Talk:Frankfurt School/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Cultural Marxism "original" definition

The section on CM currently says:

• Originally the term had a niche academic usage within Cultural Studies where it described The Frankfurt School's objections to forms of capitalist culture they saw as having been mass-produced and imposed by a top-down Culture Industry, which they claimed was able to cause the reification of identity, alienating individuals away from developing an authentic sense of self, culture and class interests.[56][57][58][59][60][excessive citations]

Regardless of previous primary topic/conspiracy theory etc debates, this is simply a false statement at every step, and not one supported by any of the, as noted, excessive number of citations. The broader, arguably original usage of the term was not "within" cultural studies and it did not apply just to the Frankfurt School, let alone solely to one aspect of FS thinking. If we're going to have this back-to-front set up, with the term subsumed into a page about an entirely discrete thing and its pejorative use prioritised over its serious use, it at least needs to be accurate. N-HH talk/edits 09:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It is much more productive if you would propose content that you would like to replace this with. Please do so. Jytdog (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's the second part of the process. Having pointed out the problem, I'll get to a possible solution when I get a moment. As you know, this page tends to get bogged down in endless debates once anything opens up, and trying to sort out the crap on it is often not an appealing prospect. There's no point proposing an actual change if people are just going to come in and argue at length as to why what we already have is just fine. N-HH talk/edits 11:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"...did not apply just to the Frankfurt School" yes; hence the inclusion of "The Birmingham School" who are considered to have developed a "British Cultural Marxism" - which is a somewhat distinct form (the main difference being that the frankfurters put high culture on a pedestal, whereas the Birmingham School were more interested in working class culture). But as I tend to say to you; this is not a topic that has a large array of quality sources available; perhaps due to the fact that the term never met large scale usage within academia (never 'caught on' so to speak). The term has instead been re-invigorated by the conservative and alt-right media; often with little to no understanding of The Frankfurt School's theories or arguments. For instance; Frankfurt Schoolers (Nancy Fraser and Jurgen Habermas) critique identity politics and post modernism; where as the alt-right tend to believe The Frankfurt Schoolers are post modernists & support identity politics. That's the nature of WP:FRINGE/conspiracy theory topics (lots of opinion, not enough fact). Look forward to hearing your proposed changes. --Jobrot (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

As ever, this has immediately gotten somewhat discursive and defensive, as I suggested it would. I posted some broad descriptions and sources when the broader question was discussed on my talk page a while back, and those are what I would look to. That said, making a minor tweak along those lines would still leave the rest of the section a mess (I believe there's a phrase about lipstick and pigs, or polish and turds). Perhaps now at least the error has been pointed out, one of the editors who is actually responsible for this mess (eg those who supported it via the RFC above) could try to sort it out rather than them expecting someone else to do it for them. In the meantime I'll just keep advising people to disregard WP as a source for information about politics. N-HH talk/edits 21:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Or you could just; write some text out for inclusion in the section. Then we can discuss it and put it in if it's appropriately sourced and editorially acceptable (ie. the proposed text is not blanking other more relevant content, and the effected section still reads in a straight forwards manner). That's how Wikipedia works. I suggest approaching edits from an editorial manner rather than a political one. Threats that you'll "keep advising people to disregard WP as a source for information about politics." don't exactly help - we're meant to be wp:here to improve Wikipedia in wp:goodfaith as an encyclopedia. --Jobrot (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Also in regards to your original complaint; the current description that The Frankfurt School was objecting to "forms of capitalist culture they saw as having been mass-produced and imposed by a top-down Culture Industry" is entirely accurate. Here is one such example of Adorno doing just that.

I believe earlier discussions on your talk page had me fairly convinced that "Cultural Marxism" was just an early deformation of the much more common term "Critical Marxism" (which may have later become Critical Theory). You'd probably have better luck starting a page on Critical Marxism as there are far more academic references for that term (who knows, it may eventually result in a merge). --Jobrot (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism

A loose Marxist movement seeking to apply critical theory to matters of family composition, gender, race, and cultural identity within Western society. It started to be a more definable with Adorno and Horkheimer that highlight the importance cultural rather than economic problems in their analyses and theories(http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803121845122). IBestEditor (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality is required and selecting information in a negative sense is to reflecting. By selecting two sources is called WP:CHERRYPICKING and is not enough to label a party Far-Right. Simplistic labelling is not appropriate and misrepresents the idea that WIKIPEDIA article should fairly represents all significant viewpoints WP:WEIGHT. Editors should take heed of not basing articles on opinion pieces from selected journalists and stating them as facts WP:YESPOV, WP:NOTOPINION. When a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution - WP:ASSERT. Also avoid falling in the trap of WP:SYN i.e. Synthesis of published material that advances a position.

Failure to do so often violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines:

• WP:NPOV (policy): Neutral point of view, by selectively presenting one point of view from a source that actually includes two or more that conflict with each other
• WP:OR (policy): No original research, by presenting a statement not supported by any source, not even the cited sourcing
• WP:UNDUE (policy): Not giving undue weight to a view, by omitting information that shows that it is relatively unimportant
• WP:SOAP: Opinion pieces. Some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this.
• WP:PROMOTION : Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment for any political view point, be it nationalist or antinationalist

Activists, like all editors, must understand the fundamental importance of "Five pillars" and must be very careful of not falling in to the Partisanship cycle. Value-laden labels WP:LABEL , may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources, which is not the case in this article. So please, no Wikipedia:Propaganda & Wikipedia:No holy wars and try to imagine yourself in your opponents shoes before calling him a facist, racist, sodomit or Far-right extremist.

By trying Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent you can allow yourself to edit an article from the perspective of a viewpoint opposed to your own. By doing so, you can sharpen and apply your neutral point of view editing skills. Try Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent editing an article from the perspective of a viewpoint opposed to your own and by doing so, you can sharpen and apply your neutral point of view editing skills.IBestEditor (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

There's already a page for Western Marxism, your source does nothing to connect the "Cultural Marxism" of the Frankfurt School to progressive or identity politics. That is in fact not what they were about or known for (hence their many run-ins with Feminism). They certainly didn't have anything to do with Post-Modernism hence Frankfurter Jurgen Habermas being THE key critic of post-modern thought.

No the Frankfurt School's neo-marxism came in the form of criticizing the Culture industry, and Hegemony - which are both already covered in the section. In doing so they may have created the space for other discussions - but that doesn't make them responsible for modern politics - and it doesn't extend or transplant "Cultural Marxism" to a modern context. --Jobrot (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The Cultural marxism section is a mess. It's long and flabby, and full of piecemeal quotes. DrVentureWasRight (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's any prohibitions on the current length if the topic warrants it; and the complexity of this topic would seem to. As for "piecemeal quotes" - another way to look at that would be; good quality sourcing without deferring WP:OR. This section has been bombarded with complaints about WP:NPOV and so using direct quotes is one way to minimize complaints. --Jobrot (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not that there are strict rules but we want our articles to be concise. It's a hugely long section given it's relative importance (low). Ideally, we want the section to describe where the term came from, and where/how it's used. Using a quote can't really avoid NPOV. The choice of quote and the author are huge. Even then, small quoted fragments of what a person has said rip out all context of what the person was saying. A quote should be long enough to cover the entire thought the person was expressing. So the quote by Jérôme Jamin is good, but the quote from Heidi Beirich "“bêtes noires”" is terrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVentureWasRight (talk • contribs) 03:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

As I and others have pointed out ad nauseam, but to no effect, there are serious issues here. A page about the Frankfurt School should be a description and appraisal of the school as found in serious, reliable and authoritative sources. Setting out the hostile and polemical views of fringe right-wing figures in great detail and how they use the term "cultural Marxism" (along with, in turn, criticism of those views from the left) has nothing to do with that. Unfortunately, due to a bizarre AFD conclusion, the content of another page was merged here a while back. N-HH talk/edits 10:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

N-HH; if a topic is polemic, Wikipedia should represent that (without violating WP:GEVAL or WP:FRINGE of course). We haven't created these conflicting viewpoints; we are merely reporting on them. The subject matter appears on the Frankfurt School page, just as conspiracy theories concerning the Rothschild family appear on their general page Rothschild_family#Conspiracy_theories. This is not unusual for Wikipedia. Most conspiracy theories that Wikipedia covers have the true believers side represented, as well as the academic/skeptical side. Unfortunately due to the lack of common academic usage for the term Cultural Marxism; most sources discuss the conspiracy theory side of the term (the academic meaning of the term not only being far less common, but also being unclear, as well as having several competitors such as neo-marxism, Western Marxism, post-marxism and social marxism, just to name a few. You're welcome to perform a WP:DRV, or take up any of the other suggestions made to on this talk page (or in the archives). My personal favourite (and the one I think would be the most straight forwards for you) - is to draft a page on Critical Marxism, and go from there. It is a more well founded term (academically speaking) and does not carry as much far-right baggage as "Cultural Marxism". All the best. --Jobrot (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The original line from Beirich as found in the source text reads; "Ultimately, this enemy [Cultural marxism] has come to embody a whole host of Lind's bêtes noires: feminists, homosexuals, secular humanists, multiculturalists, sex educators, environmentalists, immigrants, and black nationalists." - I believe this line accurately represents her overall viewpoint on the subject of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. She's a writer for the SPLC, and I don't believe this to be an attempt to misrepresent her politics or to take her unfairly out of context. --Jobrot (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Professor Douglas Kellner

Douglas Kellner is the leading authority on Herbert Marcuse, and was a personal friend. There can not possibly be a better secondary source om the subject. Here is a quotation, first in short version , and the second in a larger version:

......In view of his writings and activity both before and after the publication of One-Dimensional Man, it is clear that he fervently desired total revolution, described as a radical upheaval and overthrow of the previously existing order, bringing about wide-ranging changes that would eliminate capitalism and establish a new liberated society and way of life.

— Douglas Kellner THE NEW LEFT AND THE 1960s

... Marcuse supported strategies of militant confrontation politics from about 1965 to 1970, then shifted to the advocacy of political education and the formation of small oppositional groups modeled on workers' councils; during the 1970s he called for a "United Front" politics and the long march through the institutions. Throughout, Marcuse remained faithful to a Marxist tradition of revolutionary socialism represented by Marx, Luxemburg and Korsch, while he increasingly criticized orthodox Marxist-Leninist conceptions of revolution and socialism. Marcuse was the only member of the original Frankfurt School who enthusiastically supported political activism in the 1960s, gearing his writing, teaching and political interventions towards New Left struggles. The result was a remarkable series of writings, from "Repressive Tolerance" in 1965 up until his death in 1979, which attempted to articulate the theory and practice of the New Left while repoliticizing critical theory. Some key examples of texts that articulate the theory and politics of the New Left and that could inspire oppositional theory and politics for the contemporary era are collected in this volume. Marcuse's political involvement in New Left politics won him notoriety as a guru of the student movement, thereby creating a heated political-intellectual situation that made it extremely difficult to appraise his works dispassionately and to measure his larger contributions to critical theory....The year 1968 has been widely celebrated as the year of revolution and Marcuse was excited by the worldwide student movement that seized universities from Berkeley to Columbia and that culminated in the May 1968 upheaval in Paris where students and workers threatened the existing French system and which Marcuse observed at first hand...In Marcuse's view, the French student protest movement, like the one in the United States and elsewhere, represents a total protest, not only against specific evils and against specific short-comings, but at the same time, a protest against the entire system of values, against the entire system of objectives, against the entire system of performances required and practiced in the established society. In other words, it is a refusal to continue to accept and abide by the culture of the established society. They reject not only the economic conditions, not only the political institutions, but the entire system of values which they feel is rotten to the core. And in this sense I think one can indeed speak of a cultural revolution...In view of his writings and activity both before and after the publication of One-Dimensional Man, it is clear that he fervently desired total revolution, described as a radical upheaval and overthrow of the previously existing order, bringing about wide-ranging changes that would eliminate capitalism and establish a new liberated society and way of life.

— Douglas Kellner THE NEW LEFT AND THE 1960s

Now lets examine the first sentence in the article: "'Cultural Marxism' in modern political parlance refers to a conspiracy theory which sees the Frankfurt School as part of a movement to take over and destroy Western society." Is that not what Kellner writes, except Kellner states that there is no conspiracy involved, that Marcuses agenda was open and public? Razzham (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No where is "Cultural Marxism" mentioned in those quotes, and both Herbert Marcuse and Douglas Kellner already have their own individual pages on Wikipedia. --Jobrot (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

But it does prove that Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt was promoting "a movement to take over and destroy Western society". Is that not exactly what the current text denies? Razzham (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't; it proves that Douglas Kellner has opinions.

Marcuse was not the whole of The Frankfurt School, and writing about changing society in revolutionary ways is a very different thing to destroying society. All political types wish to change society.

Marcuse has a right to his opinions, as does Kellner; that does not a 65 year old long running hidden movement make... and as I pointed out; your quotes don't mention "Cultural Marxism". They don't even mention "destroying society"... and there are already sufficient pages on Marcuse and Kellner's viewpoints, as well as pages on many of the individual works by Marcuse (in which he critiques both communism and capitalism).

Look at this quote; these are not the words of someone out to "destroy society":

"It is indeed true that the police should ‘not be abstractly demonized’. And, of course, I too would call the police in certain situations. Recently, with reference to the university (and nowhere else), I formulated it in the following way: ‘if there is a real threat of physical injury to persons, and of the destruction of material and facilities serving the educational function of the university’." -Herbert Marcuse

The Frankfurt School were critics of Culture; and specifically of the values Capitalism could produce when applied as a Culture Industry. That doesn't make the Frankfurt School responsible for all movements that have been interested in culture. There simply is no 65 year old long running movement under the label "Cultural Marxism".

What's more The Frankfurt School has argued against Identity Politics, and Post Modernism, and were protested by Feminists. That is to say they've written in opposition to many of the movements they're blamed for under the accusation of "Cultural Marxism". Sorry; there is no "Cultural Marxist" movement aimed at destroying society; and a few lines from Douglas Kellner does not change that fact. --Jobrot (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It requires interpretation (i.e., OR) to take what Kellner wrote and rephrase it the way you have. Unless you have a reliable secondary that does that, the source cannot be used the way you suggest. In particular we assume that the Frankfurt School and cultural Marxism are the same thing. There are problems anyway with your analysis. Kellner says, "Marcuse was the only member of the original Frankfurt School who enthusiastically supported political activism in the 1960s." So even if what you say applies to Marcuse, the source does not say it applies to the School itself, in fact this is where Marcuse departs from the School. Also, Marcuse did not oppose Western Society, he opposed the direction capitalism was taking it. Perhaps he wanted to save society from the rugged individualists who believed there was "no such thing as society." TFD (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This information is relevant to Marcuse but it does not establish the "cultural Marxism" theory as correct.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Let me guess, it's just a total coincidence that without knowing anything else about you I know you're a leftist? I wonder why that is? Maybe it's because your motivated reasoning is so clear that there could be a signed letter from the entire Frankfurt School on their desire to destroy Western civilization and you'd still call it a conspiracy theory. You are a disgustingly dishonest individual. Rivalin (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The above content belongs on the article about Marcuse rather than the Frankfurt School. It is highly doubtful that he wanted to overthrow bourgeois "civilisation" since he decided to work for the forerunner of the CIA (the OSS), he and his family were hosted and sheltered by the United States throughout the Cold War until his death. Kellner's quote is just an attempt to create a hagiography for a man who was essentially an opportunist and laughably talk up the revolutionary potential of semi-anarchist kids from Berkeley. Kellner even says in the quote "he increasingly criticized orthodox Marxist-Leninist conceptions of revolution and socialism". So, old Herby was a revisionist who opposed to the legacy of the Bolshevik Revolution. The title of the book "The New Left and the 1960s" also shows that the Cultural Marxism section would be better off on that article rather than here. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism, redirect to New Left?

It seems odd to have "Cultural Marxism" redirect here, since the paleoconservative conspiracy theory regarding it deals not only with the Frankfurt School, but also Antonio Gramsci and his theories, the latter arguably more prominently since he dealt with the subject of cultural hegemony. And some of the fringe pseudo-Marxist theorists like Wilhelm Reich who actually did promote sexual depravity, were never part of the Frankfurt School and had little to nothing in common with them, other than being revisionists.

This is partly a real thing (as the article says), it is just what is more commonly known as the New Left; British and American variants; associated with revisionist, bourgeois students and their professors who were opposed to mainstream Marxist-Leninism.

What is in doubt, is whether the general depraved and narcissistic nature of modern American culture; ie - Miley Cyrus splaying her legs on national television; can be somehow traced to a grand "conspiracy" of the Frankfurt School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, as paleocons claim (highly doubtful). And whether the New Left/Eurocommunism is somehow a "Marxist plot" against America, rather than CIA sponsored astroturfing against Marxist-Leninism and the orthodox Communist Parties in the West, the latter of which is far more likely.

It either needs to go to New Left or have an article of it's own. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any connection between the two terms at all. Can you quote the sources that connect the conspiracy theory to the term "New Left" rather than to the Frankfurt School? Most of the sources we have seem to identify it as a fairly specific accusation against the Frankfurt School in particular. --Aquillion (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The New Left Wikipedia page cites Adorno and Marcuse as "Inspirations and influences" and not as "key figures", so it can hardly be argued that "Cultural Marxism" and "The New Left" are the same thing; as the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory focuses on The Frankfurt School as key figures. The conspiracy theory actually skips the new left, and basically claims "SJWs" are a direct product of The Frankfurt School (which is a very strange claim).

At any rate, there are conspiracy theorists who believe that The Frankfurt School were part of a plot to destroy western civilization. That is what this section intends to be about (the conspiracy theory which has come to be known by that name). The New Left page appears to be a more genuine attempt at understanding a specific era of leftism. That's the difference. --Jobrot (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The redirect of the term to this page and the text used here to explain the topic are both, as discussed extensively in the past, wholly unsatisfactory, because a) they both privilege the pejorative, modern use of the term over the broader historical and academic use of it to describe certain trends within Marxism and b) pretty much equate "Cultural Marxism", whichever way the term is being used, solely with the Frankfurt School. But we're stuck with it following this AFD discussion and the dogged defence of its frankly bizarre conclusion since then. However, I'm not sure switching the redirect to the New Left page would be an improvement. All these things overlap (see also the pages on Marxist Humanism and Western Marxism), but there's more to the New Left than Cultural Marxism and more to CM than the New Left. N-HH talk/edits 14:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

All the sources I've read have pointed to "Cultural Marxism" as one of three things; 1) The Frankfurt School's critique of mass-produced pop-culture within The Culture Industry (this has been the most common usage I've found). 2) The Birmingham School's "British Cultural Marxism" which especially valorizes British working class culture (and hence is separate from The Frankfurt School - who preferred high culture over low culture). Or 3) Thompsonian Cultural Marxism (which only has a couple of references) and is basically a reflection of E.P Thompson's political views. It could be time to look at doing another draft that separates Cultural Marxism as a cultural critique whilst distinguishing it from close cousins. I'd say a lot of what gets called "Cultural Marxism" today is actually a form of Cultural liberalism. This does need to be made clearer, but would once again take a lot of work. --Jobrot (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This is what I have so far as far as a draft. --Jobrot (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

What is in doubt, is whether the general depraved and narcissistic nature of modern American culture; ie - Miley Cyrus splaying her legs on national television; can be somehow traced to a grand "conspiracy" of the Frankfurt School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, as paleocons claim (highly doubtful). - I actually believe that Miley Cyrus' performance style is a product of Cultural liberalism a much more pervasive strain of thought - and that the Cultural Marxists of The Frankfurt and Birmingham Schools would have been specifically against Miley Cyrus as a case study. In general they were against the mass-production and industrial creation of cultures; and she seems to represent that in every step of her career. From being a disney kid, to creating pop-music and faux controversies as to appeal to a mass audience and maximize profits. She is the homogenization of politics into profit. To critique that, is the essence of Cultural Marxism. --Jobrot (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Sidebar problem

The sidebar is displaying incorrectly, with the template code visible on the page. When I use the source editor to look at the problem, the code is completely invisible. Using the visual editor, I can see the template but I can't fix it or delete it. Looking through the edit history, it appears as if the situation has existed for a long time, which obviously isn't the case. Could this be a bug introduced during recent system upgrades? I'm stumped as to how to fix this. Any ideas? JerryRussell (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This was fixed by NeilN. The sidebar is defined by a template file, Template:Frankfurt School, where the code was broken. Doh! JerryRussell (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This articale reads like a tabloid

By googling the word Cultural Marxism the first thing that shows up is this article that deems cultural marxism as a conspiracy theory before the first sentance has even ended. A large number of the sources are scholastically uncitable any attempt to edit them out is met with a flurry of anger from some junkyard dog editor.

It would take a fool to look at this and not see the bias, either nuke the page, or rewrite the entire bloody thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.21.230.106 (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Junkyyard dog editor here, do you think - this draft - reads as less-tabloid like? --Jobrot (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

"Cultural Marxism is simultaneously a proponent of identity politics and a term which cultural conservatives have missapropriated after confusing it with identity politics"

Hopefully I am not the only one who sees the problem here.72.83.8.183 (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

No where does it say Cultural Marxism supports identity politics. --Jobrot (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"Within more recent history Cultural Marxists have critiqued post modernism in favour of 'communicative reason' and identity politics (also known as recognition politics), in favour of redistributive politics". It seems this has since been reverted but at the time I posted the preceding quote was present in the article. Looking at it more closely I don't even know what it is supposed to be saying so good riddence I guess. 72.83.8.183 (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a fairly simple sentence to parse, and it's backed up by the sources. Jürgen Habermas is one of the key critics of post-modernism, and the source is solid. Likewise Nancy Fraser, a critical theorist and listed here, here and here as being associated with The Frankfurt School (ie. practising in the same lineage of Cultural Marxism) has indeed "Within more recent history" advocated putted redistributive politics above recognition politics. Specifically in the may/june 2000 issue of New Left Review... and she's also re-enforced that position in this more recent 2016 article. So these fairly simple sources and statements do check out as factual, and Wikipedia's focus is on factuality. --Jobrot (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The Creation of a new Cultural Marxism page.

So, I tried to be WP:bold and install my draft as a live page. This action was quickly rebuffed by RGloucester, as can be viewed in the history of the redirect page (currently occupying the 'Cultural Marxism' namespace).

It seems I have to come here and build WP:CONSENSUS before that sort of action can be taken (that said I may try again, as I'm not trying to re-create the old page, and instead am installing something vastly different). So, what do you guys think of my draft? Should we take it to draft space so we can all edit it comfortably? How many of you will vote yes to having a new 'Cultural Marxism' page? The floor is open to opinions. --Jobrot (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

My first reaction to this controversy has always been that Wikipedia needs to have a distinct article on Cultural Marxism. It's a very widely used, popular term, and it's not perfectly synonymous with Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory. And, I liked the new draft. It's a great starting point.

Is this the place to obtain consensus? Or should we be asking for a deletion review? JerryRussell (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

A WP:DRV will be my next step if a consensus can't be formed here. Also: Thanks! :) --Jobrot (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Your 'draft' is nothing more than a rehashing of what was deleted. A mix-mash of assorted nonsense coalesced under the title 'cultural Marxism' with no sources behind it, rooted in the abuse of sources that never mention 'cultural Marxism'. This article was deleted, and for good reason. If you want it undeleted, go to deletion review. RGloucester — ☎ 17:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually I'd say that the majority of my sources use the term "Cultural Marxism" explicitly - not the least of which is the Encyclopedia of Social Theory as edited by George Ritzer an expert in the field in question - and published by SAGE Publications a well established publisher. --Jobrot (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

We discussed that source before, Jobrot. 'Cultural Marxism' as used by that source is simply "Marxism as it pertains to culture", and not referring to any specific proper noun 'school of though' or any such other thing like that. There is nothing notable about this at all, just as TFD says below. This is the same canard as before, and it seems that you are a WP:SPA with an agenda, nothing more. RGloucester — ☎ 00:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, technically it's the conceptions of culture developed by the neo-marxists of The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, and (to a lesser degree) E.P. Thompson. It contains actual concepts pioneered by them, such as The Culture Industry and Adorno's idea of mass-culture as a form of mass-deception (for The Frankfurt School) and Richard Hoggart's ideas of Massification and Drift (for The Birmingham School). These were all formed in the same period, by the main two groups in question, and are all targeted towards the negative cultural impacts of capitalism on what's perceived by these thinkers as more genuine forms of culture (specifically, cultures which are free from the pressures of capitalism). These concepts are specifically about the nature of profit and capital within The Culture Industry - and are not to be confused with Freudo-Marxism (which only some members from each school were interested in, so is a separate concept). But yes; it is an actual school of thought, it has a focus, thinkers within it have constructed concepts related to it. It is a cultural form of anti-capitalism. --Jobrot (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

No one in the Frankfurt School or Birmingham School called themselves 'cultural marxists'. The concepts 'pioneered by them' are known as critical theory and cultural studies, which we have articles on, which fall under the banner of Western Marxism. It is not 'anything' at all, because no one calls this 'cultural marxism'. You are grouping people who never claimed to have anything to do with a 'cultural marxism' under that banner for no apparent reason. There is no 'school' with 'focus', with 'thinkers'. Of course, such a thing is not even described by your source, which is very clear that is simply dealing with marxist approaches to culture, not with any 'school of though' made up out of thin air. RGloucester — ☎ 12:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• It's gonna take something more than BOLD editing to undo this. Especially given the discretionary around the topic. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that, I've talked to User:Black Kite previously, and they were willing to lower the protections on the redirect given there was at the time a brewing consensus... and I'm perfectly willing to contact and consult with any other relevant admins. As per WP:CCC; consensus can change. --Jobrot (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Deserves it's own page, there's plenty of new info about it, whole reason for its deletion was political. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree - and I think the issue is still political. But the landscape has changed. Right now things like the recent Bill Nye performance is being called "Cultural Marxism" when that sort of low-culture attempt at capturing a mass audience for profit is exactly what The Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism (as a media critique) has traditionally been opposed to. So it's got to the point that the truth of this topic needs to be told. We have the facts, the sources, the resources, and the quotes to do so. So I don't think there's any reason not to at this point. --Jobrot (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that "cultural Marxism" does not refer to a topic, but is used by different writers to mean different things. It's like the term "tasty dish." It appears in lots of writing, but means something different to every writer. TFD (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That's just an aspect of the philosophy of language - the same could be said of politics, or art, or feminism, or the colour green, or any number of other topics wikipedia has pages on. --Jobrot (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Jobrot, not true, otherwise language would be impossible. Feminism for example means, "the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes." Green is a mixture of yellow and blue. Art is objects that have aesthetic value. TFD (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

That you have definitions for these things doesn't negate the fact they can me other things and have other usages to different writers. --Jobrot (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• For me the question isn't one of whether "Cultural Marxism" exists - it's after all a concept that appears in many sources, and has been associated with specific groups of thinkers. The problem to me is how to express and retain Cultural Marxism's distinctive conception. We already have pages on Cultural liberalism and Cultural conservatism and those being rather linear and generalized ideologies with set conceptions (relatively free from paranoia and conspiracy theory obsessed people) has made them relatively simple pages. However the fear and stigma attached to Marxism presents a unique case which requires a clarity of conception. I would put it thus: Cultural Marxism was specifically a form of anti-capitalism that complained about the effects of profit-based systems on the creative industry. That to me seems fairly straight forwards as well as a pungent concern of the thinkers considered to be working within this school of thought. But with that definition I believe Cultural Marxism must be kept distinct from both Cultural liberalism and Freudo-Marxism, as they present common points of confusion around this school of thought. --Jobrot (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Much as I disagree with the AfD outcome, and the reasoning used to support it since, I agree unilateral recreation of the page without some more formal discussion is probably not going to work. There also needs to be a broader look at how to string the pages on related/overlapping topics/terms such Neo-Marxism, Western Marxism, Marxist Humanism together, possibly with some other merges/deletions. Yes WP pages should be about clear topics not terms, but "Cultural Marxism" exists as a broadly understood description of trends within 20th Marxist thought to focus on cultural issues as much as pure economics (a usage which pre-date its much looser and pejorative use on the fringes of modern US political disputes; see also "Fascism", "Zionism" et al). Different writers might draw the boundaries slightly differently, as is always the case with political categories and terms, but serious sources are clear on this, despite the constant denials that any exist and the claims that when they use the phrase "Cultural Marxism", they're not really using it somehow. N-HH talk/edits 09:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Both of your sources are very clearly not using 'cultural marxism' in a way that posits a school of thought or a unified body that can be described by an article. The first one deals with 'marxist approaches to culture', which is no basis for an article whatsoever, and the second one says 'culturally oriented marxism', not 'cultural marxism'. This is the basis of the project. No one denies that the term 'exists', but what is denied is that the term is anything more than a loose description of disparate strands of thought within marxism on culture. For instance, the draft Jobrot posited says that 'cultural marxism' is a 'form of anti-capitalism'. According to who? All marxism is a form of 'anti-capitalism'. Essentially, what's trying to be done is to turn a broad term used by a select few academics that has no concrete meaning, and no ability to provide the basis for an article, into a 'movement'. This is, of course, a way to subtly provide legitimacy to the conspiracy theory, which is the dominant usage today, and nothing more. In as much as you facilitate that conspiracy theory by speaking as you are, I'd suggest that you stop. RGloucester — ☎ 12:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

a loose description of disparate strands of thought - a loose discription, yes. Cultural liberalism and Cultural conservatism - are also loose descriptions, and I believe we need to be much stricter with the Cultural marxism page. However I don't think the associated schools of thought are as disparate as you describe them. In fact The Frankfurt School and Birmingham School have a shared theme of anti-capitalism (which you note yourself is tautological to Marxism, so doesn't require a source) as well as being anti-mass-production, a theme which is undeniable in those two schools of thought (and hence well sourced). So that's what the page should focus on; a loose description of what is common between the Marxist cultural schools of thought that are commonly labelled as "Cultural marxism". Just as the Cultural liberalism page is a loose description of what is common in the liberal cultural schools of thought, and the Cultural conservatism page is a loose description of what is common in the schools of thought labelled as 'Cultural conservatism'. So why have a different set of standards or requirements for a page on Cultural marxism but not on the pages for Cultural liberalism or Cultural conservatism? I mean, my draft is already stricter and more well sourced than those other two pages. Surely it's preferable that users can get academically sourced information on what these schools were really concerned with, rather than getting misinformation from conspiracy theory pages? I personally don't want the conspiracy theorist's misconceptions and mischaracterizations to go unchallenged by the facts. Do you? --Jobrot (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, some of the content of my draft already exists in the current section, namely:

Originally the term 'cultural Marxism' had a niche academic usage within cultural studies where it referred to the Frankfurt School's critiques of the culture industry, an industry they claimed was able to reify an individual's self-interests, diverting individuals away from developing a more authentic sense of human values.[56][57][58][59][60][excessive citations] British theorists such as Richard Hoggart of The Birmingham School developed a working class sense of 'British Cultural Marxism' which objected to the "massification" and "drift" away from local cultures, a process of commercialization Hoggart saw as being enabled by tabloid newspapers, advertising, and the American film industry.[61]

Does this mean you'd also prefer this text be removed from the current section? That would be a logical conclusion from your position, would it not? Otherwise this is a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too? --Jobrot (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that you, as an editor, do not have the right to do original research. You do not have the right analyse what you see as 'shared themes' and then create an article that links them on that basis as a unified 'movement'. If users want information on the Birmingham School or the Frankfurt School or critical theory, &c., they can see the relevant articles on those subjects, which are sourced reliably and deal with the subject adequately. Placing these subjects within a frame of 'cultural marxism' in the way that you propose is not supported by reliable sources (certainly not the ones you cite), nor can the loose definition of 'marxist views on culture' support an article on Wikipedia. There is absolutely no content independent of the existing articles on the subject that can be placed in article on so-called 'cultural marxism'. The only reason this article existed, and the only reason why you and others want to restore it now, is because the term 'cultural marxism', as it is used now, presently, refers to a conspiracy prominent in certain political circles. If this conspiracy theory did not exist, nobody would be arguing for restoring the article. If it were restored, it would be nothing more an POV fork of the relevant articles, such as Frankfurt School, an attempt to frame these disparate schools of thought as a subversive 'movement'. That's the root of the conspiracy theory, despite having no basis in fact, and even if the article claims to be about the Frankfurt School, &c., the framework of a so-called 'cultural marxism' is by itself legitimising the conspiracy. Essentially, if you restore this article, forking content into it from legitimate articles like Frankfurt School or critical theory, give all these disparate strands of Marxist thought the unifying label 'cultural marxism', and then proceed to frame said 'cultural marxism' as an 'anti-capitalist movement', you're doing nothing but providing some conspiracy theorist fuel for the fire. "Look! It exists! Wikipedia says so!" Independent of that, an article about 'cultural marxism' can have no purpose, as there is no legitimate substance to term independent of the articles that already exist. Take a moment and step back. Think. RGloucester — ☎ 22:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not a case of WP:OR - the sources DO say that Cultural Marxism refers to elements of both The Frankfurt School and The Birmingham School; and those schools do both critique the effects of the mass production of culture via a profit driven culture industry.

an attempt to frame these disparate schools of thought as a subversive 'movement'. - no one is suggesting that. This is a strawman of what I'm saying. I'm actually talking about being very strict with any replacement article specifically to avoid what you're suggesting here.

articles like Frankfurt School or critical theory I don't actually believe the term relates to Critical Theory at all.

Take a moment and step back. I have. --Jobrot (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The sources do not say that 'cultural marxism' refers to anything. The term is very rarely used to refer to 'marxist approaches to culture', and even more rarely used to refer to things like cultural studies and critical theory. That the term exists as an alternative to the established terminology has been known, but that doesn't mean that a) it warrants an article separate from the existing ones b) that it consists of a coherent school of thought or as a unified movement of theorists. RGloucester — ☎ 04:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"That the term exists as an alternative to the established terminology has been known" I think this is fairly accurate. --Jobrot (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. And Wikipedia cannot go through the process of that major deletion debate, and then have one editor get up one morning and recreate the article. That makes no sense. And why did you, Jobrot, spend all that time debating other people and then do what they wanted? That's wasting everyone's time.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

spend all that time debating other people and then do what they wanted? I wouldn't do that, and I'm not. The whole task has been obfuscated by conspiracy theorists. So it's taken a while to get a handle on what the term meant prior to them becoming involved. That's all. --Jobrot (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You most definitely are doing that. Just because you have devoted a good portion of your life here arguing with conspiracy theorist, anti-semitic trolls, and now believe you've found a way to beat them, doesn't mean everyone else wants to create another damn POV Fork for you to patrol. Just stop it. Dave Dial (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you deny that the term is used in Academic texts and can be found within sources of high editorial quality? Or that there are similar pages for equally vague concepts such as those for Cultural liberalism and Cultural conservatism? Also, WP:GF - watch it buddy, don't tell me what I'm doing, anyways WP:CCC. --Jobrot (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, yes I do. Also, I suggest you read, then re-read the AFD & closing decision/discussion by 3 uninvolved admins. Have you found something new? Have there been tons of new credible sources using the term? No. If anything, the term has fallen more out of use on the fringes than before the first AFD. You're using the same old arguments that were used in the AFDs that were rejected, along with the same old 'sources'. So do everyone a favor and just come to your senses. Dave Dial (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you stop being so rude and aggressive before I report you, and read the AfD yourself, you won't find mention of the source I just furnished you with [1]. It's from a Sociology PhD who already has a Wikipedia page (George Ritzer) and contains a workable definition. Saying something "has been debunked" isn't the same as making sure and being able to express for yourself why it is bunk. You have to actually look at the source material then refute it based on policy; if you can't do that - then it's an acceptable source. --Jobrot (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

British cultural studies? Been discussed many times. Discussed to death. Here, there is already an article about it. Cultural studies, try improving that article, and leave the POV forks alone. Report away, buddy, report away. Dave Dial (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

RGloucester is in error in that link you've supplied, the Ritzer source does indeed use the term in its body text. You can check for yourself here, and I have already informed RGloucester of this fact. Here is one example of Cultural Marxism being used by with the Ritzer source: "a large number of theorists throughout the globe used cultural Marxism to develop modes of cultural studies that analyzed the production, interpretation, and receptions of cultural artifacts within concrete sociohistorical conditions that had contested political and ideological effects and uses." - so it is indeed a credible modern source. --Jobrot (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

When a specialist acamedic encyclopedia has a whole entry titled Cultural Marxism and then proceeds to define that term and explain what it refers to in longstanding academic and non-pejorative usage at some length, it doesn't look good for other editors to simply say "doesn't prove anything" and to keep insisiting that they know better and have been right all along. And it's not a one-off – I cited several similar publications ages ago:

• Cultural Marxism and political sociology (Sage, 1981): "the culturally oriented Marxism that emerged in the 60s and 70s"
• Perspectives in Sociology (Routledge, 2015): has a heading "The rise of 'cultural Marxism'", which refers to "the attempt to develop Marxist theories of art, painting, the novel and so on"
• Understanding Education: A Sociological Perspective (Polity, 2009): "It is commonplace to talk of two Marxist approaches – sometimes labelled structural and cultural Marxism ..."
• Handbook of Cultural Sociology (Routledge, 2010): has a heading "Cultural Marxism and the space of postmodernism", which refers to "the tradition of cultural Marxism, pioneered by George Lukacs and the Frankfurt School [which] transcends the deterministic base-superstructure model"
• Encyclopedia of Literature and Politics (Greenwood, 2005): describes British cultural Marxism as "an unorthodox theoretical tradition that acknowledged the semiautonomy of the cultural realm"

As long accepted, there's a debate to be had about how to deal with the term and its multiple uses (and how that fits in with existing pages on Western Marxism etc (concepts which are just as diffuse btw), but it's just head-in-the-sand arrogance to claim it wasn't and isn't used in this way to describe a separate topic from both the Frankfurt School (which yes forms part of the tradition, but not the whole of it) and the modern term of political abuse. N-HH talk/edits 17:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can gleam "Cultural Marxism" is the application of Historical Materialism (in terms of power dynamics, or as the Ritzer source puts it "concrete sociohistorical conditions") to "the production, interpretation, and receptions of cultural artifacts" - a practice both The Frankfurt School performed, as well as The Birmingham School in which it's called "British Cultural Marxism"; these claims are actually already in the article which points at Richard Hoggart's concepts massification and drift as examples of "Cultural Marxism"... So to include the original academic uses, even including example concepts (as the current section does); yet deny having a separate section for that original meaning... well, it's a case of trying to have your cake but eat it too. We have to trust the audience to be able to separate fact from fiction. Just as there's a separate space for The World Trade Center and the conspiracy theories around 9/11 - so there should be for this topic. Admitting the original usage doesn't mean having to agree with the conspiracy theory usage. Nor should it. It just means trusting the audience to comprehend the delineation between the two. --Jobrot (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

N-HH and Jobrot, I agree with your reading of the sources, and it seems clear that 'Cultural Marxism' is a meaningful and notable term in an academic context that is distinct from the conspiracy theory. The discussion on the talk page here has become very confusing, because it's not clear whether we're talking about creating a new article about CM (which was the original topic) or whether we're just trying to create some new content for this Frankfurt School article. I'd like to express my support for both of those goals. JerryRussell (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it warrants an article, but dealing with it as a modern conspiracy theory or meme (which is currently the most popular usage of the term). Critical theory and cultural studies are the common academic names for actual schools of thought which are targeted by the conspiracy theory so it would be wrong to have an article treating it as an actual school of thought under the title "Cultural Marxism" (the term has sometimes been used in such a context but rarely).

An article about Culture and Marxism (broad in scope, dealing with these theories and the culture of actually existing socialism in Marxist-Leninist states, such as socialist realism, socialist classicism and Mao's Cultural Revolution) would be different to one about "Cultural Marxism" (paleocons claiming the Frankfurt School is magically turning everybody into homosexuals, drug addicts and prostitutes). What is certain is that the subject needs to be separated from the Frankfurt School article because it is taking up too much article space and the actual connection to most FS theorists is tendentious at best. Claíomh Solais (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Although a Google Books search suggests the main usage is in fact the more formal, academic one, defined in one of the books it brings up, as noted above, as "the culturally oriented Marxism that emerged in the 60s and 70s". Not a school of thought as such, but a clearly identifiable and discrete trend within Marxism, which is described in the relevant literature, similar to Structural Marxism and Orthodox Marxism. The modern, pejorative usage of the term on the right is not only much looser (it's just a broad piece of invective meaning whatever people using it want it to mean, akin to "political correctness") but is confined to the fringe right, mostly in the US. It's not a term you hear much, for example, in the UK. As for a "Culture and Marxism" page, that would surely be too broad and risk becoming, like so many "X and Y" pages, a synthesis based on a wide reading of any connections implied by the word "and". N-HH talk/edits 08:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

All of the sources that pop up in that search were thoroughly debunked by me and others in the deletion discussion. Are you really going to force me to copy and paste what I said then? Dworkin And no, by the way, 'cultural marxism', the conspiracy, is not confined to America, and is well known in Britain. RGloucester — ☎ 13:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy and paste from the deletion discussion:

"Well-sourced"? Where? Where are there any "sources" that posit the existence of a school of thought that spans the entire 20th century and contains people that never met each other, and never defined their theories as belonging to a school of "Cultural Marxism"? There are none. There never were, and there still are not any. A few books have been cited as using the phrase "cultural Marxism", but none of them support the existence of a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism".

As an example, which I and others have refuted numerous times, people like to cite the Dworkin book called "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies" as supporting the existence of a school called "Cultural Marxism". However, the book does not do this, indicative of the fact those citing it have not read it. First of all, Dworkin, writing in 1997, says "My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline" (pg. 3). From the start of the book, Dworkin makes clear that the argument that there has been this long-running school of thought called "cultural Marxism" is totally false. He says that he invented the term in this context. His book's purpose is to establish it, long after the theorists were dead, and after the conspiracy theory had already come to light.

What's more, he specifically says that the Frankfurt School and Gramsci, two people that all these IPs and SPAs claim are part of a school of "Cultural Marxism", are explicitly not part of his "cultural Marxism". In fact, he says he proposes the term "cultural Marxism" as an alternative the more mainstream phrase "cultural studies" for an exclusively British movement that began in the 1960s, with the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at Birmingham. This is a fringe usage. No one other than Dworkin has proposed this usage, and mainstream academia calls it "cultural studies", which we have an article on. He admits that it doesn't exist outside of his work, and that he is creating term for his own sake to reframe the traditional academic viewpoints on the Birmingham school. He explicitly excludes those who IPs and SPAs say are part of "cultural Marxism". Regardless, his view is not accepted in academia. You will not find any other books referencing this definition. It is exclusively his, and WP:FRINGE. This is just one example of the manipulation occurring here.

Another example is a 2004 essay by Douglas Kellner, called "Cultural Studies and Cultural Marxism", which these SPAs and IPs like to use. These two works are the main sources for the IP and SPA arguments. It was written long after the conspiracy theory had emerged. It is not a peer-reviewed journal article. It was never published anywhere. It is a personal essay of 15 pages long, that only exists on the internet because he has released it personally for free. None of the sources it cites propose the existence of a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism". In fact, Kellner himself does not use "cultural Marxism" to posit the existence of a school of thought, but instead uses it in the purely descriptive sense of meaning "applications of Marxism to culture", which is not a definition that can be used as the basis for an encylopaedia article.

Citation of sources, and WP:V, do not mean that one can just throw a bunch of links in an article and say that it is "well-sourced". WP:V means that the sources must support the text, and that the sources must be reliable, and not WP:FRINGE. None of the sources in the article, especially these two favourites of the IP and SPA crowd, support the idea of a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism". Zero. If people can't read the sources, that's their fault. WP:V is a policy, and to adhere to it, the sources must support the text. All of them have been debunked repeatedly by me, and other editors. RGloucester — ☎ 02:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

}}

That takes care of the most prominent 'sources'...and all of the others are similar. In case, I think you should take a better look at the Google Books searches...I wonder what "Islamic Jihad, Cultural Marxism and the Transformation of the West" is about...but, put that aside...because most of the books cited do not include the words 'cultural marxism'. It brings up 'Dialectic of Enlightenment', for instance, a great work...but that book never once contains the words 'cultural marxism'. Of course, this is exactly how people tried to justify the existence of the article last time. Using phoney sources, sources that don't support their arguments, &c., to try and fight with all of their might for an article that Wikipedia doesn't need, and might as well be considered a hoax. RGloucester — ☎ 14:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I see discussion is active on this page again, and thought I'd just belatedly point out that I had already read the deletion discussion from way back. The point is I disagree with your comments there and those of others, and the conclusion. Just because you declare yourself to have "debunked" something or to have shown academics to not mean what they clearly do mean, doesn't mean you have. You've wilfully ignored and misrepresented my points (even at the most trivial level, eg by claiming I'd said the pejorative term is confined to the US) and seem to have totally misunderstood Dworkin's point by bizarrely claiming that he admits there is no such thing as "cultural Marxism" while saying at the same time that he "invented" the use of the term in this context. That's just confused on multiple levels – for example he says neither, and it would be contradictory even if he had – but I really couldn't, and can't, be bothered to argue that in all its detail. But I'd recommend you read the introduction to the book again, a bit harder this time and see what he is *actually* saying. N-HH talk/edits 17:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

While some could argue about what shape a "Cultural Marxism" article should take, what is the main policy argument against separating the information from the Frankfurt School article, where it doesn't really seem like the correct place?

The conspiracy theory does seem to have been covered in mainstream bourgeois liberal publications such as The Guardian and Vice, as well as lobby groups like the SPLC, suggesting notability.

Although these sources are problematic, since they are mostly interested in pious virtue signalling instead of showing HOW the conspiracy theory is false and most of the Frankfurt School or Gramsci did not even advocate the cultural libertinism that the paleocons claim. It at least gives a barebones, non-SNYTH starting point to work from. The conspiracy theory phrase has been systematically picked apart by more reliable sources, actual Marxists, such as the American Party of Labor in their Red Phoenix publication. Claíomh Solais (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The conspiracy is a well-researched topic, and there are numerous books/journals on the subject (such as Jackson, Cospey, Southern Poverty Law Centre) . There formerly was a 'Frankfurt School conspiracy theory' page, but this was deleted and merged here. The main concern with having a separate article is that certain people always seem to come along and try to twist it away from the conspiracy and toward this amorphous and baseless 'school of thought' stuff as a way to try and create a seemingly legitimate foundation for the actual conspiracy. That's the main reason the original article was deleted, and also why it was merged here. The goal is containment, to avoid the possibility that hoax and unsourced rubbish doesn't find its way back in. RGloucester — ☎ 18:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we have to respect the consensus reached in 2014. The thoroughness of the process was unprecedented (in my experience at least).--Jack Upland (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, most versions of the conspiracy theory either start with or involve The Frankfurt School. --Jobrot (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That Wikipedia doesn't allow an article on Cultural Marxism is a reflectiuon of it's Leftist political bias. RGloucester, who seems to have a big influence in this, clearly says that the reason to not have a dedicated article is to contain the discussion, to not allow reason and debate to flow freely because it could drift into something that goes againt his political ideology. It could be a case of cultural marxists not happy that their critics will have a say. That the term is used more often by rightwingers is no good reason to exclude it, unless Wikipedia is a leftwing encyclopedia, which it shouldn't be. 165.143.155.57 (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no "left wing vs right wing" here on Wikipedia. There is only "reliable sources vs citation needed". Please try to adhere to that paradigm and Wikipedia's policies, starting by reading and understanding WP:GOODFAITH and applying it to your fellow Wikipedians as well as the website as a whole. --Jobrot (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It's difficult to assume good faith once the double standards become obvious. The bar for "reliable source" is much higher for rightwing ideas. For example, Vice and the Guardian get used all the time as references but if Breitbart had to be used in a non-critical way as a legitimnate source it would be dismnissed as an unreliable right wing source. Talking of which, the late Andrew Breitbart's book Righteous Indignation does a good job of explaining Cultural Marxism to laymen. Would wikipedians consider that book a reliable source? 165.143.155.57 (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Would wikipedians consider that book a reliable source? - You're clearly unfamiliar with how Wikipedia operates. There is a hierarchy of sources expressed in WP:RS, WP:NN, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, and they all have contexts and uses. Generally Academia and hard journalism (the reporting of facts) are at the top of the hierarchy of reliable sources and have the widest usage on Wikipedia. Personal opinion pieces are at the bottom and have the narrowest usage.

Accordingly Andrew Breitbart's book would only be considered a reliable source for what Andrew Breitbart himself believes, and for what's in the book (and I'm sure they can be added to the Andrew Breitbart article). However, since Breitbart's book is not academic, and doesn't contain material of any relevance to the current section due to the fact he has no grasp on the academic meaning of the term "Cultural Marxism", the contents of The Frankfurt School's writings, or even a basic comprehension of what Critical Theory is (putting forth the view that Critical Theory is a singular ideological viewpoint rather than an entire discourse where opposing theorists debate each other eg. Modernists vs Post-Modernists, Redistributive politics vs recognition politics, individualist identity vs social identity) - no, he is not eligible for inclusion in this particular section (particularly due to WP:OR).

In fact I'd wager that if "right wing" journalists were more media literate, better at vetting sources, less reliant on their own opinions more reliant on evidence outside themselves, and more willing to perform high quality research - they'd probably be more widely used on Wikipedia.

Anyways, I recommend you visit the Wikipedia:Teahouse for any further questions. As per WP:TALK talk pages are intended for editorial discussions about the article in question, and you are violating WP:TALK (so consider this a warning). Talk pages are not a place to have fellow editors explain basic elements of Wikipedia policy to you, you are expected to know them by the time you're discussing editorial changes on talk pages. See WP:TALK for details, and ask more questions over on Wikipedia:Teahouse. --Jobrot (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)