONE ELSES words, cited in a reference. NOT YOUR OWN SPIN ON THINGS. For the last time: WP:RS WP:V and WP:OR or else it will just be a matter of ideological WP:SOAPBOX WP:BATTLEGROUND vandalism. --Jobrot (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Your sources do not justify your argument.

For one thing, who decides who gets to be a "key proponent"? Is Rush Limbaugh a "key proponent" of the term "sound bite" just because he originated the term? (it is now a commonly used term in media circles)

From your own page, to be a systemic conspiracy theory, it must involve, "a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions." There is no single organization and no plan. Cultural Marxism refers a set of ideas: it is synonymous with the ideas of the Frankfurt School and it's derivatives. There are no secret meetings. Cultural Marxism is not planned or joined: it is taught. In a public classroom. It is simply a descriptor (albeit one meant pejoratively) of the sorts of ideas taught in Gender Studies courses.

Also, your page is filled with weasel words/phrases like "can be seen as". Your sources only, at best, show somebody sees A as B, but really, that tells us nothing of relevance, since anything can be seen as anything by anybody. The question is: what is it really?

I think you start to get to the heart of the matter though, in your final paragraph:

The term's emphasis on Culture, is in direct conflict with the view that Marxism focuses on Historical Materialism as it's mode of analysis. Making a "Cultural" Marxism, an oxymoron.

I think conservative intellectuals who use this term would agree with you that Karl Marx would be absolutely appalled at the nonsense spouted by these so-called Marxists. But Marxists they are, because they called themselves Marxists, not because we could prove that they embody any sort of "true spirit of Marxism" in any sense. --BenMcLean (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It has become abundantly clear that you've turned this page into a personal project to express your own views.

I'll go through this one question at a time and one edit at a time.

Question 1: Why is adding an edit clarifying that a left wing source is left wing vandalism?

69.254.192.122 (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts, and it's not up to you to decide someone else's political viewpoint for them. It's up to them, you just report it. Likewise it's up to the reader if they so find themselves interested in a particular quote reported within a wikipedia page they should be allowed to come to their own conclusions, we're just here to report. Hence my continually pointing you towards WP:SOAPBOX. We're not here to decide what people's viewpoints are, we're here to report what they declare themselves to be. This is going to be a crucial point for you, as you'll need to find sources for "Cultural Marxists believe X" or "Y is a Cultural Marxist". SOURCES. SOURCES. SOURCES. Get it drilled in. SOURCES. --Jobrot (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Question two: Are you disputing that the source I've called left-wing is not left-wing and does not self-identify as left wing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Dark (talk • contribs) 15:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as I've JUST finished taking the time to explain to you ONCE AGAIN that yes - yes you do need to find sources that state your opinion, rather than simply unilaterally adding your own opinion to articles without any care for editorial consensus (which is currently against you) - then yes, yes I AM going to dispute that. I'm going to dispute that because I just finished telling you in good faith that wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FACTS - and FACTS NEED SOURCES... and YOUR OPINION IS NOT A SOURCE FOR WIKIPEDIA. WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:SOAPBOX WP:RS. Nothing personal, this is just how Wikipedia works - hence my backing up my opinion with WIKIPEDIA POLICY. I've explained this to you multiple times, and told you to have some patients but you just keep eschewing my help. I may have to report you for nuisance editing if you continue to ignore Wikipedia policy and process. I feel I'm being very fair to you, and have taken A LOT of my time to explain this to you. I've given you a fair chance now over several days. What happens next is up to you. --Jobrot (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

What you say here is very telling, and I think demonstrates why some people have a problem with your comments. You are suggesting that they "... find sources that state your opinion, rather that simply unilaterally adding your own opinion ..." Shouldn't they just be finding sources and reporting on them? Aren't you suggesting cherry-picking to those that disagree with you, with the implication that you are doing this yourself? You are using a lot of your time for this, and while you might have some decent arguments and facts on your side, it's clear that your point of view is not neutral. I would recommend spending time on something more productive, and recommending that a more neutral editor take their time to monitor this and related pages. Otherwise you're going to upset a lot of people and go grey early. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.252.14.210 (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am suggesting people have sources if they want to add to Wikipedia. No I've not "cherry picked" any sources, as MOST (almost all in fact) of the section was NOT written by me (yep, so far I've only added/included one source). All I've done to the section in question was to add the Jérôme Jamin quote at the end, and change the title from "Conspiracy Theory" to "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory"... the entire rest of the section was written by other Wikipedians. My main work here has been on the talk page, making sure those adding to the section do so in a way that meets Wikipedia's policies, particularly WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. --Jobrot (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You provide no evidence here that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory. All the sources you cite are from left-wing outlets, frequently from critical theorists themselves (ex. Jason Wilson, Martin Jay) or discredited conspiracy theorists like Chip Berlet. This section is merely propaganda intended to silence critics of the left.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.63.111.46 (talk • contribs)

Even if that were true (and you weren't just labeling anyone you disagree with as "left-wing"), that's like saying we can't cite Jewish authors in the Blood libel article. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

-

Chip Berlet writes ABOUT conspiracy theorists (descriptive), which is diffferent from BEING a conspiracy theorist (prescriptive). A sample of his work (which is very reasonable) can be found here: [4]. As for Lind declaring himself a conspiracy theorist, this is not likely to happen as he actually believes in what he's written. However there are plenty of secondary sources describing Lind's ideas as conspiracy theories (from both the media and academia [See Jérôme Jamin]) and they are included in the section in question. I've also made the case on this very talk page that Lind DOES talk about Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy. I'll paste some direct quotes from him, and highlight what I believe shows that he is intending to convey the notion of a conspiracy (and obviously others have continued this idea with talk of a "hidden agenda"):

"The next conservatism should unmask multiculturalism and Political Correctness and tell the American people what they really are: cultural Marxism" -William S. Lind

"Its goal remains what Lukacs and Gramsci set in 1919: destroying Western culture and the Christian religion. -William S. Lind (strange that Lukacs would attempt to destroy his own society)

"The next conservatism needs to reveal the man behind the curtain - - old Karl Marx himself." -William S. Lind

"Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood)" -William S. Lind (living in Hollywood isn't the same as being a part of the movie industry, and nothing of the sort is mentioned in any bio of any member of the Frankfurt School.)

This all fits into Michael Barkun's "second type" of conspiracy theory - the "Global Systemic" type:

Main article: Conspiracy theory

Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. While the goals are sweeping, 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, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.

So that the relevance of Barkun's description is more clear for you, I'll just insert Lind's ideas and words into Barkun's description - as to make it more apparent:

Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world [The Media, Academia, Hollywood and ultimately America]. While the goals are sweeping ["destroying Western culture and the Christian religion"], the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization [The Frankfurt School] implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions [Academia, the media and Hollywood]. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.

I hope that clears it up for you. --Jobrot (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

But the Frankfurt School isn't an organization! It is a school of thought! And conservative intellectuals are quite aware of this. They aren't stupid, despite your fantasies.

The Institute for Social Research is an organization, but nobody maintains that it is a powerful conspiracy organized to covertly influence public policy! Certainly not any of the people you've cited IMO. This is a total straw man you've made up! --BenMcLean (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I've used Lind's own words to make my case (which you can read in multiple threads on this page), and there are only quality WP:RS references within the section in question. --Jobrot (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You've taken all kinds of random stuff out of context and sewed it together. --BenMcLean (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe I have. --Jobrot (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

As for your other complaint - this is from the current article:

"Which "theorists" to include in what is now called the "Frankfurt School" may vary among different scholars. Indeed, the title of "school" can often be misleading, as the Institute's members did not always form a series of tightly woven, complementary projects."

Also from the current article:-

"The term "Frankfurt School" arose informally to describe the thinkers affiliated or merely associated with the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research; it is not the title of any specific position or institution per se, and few of these theorists used the term themselves."

So get a grip and look at the actual data in front of you before accusing your fellow editors of bias. --Jobrot (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It follows from what you quoted that Cultural Marxism does not fit the definition of a systemic conspiracy theory, because, "it is not the title of any specific position or institution" and a systemic conspiracy theory needs a single organization to fit the definition. --BenMcLean (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't, as I was quoting from the Wikipedia page about The Frankfurt School which concerns the facts of the matter and not some conspiratorial conception of "Cultural Marxism" that seeks to paint The Frankfurt School as a unified force to blame for the downfall of western civilization. Thus MY conception of the Frankfurt School and Wikipedia's conception of the Frankfurt School and Academia's conception of the Frankfurt School all disagree with the conspiracy version of it. This is what I'm trying to show you (the massive consensus AGAINST deeming "Cultural Marxism" an existing/unified "ideology". I'm trying to show this disparity in your understanding by using the facts of the matter as they are presented on The Frankfurt School page. If you wish to try to construe these facts into some kind of unified and ongoing social movement or ideology - that's your error to make, but I will not help you make it, and will do everything I can to prevent you from making that error. Social change just isn't that simple. --Jobrot (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)