Talk:Frankfurt School/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

FRINGE

I'd just like to remind editors working on this page of some salient points:

  • The Cultural Marxism section of the Frankfurt School page qualifies as WP:FRINGE as per what the three WP:UNINVOLVED admins wrote in their closure discussion for the previous Cultural Marxism page.
  • There is already a CONSENSUS on the title and description of the current Cultural Marxism section. It can be found here. If your interest here is in changing that title description, you would need to form another consensus.
  • The Frankfurt School specifically criticized the Soviet system (with Adorno calling them fascists, and Marcuse writing a book of criticism leveled at them) and there are no academic sources that claim they supported a Marxist or Soviet take over of the west.
  • The Frankfurt School were western academics operating within western academic structures, and discussing theories from western traditions.

All of this is within the mainstream academic viewpoint of The Frankfurt School.

As WP:FRINGE is in play the for the Cultural Marxism section; the inclusion of any non-academic sources must be backed up with academic sources, as that's how WP:DUE operates under WP:FRINGE. No policy acts alone, and all of Wikipedia's policies relate to each other in order to create encyclopedic content. --Jobrot (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information Jobrot. However I think in light of your strange behaviour in protecting this page in its current form we need to look at these issues again. From recent posting I can see there is a consensus for this. Maybe we need to declare you 'too interested' in this page. Quoting wikipedia and then making weak points unrelated to what you have quoted is NOT the Wikipedia way. I'm sure you'd have no objection to this if you weren't overly 'interested'... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.141.200 (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, Wikipedia is claiming that Richard R. Weiner, Professor of Political Science at Rhode Island College, author of Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology (1981), is an antisemitic conspiracy nut? Prevalence (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is making no such claim.
The work to which you refer (Richard R. Weiner's Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology), is described by Google books as considering "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." [1] - and that bolded section of the quote is CRUCIAL to understanding the sources rejection. Appearing as part of a book's title does not justify a topic or sources inclusion in Wikipedia. We like to check a little more thoroughly than that. Take for example, a similar instance: Frederic Jameson's "Conversations on Cultural Marxism" - it's a book that uses the term on the cover but not within the pages. This poses an obvious problem.
This is because Cultural Marxism has been an informal term - and never gained definition or definitive usage (in fact it may have started out as an Orthodox Marxist criticism of less dogmatic forms of Marxism, hence many of these examples coming from Marxist theorists). This is part of why it's failed to find definitive usage, and these sources serve as reminders of why we have to be wary of constructing a section or an article based upon a title alone (especially if the source is described as being based on theorists who "fall ideologically outside the 'cultural Marxism' movement"). It is fairly obvious why the inclusion of theorists who fall ideologically outside of a movement can't be used to define that movement.
The current section however - is well sourced and contains far more recent references to the term's ongoing usage. I hope you can understand this and that you refrain from making further allegations regarding Wikipedia's claims. --Jobrot (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
NB Jobrot's comments above fail to address the issue and instead make a lot of pseudo academic sounding noise. A google books quote used to invalidate the work of a professor of Political science? Do we cite google books quotes now? Oh dear oh dear. The rejection of this source has no valid basis that you have demonstrated. The fact that you have decided that 'cultural marxism' is an informal term and somehow invalid is not sourced. And here: 'It is fairly obvious why the inclusion of theorists who fall ideologically outside of a movement can't be used to define that movement.' This sounds fancy but bears no relation to critical thinking. So no one who isn't part of a movement can have any relevance when defining it? Are you a cultural marxist Jobrot? And if you fall ideologically outside the movement wouldn't it be problematic to allow you to define the movement? So why are you here?
Appallingly biased nonsense and utter hypocrisy159.15.128.174 (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Marxist conspiracy theory?

Why is one editor with the help of a tame admins allowed to 'guard' this page in its current form? Why is Wikipedia doing nothing about it? And why is criticism of this idiocy being censored?159.15.128.174 (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to complain about the censorship, collusion and corruption of Wikipedia, this particular page, or specific editors elsewhere. But as I've stated before - this talk page is not the venue for such discussions. Please keep discussion here editorial and directly related to what specific texts and quotes should be included or excluded from the Frankfurt School article. --Jobrot (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The only thing conspiratorial about this page is Jobrot

The notion of Cultural Marxism has been the subject of serious scholarship for decades. A quick Google book search will return numerous books and articles published over the decades from reputable publishing houses. Sage Publications (1981) University of Illinois Press (1988) Duke University Press (1997)

Relegating the critique of Cultural Marxism to a "conspiracy theory" is a cheap trick, a means of cordoning off legitimate criticism of the Frankfurt School, and an abuse of power by Jobrot. From his responses to other folks with the same gripe, I'm sure he'll just double-down again. Is there any way we could get a non-partisan to adjudicate this matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.48.119 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I imagine if you tried, you could discuss the subject without bringing up Jobrot. clpo13(talk) 00:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


- Me, doubling down; from the first link you've cited: "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." - as I've said earlier; defining a movement using proponents who "fall ideologically outside" that movement is a problem for obvious reasons. The second book you've cited doesn't use the term "Cultural Marxism" at all... and in the third book the author specifically states "My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline" - so runs counter to your claim that "Cultural Marxism" is an established phenomena. I don't know why you suspect me of manipulation when I'm literally reporting verbatim from the source material you're providing. Quality factual reporting of sources is required by Wikipedia policy. --Jobrot (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
This discussion seems beside the point. There is no debate about Wikipedia discussing sociologists and cultural theorists, and their critics. The label "Cultural Marxism" might be inappropriate, but that isn't the debate here really. As far as I can see, the objection is to using the term "conspiracy theory" for what is, for want of a better term, a conspiracy theory. The books cited seem to discuss "Cultural Marxism" as an intellectual discipline. They are not asserting that Baron Anthony Giddens is using the "counter culture" to undermine decent people's way of life.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Yep, and I would accept any of the three suggested titles as sources of information on The Frankfurt School proper. But unfortunately the people suggesting these titles aren't doing so to expand Wikipedia's content concerning the thoughts, beliefs and works of The Frankfurt School theorists - they're instead suggesting them merely because they contain the relatively obscure term "Cultural Marxism" which I believe they want substantiated in order to propagandize around it (hence seldom going as far as to suggest quotes from these texts). This is exactly what makes this topic controversial - the fact that an obscure label is being used in order to purport false influence and intentions to The Frankfurt School - when they were in fact legitimate, individualistic and free thinking critics of Capitalist society all of whom were operating within the traditional boundaries of Academic freedom and Western secular discourse. But unfortunately not everyone has the intellectual honesty to see them this way - they'd rather The Frankfurt School be some sort of hive-minded propagandizing super-group who pioneered "Marxist brainwashing", so I'm trying to find the right use of policy to make this page less of a burden to editors, and to depoliticize Wikipedia's role in what could be described as a current Culture War. --Jobrot (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

To anyone seeking to substantiate "Cultural Marxism"

The current section of The Frankfurt School page "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" is reserved for information regarding the WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories around the term "Cultural Marxism" - if you wish for there to be a page concerning Marxist readings of Culture - you will have to construct such a page through the usual processes. To anyone planning to do so - might I remind the of this section of WP:COMMONNAME: "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." - likewise if your interest is in specifically reviving the previous page under the title "Cultural Marxism" (although I believe that page was salted and remains locked) please see the Deletion Review board here WP:DRV and go through the usual processed listed there. Thank you for your time. --Jobrot (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

you are trying to shape the debate to your terms. many people posting here seek to change this page as they believe cultural marxism in the form you are talking about is NOT a conspiracy theory. Please stop trying to drive editors away from your OWN page.81.158.53.178 (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The debate has already been, but you're welcome to request a review of it. --Jobrot (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I think we'll have a debate here.81.158.53.178 (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
particularly since wikipedia has the merit of being a fluid rather than a monolithic system. if you wish to join in please feel free, but keep calm and think before you post.81.158.53.178 (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
"particularly since wikipedia has the merit of being a fluid rather than a monolithic system." - yep, hence there being a review process. --Jobrot (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
And also a plethora of talk pages which YOU do NOT OWN!81.158.53.178 (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, technically WP:OWN is directed towards actual Wikipedia pages rather than their associated talk pages - and The Frankfurt School article's page history shows I don't try to WP:OWN it - it's had multiple editors contributing... in fact; I didn't even write most of the current section that you're interested in. Hope that puts your mind at ease. --Jobrot (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Organised group owning/censoring this page.

Yesterday an explanation of how Jobrot was owning this page was removed. No reason was given. It was simply information about Jobrot's bizarre conduct. This is allowed within Wikipedia rules.

Furthermore Jobrot has accused people of attacking him without providing evidence of this. This in itself constitutes a personal attack by Jobrot.

Here is yesterday's removed text:

Please take the time to go over some of the arguments Jobrot has made in the past. This poster is clearly not willing to engage in a subtle and nuanced discussion. One particularly disheartening example is dismissing an academic text on Cultural Marxism by a professor of Political science on the basis that some of the people mentioned in the text were not within the 'movement'. By this rationale any academic text citing thinkers outside the movement can be discounted totally. It is ridiculous pseudo intellectual nonsense.
Furthermore Jobrot, without admin status, admits to guarding this page and regularly issues 'warnings' to other posters. It is clear Jobrot feels themselves able to wield the power of more senior users.
All this goes on under the sagely nodding heads of tame admins.
There is clearly an outside group protecting this page in its current form with Jobrot doing the donkey work.
So... thinking about it... the first things we need to do are
1) Add a disputed NPOV tag. Jobrot removed this without consensus a while ago.
2) Open an investigation into whether a particular user is 'owning' this page.

If we could please get someone higher up involved here. we need to start checking IP addresses and posting patterns.86.169.243.212 (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

As stated earlier "Feel free to complain about the censorship, collusion or corruption of Wikipedia, this particular page, or specific editors elsewhere. This talk page is not the venue for such discussions. Please keep discussion here editorial and directly related to what specific texts and quotes should be included or excluded from the Frankfurt School article."
Also there are rules to applying an WP:NPOV tag. These rules are in place to avoid people using NPOV tags for disruptive reasons (ideological, personal or otherwise), as well as to avoid "drive by taggings".
Essentially you have to WP:SUBSTANTIATE whatever claims you're making (this policy is also made clear under WP:DRIVEBY) before you can slap an WP:NPOV tag on anything. Hope that helps. --Jobrot (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Just to confirm: discussion about the content of the Frankfurt School page absolutely and completely belongs on the Talk page for the Frankfurt school.
I believe one user (Jobrot) unilaterally removed the NPOV tag. It's posted above. It would be useful if he stopped trying to own the page.
I note there are pages and pages of substantiation above. Please take another look. What I don't see is one user (Jobrot) substantiating the personal attacks he claims to have suffered.
Remember, posting without reacting to what is written is basically redundant.
I hope all of that helps.
Anyway, Jobrot aside. Let's commence a discussion about how we can restore some sort of dignity to this page. I suggest we begin by going over all the sources we can use to decide whether Cultural Marxism is a 'legitimate thing' or a 'non existent paranoid theory'. Please feel free to offer changes or refinements to the terms offered.
From this fundamental base we can move on to an informed position rather than the current Wikipedia flashmob consensus.86.169.243.212 (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I am Jobrot... and no, I'm not claiming I'm suffering from any personal attacks (nor was I the one who deleted any text from the talk page), that said WP:GF and WP:TPG do state that talk pages are not the place to target or complain about singular editors - the correct place for that would be over here. Anyways, I'm not particularly interested in your personal take on "Cultural Marxism" - no offense - but Wikipedia doesn't operate from opinion alone. Wikipedia is a system of rules which are concerned with the reporting of Reliable Sources. Hence my only being interested in editorial discussions. That is to say; discussions concerning the inclusion or exclusion of very specific quotes and text on page in question (that's how editorial discussions are supposed to opperate). So if you have any quotes or sources you want to include or exclued then I'm all ears. But I'm not particularly interested in re-hashing the AfD, or discussing any one laypersons Original Research. If you want a policy-based discussion of sources, or if you want to talk about very specific content changes based around RELIABLE SOURCES that's fine - but otherwise I'm not really interested (nor is it likely that anyone else will be either).--Jobrot (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Separate from what I've said above - from what I gather your goal here is to challenge the previous decisions made about the appearance of the topic "Cultural Marxism" on Wikipedia. In this regard you might find this process helpful: Wikipedia:Deletion review. Once again, I hope this helps. Good luck. --Jobrot (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Again in that regard, a link to the Administrative discussion of the previous page may aid you: It can be found here (with the editorial side of the discussion existing here). Please restrict further discussion on this talk page to being of an editorial nature. Thank you. --Jobrot (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
It is ridiculous that the person making these accusations doesn't even have a user page.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

"Cultural Marxism" (Again)

The concept of Cultural Marxism per se is not the stuff merely of conspiracy theories. I have a book published in 1997 by Duke University entitled Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain by Dennis Dworkin (see here). The phrase cultural Marxism occurs many times in this book and Dworkin is a mainstream published historian and academic (see here Notice that the phrase Cultural Marxism occurs even in his bio). FWIW Dworkin is a left-leaning academic and doesn't use the phrase pejoratively or as propaganda. On page 4 Dworkin writes:

Possibly a more detailed picture can be drawn of British cultural Marxism by comparing and contrasting it with another Marxist-inspired tradition that has influenced contemporary discussions of culture-the Frankfurt School. Founded in the aftermath of World War I and shaped by the experience of the Russian Revolution and fascism, the Frankfurt School likewise represented a philosophical alternative to Marxist economism and Leninist vanguardism. Frankfurt School Marxists emphasized the cultural and ideological dimensions of social life; they characteristically attempted to grasp society as a "totality," and they were concerned with the disappearance of the revolutionary subject in advanced capitalist societies. Like Antonio Gramsci, they advocated a revolution against Marx's Capital, in other words, opposition to the simplistic belief that capitalist collapse and proletarian triumph were guaranteed by the laws of Marxist economics. [5]

The phrase also occurs in the title of a Duke University Press text published in 2007 on Jameson conversations on cultural marxism which I also own but am yet to read. As the title suggests, this text is dedicated to the topic of Marxist-inspired cultural critique.

This idea that simply because some conservative or fascist websites make liberal (or perhaps excessive) use of the phrase Cultural Marxism in their rhetoric that the phrase is mere propaganda—even outside of those contexts—is utter nonsense. Cultural Marxism is essentially Marxist cultural studies, i.e. Marxist critique of culture, of which there are a pile of books and journals. It is just a shorthand for "cultural criticism using Marxist-inspired theory". Cultural Marxism is a phrase current in Marxist scholarship used by scholars to self-describe their work and area of interest. It is a banality to state the that the Frankfurt School and the "British school"—which Dworkin details in his book—were concerned with Cultural Marxism, i.e. criticism of culture via Marxist-inspired theory. To assert otherwise is to propagate a falsehood. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Dworkin (as mentioned elsewhere on this talk page, which I shall now quote) - specifically states "My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline" - so runs counter to your claim that "Cultural Marxism" is an established phenomena. likewise Jameson has also already been discounted as his "Conversations On Cultural Marxism" only uses the term on the cover - and it does not appear within the content of his book, making it a poor source for quoting on the topic.
Further more I'll point out that the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" section of The Frankfurt School page in question is specifically targeted to addressing the Conspiracy Theory around "Cultural Marxism" - if you want a page on Marxist readings of Culture - you'll have to construct such a page OR appeal for a review of a previously deleted page as discussed at the end of the thread above this one.
Please make sure to search this talk page AND it's archive before suggesting further sources as many of them have already been addressed both on here, and/or in the previous AfD on the subject. Thank you. --Jobrot (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The phrase "Cultural Marxism" occurs many times in Dworkin's book, I have it in front of me. Also, Marxist-inspired critique of culture is an established field, it is a type of Cultural Studies. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
If you re-read what I've written you'll see I never claimed it didn't. I said: "Cultural Marxism" doesn't appear within the content of Jameson's "Conversations On Cultural Marxism". Hope that clears things up for you. --Jobrot (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, fine. Regardless, this idea that the phrase "Cultural Marxism" is exclusively associated with a conspiracy theory—which is what the article would lead a novice to believe—is poor form. Some form of disambiguation is needed. If a scholar such as Dworkin can describe his field of interest as "Cultural Marxism" then it is a valid shorthand with some currency, with academic legitimacy. If Dworkin can use the phrase "Cultural Marxism" without invoking some conspiracy theory then so too can others and the article should at least note that possibility when the phrase is used. Not everyone that uses the phrase is referencing a conspiracy theory or even necessarily the Frankfurt School. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I think you're arguing against the wrong person, as I've already raised the possibility of disambiguation and am in support of it - however consensus doesn't seem to agree - and in case you're figuring that with our two 'support' votes (against the two current 'oppose' votes) consensus would be equally split; I'm (for the purposes of fairness and WP:GF) also (regretfully) factoring in this previous discussion in which consensus seemed to go the same way (against disambiguation). But hey - it's proof that democracy doesn't always work! --Jobrot (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I have changed my vote, and I think you now have a majority supporting the disambiguation.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll wait a bit longer to see if more of a consensus forms, then I'll get in touch with the appropriate admin. Thanks again for responding to the RfC on this matter. --Jobrot (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering why you removed the RfC actually.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it might be due to a mis-reading on my part - for some reason I thought the template said to remove the tag after 24 hours; but it doesn't, it says the bot action will take place within 24 hours. I might put it back up then. --Jobrot (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Academic Theory supporting changes to this page.

I agree that the existence of a text titled 'Conversations on Cultural Marxism' by Jameson refutes the idea that CM is a fringe conspiracy theory. The title indubitably tells us what the whole book is about. If you go to church and through the whole service no one says the word 'church' you know you're still in church. If your family eat fish and chips without explicitly referring to 'fish and chips' you can't reasonably deny you were eating fish and chips.

I think we can close the lid on that argument.

Jobrot is clearly (though perhaps unknowingly) bending the rules of logic when he quotes Dworkin and adds comment afterwards:
"My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline" - so [this] runs counter to your claim that "Cultural Marxism" is an established phenomena" (Jobrot)
Not existing as a 'coherent intellectual discipline' is not the same as not being an 'established phenomena'.
Indeed the existence of Dworkin's 'Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain' establishes a mainstream position that CM has long existed as a phenomena and smashes Jobrot's implication that Dworkin doesn't see it as an established phenomena. Any familiarity with Dworkin or even a simple google search would have yielded this knowledge and avoided wasting people's times with this dud point.
If the rest of the archive is as shaky in its logic as the points here I think we seriously need to start afresh with a new discussion.
Jobrot, I know this page means a lot to you but PLEASE read things a little more closely and allow a little time for yourself to cool down before you post. It might even be time to take a break...81.158.53.178 (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
See this section of the talk page to find out exactly where further courses of actions on Wikipedia regarding this topic can occur. Hint: None of them involve this talk page. Thank you. --Jobrot (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Please cite an exact piece of text to support your assertion re wikipedia rules. Also Please also stop trying to derail our discussions about this article. You were happy to join in on this page earlier. Now, back to the discussion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.53.178 (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, Dworkin and Jameson have already been dealt with, both on this talk page, in the archives, and in the AfD of the previous page. Please search these areas before suggesting further authors. --Jobrot (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
And I reopened the discussion with new ideas. I hope this helps.217.42.88.171 (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

American religious paleoconservatives??

Is Cultural Marxism really associated specifically with "American religious paleoconservatives"? I'll accept paleoconservatives but isn't adding religious redundant? Also is it limited to America? How about Britain too? Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, to be specific that line is concerned with the early days of the theory - and I believe it's true. Which perhaps explains why "Cultural Marxism" isn't such a prevalent concept in British conservatism, as their current anti-immigration party UKIP simply didn't exist back in the 90s when people like Weyrich and Lind were pioneering the concept (so UKIP weren't there to be associated with it). Also UKIP only has a handful of names big enough to get into the media spotlight, so again are less able to become associated with the concept.
In contrast Paul Weyrich (founder of the Free Congress Foundation) is described on his page as being "most notable as a figurehead of the New Right" as well as specifically a religious conservative.
Pat Buchanan of course has never made any bones about his Catholic stance on key issues, and has more recently been against secularism in general, he discusses this in various youtube documentaries about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and has also done so in relation to "Cultural Marxism" on the Sean Hannity show.
Which leaves William S. Lind who often discusses Atheism in his writings as a component of Cultural Marxism and the decline of the west. Lind considers himself Christian, and his free online novel concerns a group of Christian marines saving the world from Cultural Marxism. Many of his articles about Cultural Marxism are published on Christian news websites (with wnd.com being an early adopter), and this has sadly led to the concept being pushed by other Christians elsewhere.
So it seems to me that there is some relevance there. It is unfortunate that Christianity is being used as both a political pawn and a network of transmission, but it does appear to be part of where key proponents are coming from - and it seems they've had some limited successes in this regard. I don't know if this changes your views on the relevance - if I had my way I'd leave religion out of it, and religion doesn't appear anywhere else in the section; but it does seem like these associated American paleoconservatives are driven to involve religion as part of the debate in some way. --Jobrot (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, I also just read the Telegraph blog article attributing the origin to "the Christian right". I never associated CM with religion. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I suppose "religion" is a bit of a broad term to use there - "Christian New Right" might be a bit more apt. It is after all, not a broad religious concern but specific to one area of religion, and one side of politics (could be much of a muchness though). --Jobrot (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
What about LaRouche?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I think Weyrich, Lind, Buchanan and James Jaeger sort of took the LaRouche material and ran with it - putting their own spin on things and popularizing it as a group. If you look on my sandbox I've collected quite a lot of sources that corroborate this viewpoint. Weyrich wrote letters to other conservative think tanks (Buchanan happens to run one such think tank), Lind went to various conferences giving lectures on the subject then made a video based on his lecture material. James Jaeger (who also makes videos about conspiracy theory topics) saw this video and made his own based on the same material (even misattributing the same quotes) which Pat Buchanan then appeared in - so yeah, it was a group of related conservatives who then became associated with the material by virtue of popularizing it. So even though the concept might have started out in the LaRouche movement - this paleoconsevative clique ran with it and gave it a home. --Jobrot (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Funnily enough it was a US government funded anti-communist organization that was proven responsible for the exact forms of "Cultural Pessimism" (as expressed by modernism in the arts) that these conservatives were all complaining about as being a communist ploy. The good old US government actually believed they were showing how much Cultural Freedom was available in America with the wild gesturalism of abstract modernists intend to be a response to the strict soviet realism taught in the state funded art schools of the USSR. --Jobrot (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Here's an interesting article/source on the subject: [2] --Jobrot (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Please provide at least some sources for the things you've said Jobrot. Need I remind you that Wikipedia is based on Reliable Sources and one article from The Independent is insufficient.217.42.88.171 (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:RS doesn't apply to talk pages, only to changes and suggested changes to the article (neither of which this source concerns). --Jobrot (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it would allow other users a little security, so they know you're not just making things up. As you can see above you've made quite a few overblown claims. If you want to contribute to the debate you need some credibility.109.154.105.192 (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not making any claims - merely relaying information that is already on Wikipedia. If you wish to complain about the above linked Wikipedia pages and their sources ('The Independent' for example) please feel free to do so at their related talk pages, here: Talk:Congress for Cultural Freedom and here: Talk:Soviet Realism. Thank you. --Jobrot (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

I've noticed a decline in discussion about possible disambiguation of this page. So I'm proposing some text for a disambiguation page to get the discussion rolling again:

"Cultural Marxism may refer to:
• A common conservative Conspiracy Theory - known as Cultural Marxism in which Marxists occupying Academic positions have initiated the decline of Western Civilization.
• Cultural Marxism may also refer to Marxist currents within Cultural Studies."

I think this would allow people to make up their own minds as to the aspect of this subject they're interested in. What do other editors think? --Jobrot (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I don't think this would help. The conspiracy theory is about the Frankfurt School. William Lind makes that quite specific in the article, "On the Origins of Political Correctness", cited on this page. "Cultural Marxism" is more or less synonymous with the Frankfurt School, which is why it should link to this page. Effectively that disambiguation would create a POV fork.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Cultural Marxism isn't associated exclusively with the Frankfurt School. Refer to Dworkin's Book The notion that the Frankfurt school had some sort of monopoly on Mraxist-inspired cultural criticism is nonsense. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
"Marxist-inspired" starts to sound like the McCarthyist concept of "influenced" soon enough. It's apparent to most that "Cultural Marxism" is used today not as an earnest attempt to academically trace the "inspirations" of modern ideas but to instead vilify and disregard these modern ideas (as is reflected in the current 'conspiracy theory' section). By the way; other pages WERE suggested as possible destinations for the redirect from "Cultural Marxism" - however the particular book you're discussing is specifically concerned with "British Cultural Marxism" (it never uses "Cultural Marxism" without the "British" at the start) which is a reference to The Birmingham School thinkers - who themselves it can be argued worked against Marx; advocating for a reading of The Culture Industry as encouraging the mixing of the Cultural producer and consumer classes (and hence The Birmingham School were seen as breaking away from The Frankfurt School's top-down model of Cultural production). This is particularly apparent in Stuart Hall's Encoding/decoding model of communication and is most likely why Dworkin shows a self-aware of the novelty of his claims. Just because a theorist counts Marx as one of his inspirations does not mean that all of his theories can then be described as "Marxist". This is perhaps why the term "Cultural Marxism" is relatively obscure, obsolete and rarefied within academia. Today's academics simply say The Frankfurt School if they wish to talk about The Frankfurt School and The Birmingham School if they wish to talk about The Birmingham School. --Jobrot (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that's right. "Cultural Marxism" is a very vague term, and I think that's why it isn't used very often academically. It seems to have been occasionally used as a generic term to encompass various Marxist approaches to cultural studies.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify: would this disambiguation page entail the reinstatement of the "Cultural Marxism" or "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory" pages that have recently been deleted/merged?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Nope - I was thinking the first disambig link could lead to the current section (Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory) - and the second one could lead to the Cultural Studies page or something similar. --Jobrot (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I thought this was discussed before? I doubt anyone searching for "Cultural Marxism" would want to know about "Cultural studies". Does the subject even come up in the top 100 Google searches of "Cultural Marxism"? Could be a link to "Cultural studies" at the top of the section on the target article. BTW: thanks for your sandbox work on a new article for Cultural Marxism. Raquel Baranow (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that comment shows why the "Cultural Marxism" article had to be deleted. If they're not interested in "Cultural studies", they're not really interested in "Cultural Marxism".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support reluctantly. It seems to be a peculiar approach, but it could put an end to these endless debates that reference the same books over and over again. I don't think it will help, but it is worth trying.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Undecided Even though I'm the one who suggested this disambig, I myself am still not sure it's a good idea. The conspiracy theory does seem to be primarily focused on The Frankfurt School. --Jobrot (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think as you said before there is an element of intellectual dishonesty in this debate. For example, none of the waves of people who have debated the issue have commented at the Antonio Gramsci page or the Cultural studies page. This intensity of debate (if you can call it that) is unprecedented in my experience in Wikipedia. I think it might be a good idea to get some outside input into how to deal with it, one way or the other.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, we're currently dealing with a single zealot on the subject who has access to a dynamic IP range. The recent flurry of IP users (217.42.88.171, 109.154.105.192, 81.158.53.178) who are focused on this page can all be geolocated to the UK, and all share the same ISP - so they're not fooling anyone. If this person keeps up their antagonistic behaviour I'll just inform the admins to ask about administrative tools (perhaps a range block) that might help the situation. Internet chatter on the topic in general is a bit down actually, and this is not the busiest or most volatile this talk page has been (hence all the archives). But yeah, I'd like to spend less time here next year - but I know other editors are around to defend the page, and that the page is locked. Still, it would be nice if we didn't have to protect and lock pages. --Jobrot (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Merger of Cultural Marxism to Cultural Bolshevism

There is a redirect discussion for the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" section of the current Frankfurt School page, this discussion can be found here. Until objections are raised I'm treating it as a type 1 merger, on the grounds that the two concepts are essentially one and the same. --Jobrot (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately you're not an admin so saying things like "I'm treating it as a type 1 merger" are irrelevant. I and other users will continue to feel free to treat this page as is. Please feel free to go elsewhere.80.235.146.221 (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I would like to know more about your view on the topic, do you have any links to any reading materials that might help me see where I'm going wrong on the topic? --Jobrot (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is this page so heavily censored?

This article looks like the nutritional facts list of a cola can that has had the unhealthy ingredients removed from it. Regardless of how you dress this article up, it has a very patchwork look to it as the original article has been made a mockery of. Judging by the talk section of this article already, points such as the true legitimacy of the new article seem to be in question aswell as the behaviors of a certain editor and his guard dog editing habits.

In an effort to clean up this article, aswell as put an end to the editwar that seems to be occuring, I would propose shortening the original article by removing the segment on "Cultural Marxism" and having it placed under its own article, for which further discussion may be had on the contents of said article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.194.74 (talk • contribs) 22:57, January 1, 2016‎

Which "original article" are you referring to? This is the talk page for The Frankfurt School which has never been deleted nor merged. It looks like a "patchwork" to you because it's about actual theorists rather than what you in particular are expecting to read about them.
Of the previous Cultural Marxism article, only 3 of the 9 sources cited by the previous article actually used the term "Cultural Marxism" explicitly (with two of the three cited works coming from the one author). Within the current section 14 out of 14 of the sources refer to "Cultural Marxism" explicitly and directly. So you're pitting more well researched content against less well researched content. I personally am in favor of more well researched content on Wikipedia. Both in this article, and in general. --Jobrot (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Critique of Western Family

In the section "Critique of Western civilization", the first thing should be a paragraph about the Critique of Western Family. 1936 the group published "Studies of Authority and the Family", wherein they declare traditional family in Europe (and Asia, so the mean traditional family in general) a means of oppression of the individual. Therefore family should be critised and attacked.

Who can introduce this important stepstone in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:62:4671:CED9:1163:2038:4DBC:6D59 (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The work to which your refer is already mentioned under "early influences" prior to your suggested placement. In it they discussed how "customs, morality, art religion and philosophy" are all interconnected dynamic influences on maintaining wider social and ideological structures. Considering it was an early influence for the group, and that individual voices of The Frankfurt School became more distinct and separate later on I think the content is fine where and how it is. --Jobrot (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but that doesn't deal with Miley Cyrus.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, Jobrot. Actually, "Studies of Authority and Family" is not an "early influence", but a project, a work of the group itself. They didn't receive it, they produced it. You understand what I mean? Therefore it obviously should be dealt with in the main chapter of their own "Critique" work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:62:4671:CE2A:AD45:2736:AF26:2A6B (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Published by "them" under Horkheimer, sorry if I'm resistant but I'm used to defending this page from a particular approach - the approach of those who seek to cast The Frankfurt School as some evil unified group of masterminds who were trying to destroy western institutions (such as family) when this is a completely dishonest misreading of them. So when you come here demanding a whole paragraph be devoted to a text, and your description of that text carries a certain angle - and it's your first post to Wikipedia - it makes me somewhat suspicious. Much of this article is concerned with revealing the Frankfurt School as individual theorists.
In re-enforcement of this point; I say that "Studies of Authority and Family" was an early influence, because MOST of the authors contributing to "Studies of Authority and Family" (over two thirds) are not thought of as Frankfurt School thinkers (including the Author of the work from which the title came). Marcuse, Horkheimer and Fromm did contribute separate articles to this anthology - but none are doing so as an attack on family (as you may have it). Historian of The Frankfurt School Rolf Wiggershaus describes it, it's a fragment of their work.
That said, and with WP:GOODFAITH in mind, what would you desire to be said about this work? Care to suggest some descriptive text for the article? --Jobrot (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if you had this book in your hands, Jobrot. Besides speculative or politically lobbying perspectives, I would first refer to your statement of "Much of this article is concerned with revealing the Frankfurt School as individual theorists." This indeed seems to be a futile effort, as the topic and therefore the article by definition are named "Frankfurt School", just because the participants in their own time understood themselves as members of a researching, discussing, publishing and teaching community as they started their work in the 1920ies by the Marxist Study Week and supported the foundation of the Institute in Frankfurt.

Second: The Title of the volume "Studies of Authority and the Family" derives from Horkheimer's essay "Authority and Family", who, 1931, was made director of the Frankfurt Institute. Central for a paragraph overviewing this joint work in my view would be the only partial ambiguous, but infact mainly hostile attitude Horkheimer's towards the bourgeois family: On the one hand critizising the family as the model and means of installing in the child the believe in authority and in the existing distribution of property and means of production, and sometimes in authoritarian leaders - on the other hand cherishing a liberal form of family for furnishing protection from society and an authoritarian state. However, being grounded in Marxism, the members and co-workers of the Frankfurt School, in this volume as well as in the following works, mainly stressed the legitimatory function of traditional family structure for acceptance of class hierarchy in their enemy society order, feudalism or capitalism. Max Horkheimer in "The Social Function of Philosophy" (1939): "The real social function of philosophy lies in its criticism of what is prevalent." Or, as Douglas Kellner put it more conrete, in his foreword to an edition of Collected Papers of Marcuse: "The members of the Institute for Social Research concluded that the bourgeois family and its patriarchal structure played an important role in preparing the individual for the frightful submission to authority in fascist society." (p.8 in Collected Papers). Horkheimer and contributors indeed were in a zealous quest for an explanation for the rise of the authoritarian regimes in many european countries at the time, having fled from National Sozialist Germany to France. As they were seeking a connection between the traditional marxist view and there own contemporary topic, it was quite understandable that they designed a connection between the traditional enemy, the bourgeois class and its institutions as the bourgeois family, and the newly arrived enemy, the authoritarian state. By this, they avoided other, more concrete research of mass psychology after political unrest and economic catastrophes following WWI and could continue in the general path of a marxist and critical philosophy. The problem is that doing so they came to an eminently exaggerated und extreme condemnation of traditional family structure.

Third: Indeed the volume is integral part of the School's work. Close and less close collegues of Horkheimer contributed under his leadership, where thus integrated in the community of the School rather than "influencing" it from an independent point outside. The volume published in Paris 1936 bore the full title "Studies of Authority and the Family. Research reports of the Institute for Social Research". That's all for now. Happy New Year!

From the 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."
and "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."
My understanding is that the title of the anthology is taken from Marie Jahoda's "Authority and Education in the Family, School and Youth movement Austria". But I must say I can't recall where I read that, and on the face of it, Horkheimer would be in the better position to adopt this as part of the general title. --Jobrot (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
In acknowledgement of you research and citations above, I've temporarily adjusted the heading "Early Influences" to "Influences and early works" as a stopgap measure. I would like to create a new section for "early works" and use some of the quotes you've mentioned. Perhaps have it read something along the lines of:
"One of the early works published in Paris by The Institute for Social Research was the anthology "Studies of Authority and the Family: Research reports" in which they attempt to form a critical view of culture as "caught up in the dynamism of history" with "customs, morality, art, religion, and philosophy - forming dynamic influences on the maintenance or breakdown of a particular form of society." [3].
We could continue from there with your quote from Horkheimer
"Horkheimer in particular expanded on this idea in his "The Social Function of Philosophy" (1939), stating "The real social function of philosophy lies in its criticism of what is prevalent."
I'm not so sure about concluding with the stuff from Kellner as I don't want readers to assume he's part of the Frankfurt School. It would be nice to have some quotes from other early works - but for now I think this is a good starting point. What do you think? --Jobrot (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
P.S As per the talk page guidelines WP:TPG - colons are used to indent replies to other uses in an effort to better organize talk pages and make them into readable threads (you may want to look over the guidelines for further explanation). I'd appreciate it if you used this indenting convention - and I'd just like to say - you're far more well researched than most of the new users who come here to attack this page without any interest in the actual content/material. Thank you for putting the effort in, and welcome to Wikipedia --Jobrot (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. To insert an extra section "Early works" would be good. Even better would be a paragraph "Early works" as beginning of the "Critique" section - simply because in reality it was the beginning of the cultural criticism, which became typical for these theorists.
And, please: Is it possible to express the main content of the volume in words that anyone could understand? This is supposed to be a platform for the general public and not, which is sometimes popular in intellectual circles, for fencing off the public. An explaination of the point of the volume "Studies of Authority and the Family" would have to use the two key words of the title and to point out the relation the authors suggest between them. Let's go the straight way.

I see you didn't end up learning about correct indentation for talk pages via WP:TPG. Wikipedia is not an attempt at over-simplification. There is in fact a sister project for that called simple wiki. If that's your interest, you can find the site here: simple.wikipedia.org. It's perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia to report an individuals views directly via quotes as long as you're being explicit about what you're doing. Reporting an individuals words directly is "the straight way", as long as you don't violate their contextual meaning. Which "The Frankfurt School are responsible for the modern divorce rate, and hence the decline of Christian morality" for instance - is. --Jobrot (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It should be shocking for you and fellow contributors that obviously many users could have difficulties understanding contents on WP. But that's not the point. I gave you some suggestions about the role of "Studies of Authority and the Familiy", its ideological basement and function - enjoy and use it. But only if you dare to leave the stronghold of unconditional defense of marxism. My last remark, good bye

Yep, and I've compiled a list of early works that would need to be included in an 'early works' section (unfortunately many of them were never translated):

-

  • Die gegenwärtige Lage der Sozialphilosophie und die Aufgaben eines Instituts für Sozialforschung (1931)
  • Traditional and critical theory (1937)
  • Philosophy and Critical Theory (1937)

And of course those already discussed:

  • The Social Function of Philosophy (1939)
  • Studies of Authority and the Family (1936)

-

But yes, sometimes these things take time to research and write. Thanks for your suggestions --Jobrot (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It's funny how the Far Left operates

Patriarch = Real, Heteronormativity = Real, White Supremacy = Real, Cultural Marxism = "Conspiracy theory"

But this is expected as Wikipedia over the years became a platform for socialist agitators and propagandists like this "Jobrot". Pathetic really.

Nope, Cultural Marxism; the academic concept is non-notable. The theory that Cultural Marxism is a plot to destroy western society, complete with Cultural Marxists being in control of television and the media = conspiracy theory. --Jobrot (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I gotta ask, who actually says that and believes it? I was under the impression that it was Communists attempting to subvert Western culture into one more supportive of Communism.Skeletos (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory at all!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Key christian paleoconservative proponents who did most of the ground work formulating and popularizing the conspiracy theory version of the term in the 1990s actually believed this formulation of it. Here's a quote from William S. Lind (who is mentioned in the current section) "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"
Here's another quote "conservatism should unmask multiculturalism and Political Correctness and tell the American people what they really are: cultural Marxism. Its goal remains what Lukacs and Gramsci set in 1919: destroying Western culture and the Christian religion." - it's a cold war mindset from an era that's recently past. But the cold war paranoia lingers in these thoughts. --Jobrot (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


Not a shocker, some idiots with a keyboard use loosely based information sources to prop up a page that, frankly, should not even exist. Also, you got to love the five page long backlash against this page getting little to no attention.73.255.49.47 (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, just like these other talk pages that "get no attention": like this one, this one and yes, of course this one. We truly are one of 'those' talk pages now (unfortunately). But luckily for us - argumentum ad populum arguments are easily ignored. --60.241.86.130 (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frankfurt_School/Archive_7&oldid=718007014"