Talk:Frankfurt School/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Conspiracy theory label

So, I took the time to look for evidence of the Cultural Marxism claims about the Frankfurt School actually being labeled a conspiracy theory and I have found such sourcing to be lacking. Right now our only sources in the article are Martin Jay, whose piece never actually labels the claims a conspiracy theory, The Southern Poverty Law Center (hahaha), and Chip Berlet (hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa). Sources that actually claim this is a conspiracy theory are basically non-existent, especially in academic literature. Plenty of sources label the views of the Frankfurt School as conspiracy theories, but do not generally label views about them as conspiracy theories.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this section should be a subsection of the "Criticism of Frankfurt School theorists" section, because it deals with a critique of the Frankfurt School and is not important enough to warrant a separated section. It should be renamed to something more informative; when I read "Conspiracy Theory" I have no idea what the section is about. Something like "Critique by American conservatives" would be better, so the reader immediately has an idea of the section content. --Jbieler (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the entire section should be removed. There is already criticism section, this is part is just superfluous. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the section should be renamed "Cultural Marxism". Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No it should not, because that is not cultural marxism was/is from academic perspective. Instead it is what some conservatives call outside the academic discourse and which seems frankly mostly nonsensical. This problem is one of the reasons why there should be a one or even two separate articles. One explaining the academic view of cultural marxism (as a loosely connected thread or theme within cultural studies or social studies) and one for the more recent view by some conservatives.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate it's a conspiracy theory because it's a theory about a group of individuals conspiring, yet presents no credible evidence of them conspiring. Here is a key example from William S. Lind:

"Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood)". -William S. Lind [1]

As Carl Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" so I think it's fine for an extraordinary claim of conspiracy with no evidence to be called a Theory of Conspiracy. --Jobrot (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

We aren't the ones who should be making those calls. The label is contentious and should not be used unless reliable sources general support the libel. Berlet and the SPLC are not reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

William S. Lind is the progenitor for the modern usage of the term Cultural Marxism, and as you can see from the passage quoted above he clearly uses it in reference to a conspiracy theory. Perhaps this should be included in the section, as it removes doubt about the "contentiousness" of this label. Also, if you want to convince others that the sources you mention are questionable your argument should probably contain more than simply putting hahahahahaha in brackets after you mention them. As I understand it for secondary sources the existence of an editorial process is a common qualifier for what makes a reference reliable or not (and I suspect that both sources do undergo editorial oversight). --Jobrot (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not how it works. We don't interpret the sources to justify inflammatory labels. If such a label is not generally accepted in reliable sources, we don't use it. Period. Full stop.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No inflammatory references are needed for this claim, all that's needed is a basic knowledge of what the term refers to in its modern usage: Namely it refers to an unevidenced theory concerning groups which proponents of the theory claim to be conspiring (in aid of a Marxist ideology). So we don't even have to consult the criticisms (or critical references) for this definition of Cultural Marxism as concerning a conspiratorial theory - the proponents themselves are enough. They themselves cite groups that they define as conspiring to introduce Marxism into society. That is the very meaning of this usage. What's to understand? How can it be an inflammatory label, when the proponents themselves believe the theory to be concerning a conspiracy? I don't see why you have a problem with this label. It's what the term "Cultural Marxism" refers to. --Jobrot (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Altering the "Conspiracy Theory" heading violates the administrative outcome

Changing this heading should not be done without prior admin approval, as the current redirect for Cultural Marxism is targeted towards this, the pertinent heading. This was decided by the 3 uninvolved admins during the AfD panel for Cultural Marxism. Changing the heading will accordingly violate that decision, which is ill advised for anyone below admin status. --Jobrot (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not all the sources say it is a Frankfort School conspiracy, many sources think there is a cabal of like-minded (politically-correct, multiculturalists, feminists, etc.) who are trying to change the culture. So the heading would more correctly be, "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory." The word had become a neologism. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually an admin decision can be revised (but of course not at the whim of an individual user) and in any case the admin only applies to the old article on cultural marxism, a significantly different and differently sourced article on cultural marxism might require a new decision.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

At any rate, the page reference Cultural Marxism redirects to Frankfurt_School#Conspiracy_theory and as I understand it such a redirect (to a specific heading) requires administrative level access to create, so I think the admins decision should be respected. --Jobrot (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know it doesn't require an admin for section redirect, however samwalton seems to have blocked the page from editing as January 6. In any case as long as we do not a have new article better sourced article on cultural marxism, it is a bit of a pointless debate. If somebody wants an appropriate article on cultural marxism, he wold have to write it in his user space and then ask based on that article to revoke the old admin decision for a redirect. The question is whether somebody wants invest time into that and then potentially face a war of attrition with ideological warriors from th the left and the right. A tedious job with low chances of success. Without it however the current situation is clearly far less than optimal as the term "cultural marxism" and its various uses doesn't really get explained. People will just have to look for it elswhere for now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The term is a WP:FRINGE usage that has no place here, as the deletion discussion result demonstrated. There is nothing to explain. RGloucester — ☎ 02:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but not everything you declare to be neologism or fringe is necessarily one. Whether the new article (if somebody writes it) is fringe remains to be seen. An obviously there is something to explain, because with WP:Frings and WP:NEO are exactly argument for a case where there is something to explain, but WP is not the apprpriate place for it (yet). So you would to need to make up your mind, what you're actually arguing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This statement is incorrect. Rather, the current section is the product of a merge from Frankfurt School conspiracy theory carried out by an involved party on the basis of what appears to be a very limited discussion. No administrative ruling protects the section heading.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

But it does violate the Merge discussion from the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory page. Which was also redirected. The SPLC is not a partisan source, they document hate groups and their conspiracy theories. All one has to do is search on google - "Cultural Marxism" site:Stormfront.org - to know how much of a conspiracy theory it is. Dave Dial (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That discussion involved exactly three people. Reliable sources do not agree on this being a conspiracy theory and what people discuss on Stormfront has no bearing on that point. As far as the SPLC not being a partisan source, excuse me for a moment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't need a reference to describe the very nature of the subject you're talking about. The subheading reads Conspiracy Theory, because Cultural Marxism, is an unevidenced theory about groups conspiring. It's a heading, it doesn't have a reference after it. It's just a description of the nature of the theory, it's a conspiracy theory concerning The Frankfurt School - hence it's under the heading Conspiracy Theory, on The Frankfurt School page. I don't see how this is a problem. --Jobrot (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Both proponents and detractors understand that the theory concerns a group of Marxists attempting to covertly influence society. So I'm not sure why you see the claim that it's a conspiracy theory as contentious - when both sides of the debate agree that this is what the term refers to. --Jobrot (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That is unfortunately not all what cultural maxism is, but just the most recent use popular in conservative circles and ven that is probably better treated in a separate article, rather than bringing that mess in to the article on the Frankfurt school. You would not the article on intelligent design into a mere subsection of the theory of evolution either.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That would explain the heading. I'm aware that the far less common academic usage sways far away from the economic concerns of Marxism and is mostly used to reference the early influence of The Frankfurt School on the development of Cultural Studies and Critical Theory, but that's not the usage being discussed here. Here we're discussing the (more common, more fallacious) conspiracy usage on which there is agreement between proponents and detractors that it refers to "groups of Marxists attempting to covertly influence society". Hence the heading "Conspiracy Theory". --Jobrot (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is probably not, what most people discuss here. But that is exactly the problem from my perspective and why I am saying wikipedia does a bad job here. Because ideally WP should explain exactly that, the less common academic use inthe past) and the current use in conservative circles (aka "Conspiracy theory), preferably in separate articles for each.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the creation of another page, I'm not sure about creating two new pages though as I believe they'd both need heavy attention and protection from vandalism. It might also be more feasible to either cover the academic use on a related page and/or in the new Cultural Marxism (conspiracy theory) page in accordance with WP:due and as a means of isolating the legitimate academic usage from the common/pundit usage. --Jobrot (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I oppose it with all my being. The page was deleted for a reason. We don't need to start this problem again. Wikipedia does not do a bad job. The so-called "academic usage" is not notable, WP:FRINGE, and a duplication of other articles. Leave well alone. RGloucester — ☎ 17:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It is "WP:FRINGE" according to you and a few others, but personally I don't see that argument holding water. Moreover it is not consistent, because if that content (the academic usage) is indeed already in other articles, then that suggest the content at least is notable under a different name and we should have disambiguation page linking it. I can only repeat, what I've said above, the current solution is far from being optimal, because it inserted a new somewhat alien section into this article on the frankfurt school and it doesn't explain the conservative/conspiracy use particularly well and the academic use not at all. From a reader's perspective that's not a good solution at all. Jobrot however is right that a proper solution for readers with one or better two articles on cultural marxism would vulnerable to constant vandalism and pov pushing and hence require constant obsersation. However that is somewhat unavoidable in WP with any "controversial" or "disputed" subject and can't really be a reason not cover it in the first place.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no subject to cover, other than the conspiracy. I believe the deletion discussion demonstrated that quite adequately. RGloucester — ☎ 19:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Well as I said repeatedly it didn't.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

I've been reading the discussions regarding the controversial decision to delete the 'Cultural Marxism' article in favor of redirecting here with some interest. I think that the closing admins made the correct decision, but has there been any discussions raised regarding the creation of a disambiguation page? Obviously, not everyone searching 'Cultural Marxist' or linking it from other articles is looking for the antisemitic conspiracy theory by that name. The most obvious example of this is, of course, Anders Behring Breivik, whose article now links here. Clearly he was not referring to the Frankfurt School conspiracy theories in his manifesto, as he is a rather outspoken Zionist. Whether or not the term has any significance, certainly the fairly large number of people looking for information on that meaning should be directed to the correct article, which is probably cultural studies, as mentioned in the AfD. In other words, when Breivik used the phrase 'Cultural Marxism,' it seems quite apparent that he's actually referring to something more akin to cultural studies (based on his anti-Muslim beliefs) than the Frankfurt School, which is why I believe that a DAB page is probably necessary here. Alternatively, an {{about}} template might be sufficient to redirect those interested in finding information about the neologism. If either was already proposed somewhere else, then I'd appreciate it if someone could direct me to that discussion.-RHM22 (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC) To correct myself: I should have mentioned the {{redirect}} template above. It would say something along the lines of ""Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For x, see cultural studies.," where 'x' takes the place of whatever term is most appropriate to describe the neologistic use of the phrase.-RHM22 (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Cultural_Marxism/Archive_3#Disambiguated. There was also a previous attempt. As a sysop you'll be able to find the deleted article revisions at the same time - search for my name and disambiguated version, and the several edits after. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, zzuuzz. I'll go take a look for that.-RHM22 (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The antisemitism associated with the conspiracy theory isn't necessarily a definitive element. After all whether the claim is "Jews are controlling the media/culture to push for feminism and the gay adgenda", or "Marxists are controlling the media/culture to push for feminism and the gay adgenda" it's still a claim about a group acting covertly to have an overwhelming amount of influence/control over the mass media, culture and academia (and all stated without any evidence being shown other than the subjective "degeneration of our culture").

Breivik's claims still fall into the familiar resemblance of the generic conspiracy theory by claiming that Cultural Marxists created Political Correctness, Multiculturalism and Feminism in order to damage traditionally Western Christian values.

These claims earn the label conspiracy theory by being unevidenced, and for being demonstrably false: Feminism's roots pre-date the Frankfurt School (so they couldn't have created it), Multiculturalism is a natural product of people moving between and dealing with cultural difference (again this predates The Frankfurt School), and Political Correctness in the modern usage was coined by The French philosopher Michel Foucault, who himself states that he had no knowledge of the Frankfurt School [2] at the time he coined the modern usage for Political Correctness in 1968.

Of course Breivik puts his own flair on the generic claims adding things like:

• "[The] Sexually transmitted disease (STD) epidemic in Western Europe [is] a result of cultural Marxism"
• "Cultural Marxism defines... ...Muslims, Feminist women, homosexuals and some additional minority groups as virtuous and they view :ethnic Christian European men as evil"
• "The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg is a cultural Marxist controlled political entity"

But the reoccurring similarities of his claims outweigh the subtle change of targets (Breivik taking aim more often at Islam instead of the Jews).

All in all, it's still a Conspiracy Theory, still uses Cultural Marxism to refer to the group conspiring and still contains the main claims (that Cultural Marxists created Political Correctness, Multiculturalism and Feminism). So I believe it still falls under the same umbrella. --Jobrot (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure that correctly covers the entire modern (meaning current) perceived meaning of the phrase. That's probably correct in regards to Breivik's usage of the term, but it seems to me that others use it in a sense that doesn't necessarily suggest a conspiracy theory, but a school of thought. In other words, those people are using it to refer, essentially, to cultural studies or a branch thereof. That is, studying social attitudes and environments within a Marxist hierarchy. I don't know how common that belief or interpretation, but I do think it's distinct from the Frankfurt School conspiracy theories, and probably deserving of a {{redirect}} template (which would direct interested readers to the cultural studies article), in my opinion. I don't think the acknowledgement that some people are searching for a neologism means we need to lend credence or undue importance to it.-RHM22 (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

They are not using it to refer to "cultural studies", which does not support "multiculturalism" or "political correctness", and indeed has no relation to either of these. It was a British movement/academic discipline concieved in the 1960s. RGloucester — ☎ 17:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know; in my opinion, after reading through some of the material, they aren't generally referring to the Frankfurt School, in my opinion. Maybe it's not cultural studies either, but it seems to me that much of the current usage is in reference to something like social justice, which, in its modern usage, is certainly related to cultural studies. Anyway, I think that a reasonably large percentage of readers are looking for a different article, which might not exist as such at the moment.-RHM22 (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone looking for the neologism "santorum" will be redirected to a disambiguation page and will find, Santorum (noun) which will redirect to Campaign for "santorum" neologism. It was wrong to delete the original article. The contemporary meaning of cultural Marxism has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory, it describes people who advocate for social justice, multiculturalism, feminism, gay rights, and the infiltration of Islam into Europe. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

RHM22, the problem you are encountering is that you are conflating the conspiracy with reality. The conspiracy doesn't refer to anything in particular, other than the stuff Baranow mentions above. It lumps together random ideas, concepts, and schools of thought that have no innate connection, and claims that they are a conspiracy to subvert "western culture". None of this is accepted by mainstream academia. "Social justice" is not related to cultural studies. The concept of social justice, largely, is rooted in Catholicism, and has exactly zero to do with the 1960s British-rooted academic discipline/movement called "cultural studies". The one use of "cultural Marxism" as an alternative for the term for cultural studies is the Dworkin book, but that book has nothing to do with the conspiracy (e.g. "social justice", &c.), and is a WP:FRINGE usage that only he himself uses, as demonstrated in the deletion discussion. As I said, I prefer a redirect to critical theory, rather than Frankfurt School, but that's another kettle of fish. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying that people are correct in linking the phrase 'Cultural Marxism' to things like social justice, but my point is that if a considerable number of people are looking for that information rather than the Frankfurt School theories, then we should probably provide something to link there, whether it's {{distinguish}}, about or something similar. By the way, when I mentioned the link between social justice and cultural studies, i'm referring to the modern popular usage of the former, and not its origins in Catholicism. Anyway, that bit is neither here nor there.-RHM22 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

What is this "modern popular usage"? How does this "modern popular usage" relate to a 1960s British academic movement? We need sources. I have seen zero sources for the idea that "Cultural Marxism" means "social justice". RGloucester — ☎ 21:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood my point(s). I don't believe that 'social justice' is the same thing as 'cultural Marxism,' nor do I believe that the sources, if any, would support that. Rather, I'm saying that a reasonably large group of people are going to believe something in that vein, so it may be appropriate to provide a template linking to the relevant article(s). I don't support the inclusion of that material in the article, because consensus clearly opposes that, and I agree with that consensus (given that it's not particularly relevant to this article). However, as is often the case of articles with redirects, a small template below the header might be appropriate to correctly direct people who accessed the page via searches or wikilinks. For example, something along the lines of "Not to be confused with social justice or cultural studies". This doesn't suggest that social justice and cultural studies are related to the idea of cultural Marxism, but that people may believe that they are. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that any link to those two ideas be placed in the article, aside from the template.-RHM22 (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem With Evaluating Cultural Marxism as a Conspiracy Theory

Hi everyone, it has been great to read the debates here and in other places. I would like to preface by saying that I only edit Wikipedia anonymously because I do not like personas online. In the past I have mostly worked to identify and correct incidents of companies that try to hide valid criticisms of their products such as those relating to false health claims.

Now to my point, doesn't it seem off that a theory claiming the presence of a pervading malignant force in academia must then be validated by academia itself in order for it to be classified as NOT a conspiracy theory? I'm kinda worried about how this system of truth seeking and officiality works in general outside of just this specific topic. I'm not trying to argue for or against the Cultural Marxism claims I'm criticizing the method itself as flawed. So try for a second to imagine with me an alternate universe where Cultural Marxism theorists are correct. In that world would it not then continue to be labeled a conspiracy theory, a term with a derogatory and dismissive connotation for all time? With academia being both perpetrators of the conspiracy as well as the gatekeepers that control whether the theory is accepted or not wouldn't this be a problematic conflict in the search for objective truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.72.10 (talk) 10:48, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

No it wouldn't because you falsely assume the academia to be single unit or actor. As far as the alternative universe is concerned, in an alternative universe anything goes, so no reason for WP to bother with that.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no evidence that Cultural Marxism is a 'conspiracy'. It seems like this page has been heavily edited by people with political agendas.60.242.10.150 (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's see what we've got so far.

We've got: The Gays did it

"The homosexual agenda is cultural Marxism masquerading as “progress.” Its goal is to redefine the family into an appendage of the homosexual movement, seeking to transform men and women into interchangeable parts. Children don’t need two daddies or two mommies. They need a father and a mother. Same-sex marriage is not just wrong. It goes against nature, morality and God. That’s why — like every other attempt at social engineering — it is doomed to fail. The cultural wreckage, however, will be immense. America is sliding toward Sodom and Gomorrah."[3]

We've got: The Jews did it

"Lind's theory was one that has been pushed since the mid-1990s by the Free Congress Foundation — the idea that a small group of German philosophers, known as the Frankfurt School, had devised a cultural form of "Marxism" that was aimed at subverting Western civilization." ... "These guys," he explained, "were all Jewish."[4]

Everyone did it

"The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble".[5]

...and my personal favourite, those communist bastards who are just pretending to make millions under capitalist Hollywood did it:

"Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood)".[6]

So I think it's FAIR to say from a WP:NPOV that there's a theory, about groups conspiring, and that the terminology "Cultural Marxism" is used to refer to that conspiracy theory. --Jobrot (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jobrot: Here is maybe a usable source for something in the line with conspiracy theory: Jamin, Jérôme (2014). "Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right", in The Post-War Anglo-American Far Right: A Sepcial Relationship of Hate by Paul Jackson and Anton Shekhovtsov.

It has been presented on the Swedish project earlier today (yesterday). Regards, Dnm (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that Dnm it looks like a good and very recent source, so has an up-to-date viewpoint on the modern usage/manipulation of the term. --Jobrot (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jobrot: Yes, form what i've understand by reading it the sources is very good. By using that one can make an even stronger and valide case when it comes to this infected question.

We have a great deal of problems on the Swedish project with the article "Kulturmarxism" (Cultural Marxism). Some users mean its a neutral word in the sence that the word is used not (mainly) only by the radical right/far right, but also by left wing schoolars. One of the users are open with his paleoconservative views, and he made the biggest part of the article (now cut to shreds). Everything was synthesis and not based in the sources listed. Lets just say paleoconservative POV all the way from the start to the end. I have had a great deal of use of the EnWP delete-discussion which are helping our situation (and we are not yet done fixing the article). I thank you for it! Dnm (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, the German article has similar problems. There they settled for properly sourced version of the rightwing usage and a disambiguation page for now. For the righwing usage that mainly use the German political scientist Thomas Grumke as source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC on the creation of a 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory' article

I'd just like to bring it to everyone's attention that I am holding an RfC on the creation of an article titled 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory' - if you wish to comment on this, please do so by following THIS LINK and refrain from commenting in response below (as to avoid having two separate discussions). Thank you --Jobrot (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference 53

I can't verify reference 53. The website doesn't have the 2010 issues up, the jstor associated with the website doesn't list the article (nor any other similar titles) by the title given in the citation. Do we have proof this article exists? 73.173.238.218 (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, was able to get it through the wayback machine. Going to change the link so it actually goes to the article. 73.173.238.218 (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess I can't do that? https://web.archive.org/web/20111124045123/http://cms.skidmore.edu/salmagundi/backissues/168-169/martin-jay-frankfurt-school-as-scapegoat.cfm is the address for the article referenced at 53 if someone has the time to put it in. Thanks much. 73.173.238.218 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Q: Has 'Cultural marxism' been used to refer to Marxist-influenced approaches to cultural studies?

Taking this to talk, per WP:BRD. This addition has been reverted as 'unsourced nonsense', but it seems clear that this use of 'cultural Marxism', while quite specialized and to be kept distinct from the more recent use in conspiracy theory, could be supported with adequate sources. See e.g. Kellner, Douglas (2005), "Cultural Marxism and British Cultural Studies", in Ritzer, George, Encyclopedia of Social Theory, SAGE Publications, pp. 171–178, ISBN 1452265461. Footnoting an editorial hatnote could get quite awkward though, and AIUI it's not usually done. Thoughts? --Hupaleju (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources do not support that notion, sorry. A WP:FRINGE descriptive usage that is not found in mainstream academia is not notable. RGloucester — ☎ 20:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE mostly refers to minority ideas or viewpoints, as opposed to mere differences in terminology. The case for discussing the latter is quite a bit stronger, being part of our editorial work in directing interested users to high-quality, encyclopedic content. Moreover, a case can certainly be made that this usage is in fact notable, both for historical reasons (it finds significant use in older works, and arguably it has enduring influence on the 'folk' understanding of such things as the Frankfurt School and cultural studies, even in academic contexts) and due to the very fact that right-wing conspiracy theorists picked it up for a different use. --Hupaleju (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Since there has been no further engagement in discussion, I think I'll reinstate my edit in some version, absent any further objections or proposed alternatives. Do note that there seems to be a broad agreement on this and other Talk pages that the current approach (having a redirect target from a potentially ambiguous term without any sort of clarifying note) is markedly unhelpful to our users, and that editorial changes are warranted. Marxist analyses of culture are obviously a contentious subject, but we should not let tendentious editing on either "side" get in the way of our overarching goal, which is building an encyclopedia. Have a nice day. --Hupaleju (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

"Cultural Marxism" has nothing to do with "Marxist analyses of culture". Please cease and desist. RGloucester — ☎ 23:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

So keep you saying but yet various sources (other than the rightwing nonsense) seem to suggest otherwise. In fact you declare them as WP:Fringe, which is argument one can make, but not while in parallel claiming they don't exist. Either they are fringe or they don't exist, you should make up your mind on that otherwise it looks like you are simply fishing for any reason to block content, you personally don't like.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

They don't exist, and if you read the sources, that will be apparent. I'm not going to respond to the same Dworkin and Kellner nonsense fifty times. I've already done numerous times, and explained why they don't support the concept. The Ritzer article too, does not contain the phrase "Cultural Marxism" in the text of the article, only in the title. RGloucester — ☎ 15:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

What 'concept'? If you mean that they don't support the conspiracy-theory usage (i.e. the contention that 'cultural Marxism' is a radical leftist plot/strategy aiming to subvert Western traditional culture) then that's obvious but non-responsive. This sub-thread is about a completely different meaning which seems to be clearly attested in academic usage, if perhaps old-fashioned. The 'concept' there would be something like cultural materialism along the lines of Marxist theory, which nobody denies the existence of. Hupaleju (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Aside from Dworkin and Kellner, there also (partially much older) publications by Weiner, Davies, Brenkmann, O'Kane, Irving, Steinberg, Panikkar, Hicks, Watts, Bender, Foley and others. But alas in the end they all do not describe the "concept" RGloucester requires and even if they did they are fringe anyhow or didn't know what they were talking about and surely not fit to mentioned in encyclopedia.

More seriously of course there is/was that academic usage of term describing vaguely a subthread of or stream in cultural studies. But as RGloucester has posted further up, he will oppose any such article with all his being. In other words there won't be constructive discussion here. If you want such an article you'd need to go through all those sources and compile them into a proper article draft in your user space, then you can ask in front of a larger audience to revise the current admin/sysop decision based on your article draft. And if you are lucky your draft might not get hacked into pieces and you might prevail. I wouldn't count on it though.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't think I'll let misuse of sources slide through. I've seen the tactics used, and I'll fight them with every bit of energy I have. Be prepared. I will not allow your continued insistence on the creation of a term that does not exist. RGloucester — ☎ 05:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Luckily WP doesn't rely on you (alone) in doubt. Otherwise that tactic is though hardly original rather effective. I for one wouldn't invest my time in such an article attempt with the likely endless often ideologically motivated bickering afterwards, I can spend my time much more productive elsewhere in WP. However if somebody else is going to start such an undertaking, I might help out with providing some of the sources I mentioned above (along the lines of WP:RX).--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Luckily for you, the sources don't exist. RGloucester — ☎ 14:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually they do, but I guess you include simply stating nonsense is in your repertoire now as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is beyond repair

Any Freshman in scholar knows that the name critical theory did not come from "critical theory of Marxism" it came from "critical theory of society". There is also no evidence WHATSOEVER that they chose the name to hide their Marxism (as the idiot writer who penned that section seems to suggest). A decent skeptic would ask me where my sources are (or first his/hers- why hasn't anyone asked for a citation?), and I'd point you to read "Dialectical Imagination".

I wanna puke on my computer.

This just shows me just how intensely wiki may be beyond repair. The sad part is that stupid articles like this may garner so much influence that it changes public sentiment.

outrageous

Navidnak (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

that quote can be attributid to Douglas Kellner in "Critical theory, Marxism and Modernitiy" P44 where it said:

"the institute adopted the term 'Critical Theory' to define its theoretical position in part because conditions of exile in the United States forced it to use code words to describe its project in order to cover over its commitment to Marxism in an environment that was quite hostile to a theory associated with socialist revolution and the Soviet Union"Coffeepusher (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

you may also want to check the first page of Arato's essay "political Sociology and Critique of Politics" found in the Frankfurt Reader p. 3 which talks about how Critical Theory was "a code name for marxism in general" in the 1930's.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently "Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white". Life is such fun with code words for everyone! --Jobrot (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Article Beyond Repair: Complete Junk

The article on Cultural Marxism was merged into this article. The Frankfurt School Critical Theory has nothing to do with Cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism was a propaganda technique of ideological subversion developed under the Soviet KGB Active Measures program.

This article claims cultural marxism is a "conspiracy theory" and does not cite any of the primarily sources and publications by USSR defectors describing the tenants or objectives of cultural marxism.

For instance: https://archive.org/details/BezmenovLoveLetterToAmerica https://archive.org/details/BezmenovNoNovostiIsGoodNews

Cultural Marxism has more to do with Antonio Gramsci's work on how capitalist societies maintain hegemony through cultural institutions and nothing to do with critical theory or the Frankfurt School.

The article attributes cultural marxism to the American right. The article's understanding of critical theory is a perversion of history. The the article itself, is beyond recovery. This article should be deleted and rewritten by someone who knows about the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1318:C1D2:6CF3:C635:3A7B:B494 (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The KGB informant Yuri Bezmenov's claims about implanting stories in foreign media (mostly in the indian media) are no doubt indicative of a common practice for many national governments (I believe there are several cases of America doing this to its own news media), and accordingly there are already pages for misinformation, disinformation and false flag operations. It's not quite the same thing as what's been claimed about Cultural Marxism... but yes, I"m sure Bezmenov made lots of money from his books and stories of international espionage. --Jobrot (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Bezmenov worked as deputy chief of the KGB's Novosti office, who engaged in aktivnyye meropriyatiya (active measures) of deception and propaganda to learn about Western intellectual prejudices and spread disinformation that plays on these prejudices. In the works cited, despite his lengthy condemnation of his former Soviet masters, he strangely says he "won't go into technical detail on the charter of the Novosti" and despite the fact he was its deputy chief, he claims he was just there to "play guitar for propaganda songs" and "read newspaper clippings." His self-promotion as a paid lecturer to the various chapters of the John Birch society post-defection fits perfectly into his former persona as a practiced, professional liar for the KGB, hardly a reliable source. --Modemx (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Akin to anarchism

I just noticed the parenthetical in the first sentence that Frankfurt School is "more akin to anarchism than to communism". That phrase seems contentious to me, and it hides more than it reveals. I'm not saying I exactly disagree, but exactly what it might mean is ambiguous. A discussion in the article body of "relations to anarchism" might be nice, but the general comment not so much. Moreover, the choice of "anarchism" and "communism" seems to be missing some conceptual possibilities. Maybe FS is more similar to "utopian socialism" (I could make a plausible argument to that effect). Maybe it's more akin to social-democratic reformism. Maybe it's really just ivory-tower capitalism. There are more choices than the two. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I would argue there are points of departure within FS critical theory that open up space for connections with anarchism (libertarian socialism). Bookchin, for instance, has shown this, and there are potentialities to be explored within Habermas' 'ideal speech situation'. However, as the above User suggested, it needs to be contextualised within a wider debate that incorporates and discusses potential similarities with other traditions. Morgan Gibson 10:32am, 10 September, 2011 (+10 GMT). —Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

It's sort of a period that was burgeoning on Post-Marxism and Post-left anarchy - although unfortunately the 1960s conceptual cloud of evil placed around anything remotely relating to communism has suppressed any reasonable description of the schools of thought around that period in favour of the simplistic cold-war dichotomy... and we've all woken up in postmodernity, unsure of exactly what happened. --Jobrot (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Massive POV split between Cultural Marxism and Frankfurt School

I was under the impression that this mess was resolved some time ago but that seems not the case. I would propose to return to the original name and subject of the page, for quality of the article.

Political opinion or not, personal preference should not get in the way of quality articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.127.1.189 (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Which also applies to YOUR personal preferences (and is why WP:V and WP:RS exist). --Jobrot (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo himself spoke out on the issue and it was changed. When sources were presented they were deemed uncitable. Regardless of what is presented, a vocal minority of people will continue to try and fight it just because they disagree with it.

I know this is beating a dead horse but the article is dead at this point with the ammount of censorship that has been placed on this article. 166.127.1.189 (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

"Jimbo" does not own the non-article you are harping about in a meaningless manner, while crying "censorship".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This was resolved weeks ago with favor towards Cultural Marxism, but RGloucester (who, curiously, identifies as a marxist) has been shitposting for a solid month trying to block the article from being made, and the higher ups refuse to do anything about him even after his public temper tantrums on Jimbo's own talk page. Agent Chieftain (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The censorship of the article shows the POV of Wikipedia. Cultural marxism is an important contemporary concept. A true communist (marxist?) believes in eliminating money. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

- Cultural Marxism has become far more important to a certain strand of conservative as part of their culture war than it is to any leftists out there. This is reflected by comparing the (newly polished) metapedia version with the rationalwiki version, both of which currently have very telling images attached to them. --Jobrot (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theory" denigration as a deflection of criticism

Strawmanning criticism as in fact believing in a conspiracy theory is a common tactic to use against ideological opposition. Fortunately, the Wikipedia project is not a soapboax. The balance of reliable sources does not show this criticism of neo-Marxism to be what is defined by the Wikipedia project as a conspiracy theory. Another problem is that cultural Marxism is not coterminous with the Frankfurt School - I think a more reasonable redirect would be to the Critical theory page. 74.93.196.58 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to present here on the talk page, your evidence for this view. All the sources I've looked at refer it more heavily to Cultural Studies and The Frankfurt School as was discussed during the [AfD] as well as various other places. --Jobrot (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Trouble with Wikipedia Edits

I am trying to access an older version of this article when it was still cited under "Cultural Marxism" for a report. Is there any way of accessing the page prior to the mass edits done to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.23.15 (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to but you might be able to find it via the history page: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Frankfurt_School&action=history — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

-

The information in the prior article didn't meet Wikipedia's standards WP:RS for reliable sourcing. It used references from real life books that upon physical inspection didn't contain the text being claimed, and it also took authors out of context to support politically biased (in this case biased towards a conservative conspiracy theory) views. For a longer break down of what was wrong with the previous article, I suggest looking through the the Articles for Deletion debate, which took place here https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cultural_Marxism_%282nd_nomination%29#Cultural_Marxism

The prior article was the equivalent of picking a series of unrelated historical and modern day figures and claiming they make up a modern and influential movement. If you want a further debunking of this idea, there is one in my sandbox User:Jobrot/sandbox --Jobrot (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Just curious as to why you seem to be so intent on discrediting those authors. Please just give me a straight answer without your point of view on the subject.

Thank you Jeraphine, your contribution helps. 98.196.23.15 (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

If you could point out what you mean when you claim that I'm "intent on discrediting those authors" that would be a helpful start. What I've written in my sandbox (which is by the way, separate from wikipedia's article space, so isn't wikipedia content, but is my personal research on the subject) is what I believe to be an accurate viewpoint. There are over 40 references cited on that page, and more often than not - I'm quoting the authors DIRECTLY. So if I am "discrediting those authors" I'm doing so in their own words and in context. Personally I don't see how that's me discrediting them. That is to say; they discredit themselves with their own erroneous and extraordinary claims. I'm just pointing out how extreme their errors are. If you feel that any of what I've said there is inaccurate, please feel free to enlighten me, as I desire my views on the subject to be as accurate as possible. Thank you --Jobrot (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems the discussion ends when I ask for proof. Hence the heading "Conspiracy Theory". --Jobrot (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

'Cultural Marxism' is a term that, yes, may be popular with parts of the cultural Right, but it is also used in neutral contexts. Cultural Marxism contrasts with traditional Marxism as it reimagines class struggle from a socioeconomic one based around the forces of production to memberships in supposedly privileged and disprivileged (non-economic) social demographics. If traditional Marxists were found at the old industrial trade unions, Cultural Marxists are mostly located in modern Western universities. The concept obviously overlaps with the Frankfurt School but is not limited to it. Thus, it deserves its own article.

The use of 'conspiracy theory' is obviously meant to insult and defame, and I note also the use of really dodgy citations like Chip Berlet - a "journalist" who gets paid to do hatchet jobs on people. I also note RGloucester, who gets really antsy about this topic, is a Cultural Marxist himself - a self-proclaimed "Marxist" who trolls Wikipedia to edit opposition to hawkish foreign policy positions and EU expansion (so, he hardly follows traditional Marxist lines on imperialism). The only 'conspiracy theory' I see from the Right in this regard is the accusation that Cultural Marxists deliberately planned a Gramscian "slow march through the institutions". I find the claim that such a plan existed strange, but if one simply makes this claim in retrospect, as historical analysis (i.e., without claiming mass planning), it is valid. And, of course, it is easy to document sponsorship for cultural Marxism by very wealthy and powerful sources, but this is a somewhat different line from standard Tea Party-style rhetoric.

All in all, it is a legitimate term, it is not the place of people whom it actually describes, like RGloucester, to denigrate it so they avoid labels they don't like, and even if there may be conspiratorial-like claims around it, that is not the main use of the term. Actions like this make Wikipedia look like a nuthouse for small cults. 80.213.254.51 (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the Cultural Marxism article was deleted and then turned into a redirect so I'm guessing its original contents are not found here. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

-

Your mis-attribution of the "slow march through the institutions" quote to Gramscian thought when it is in fact a quote from Rudi Dutschke (a much later thinker) - a common mis-attribution found in conservative youtube propaganda on this subject (namely in the conspiracy focused "documentaries" by James Jaeger, a specialist in the conspiracy field, his other pet subjects being chemtrails and fiat currency) - does not bode well for your current opinions on this subject being unbias. Nor does your use of the "RGloucester is a Cultural Marxist" attack claim, a claim commonly spread through out the GamerGate community [7], where the theory that "Cultural Marxists are why society doesn't like GamerGate" - and ergo the conspiracy theory - finds very strong support. I'll note on the topic of RGloucester, that wikipedians are allowed to hold whatever political views they see fit (yourself included) as long as it does not interfere with their editing, and on a wider yet still relevant note; an individual's personal thoughts and beliefs shall not be decided for them by others nor imposed upon them by others (I'm aware of your evidence of this claim, but RGloucester can speak to this claims if they so choose). Wikipedia is concerned with accuracy, nothing more, nothing less. This goes too for your claims that "Cultural Marxists are mostly located in modern Western universities" this is where the conspiracy theorizing starts (and Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy kicks in) - the claim that Western universities are chock full of Cultural Marxists, either undeclared or unaware, in our bastions of free thought and intellect - that this is their viewpoint (often relying on the idea that they have undergone a degree of "brainwashing" or have otherwise been manipulated to think how they do) is nothing more than unfounded politicking. Academics tend to be very upfront with their views - they write papers on their subjects, they have academic arguments in peer reviewed journals, they reveal themselves in pedagogy, and then on the internet as we all do. To assert claims such as you have is to pursue a conspiracy based on opinion alone. That's where Wikipedian loses interest, so please be more careful with the presenting of opinion as fact. Same goes with placing retrospective claims of political opinion on past eras of Academia. Academia can speak for it's self. Which brings me to your claim that Cultural Marxism contrasts with traditional Marxism as it reimagines class struggle from a socioeconomic one based around the forces of production to memberships in supposedly privileged and disprivileged (non-economic) social demographics - feel free to present sources within academia that use the term this way, or can back up your claims. I can assure you that many were presented and tested in the ADF on this topic including all the sources contained in this commonly circulated (again amongst the GG community) twitlonger document [8] (see the AFD for rebuttals to these sources)... and please don't presume from my familiarity with GamerGate links that I'm against or hold a bias towards GamerGate as a movement. I'm not concerned with them (and support ethics in journalism, on Wikipedia and in society in general). Accuracy and fact are my concerns. I think you'll find the redirect is appropriate given the obscurity, vagueness and outdated use of the term in serious Academic circles (with the two main proponents of the term there, Douglas Kellner and Dennis Dworkin both declaring the end of its use/influence in Cultural Studies (alone) in 1979 and 1980 (Dworkin says 79, and Kellner says 80), and with the current academic writing about the subject from Jerome Jamin referring to the post 1990s Culture War conspiracy claims (which themselves were originated by ex-Cold War Conservatives - hence the red menace title of the theory. --Jobrot (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)