Talk:Frankfurt School/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 19

Cultural Marxism

Just watched a great interview with Professor Jordan Peterson where he talks about how Postmodernism is the "new skin that Marxism Wears". This I believe is called Cultural Marxism.

This page dismisses Cultural Marxism as a "conspiracy theory", which it isn't, rather a new tack that Marxists are adopting, not necessarily in any formal co-operation with one another (which would be necessary for a conspiracy).

Evidently this is a massive topic in its own right, and deserves its own WP page, not to be subsumed into a "conspiracy theory" paragraph on a completely different page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.34.60.71 (talk • contribs) 1 September 2017 (UTC)

What you believe is irrelevant. You need at least as many professionally-published mainstream academic sources (that are not copyright violations) that explicitly describe Cultural Marxism as a real thing. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

There, Ian.thomson:

• "As far as I have been able to trace the term “cultural Marxism”, it appears to have been coined by Trent Schroyer, who employed it in his 1973 book The Critique of Domination: The Origins and Development of Critical Theory." — Russell Blackford (Conjoint Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Newcastle), "Cultural Marxism and our current culture wars: Part 2," 2015. [1]
• "Marx is one of the rare thinkers of the past to have taken seriously, at least in its principle, the originary indissociability of technics and language, and thus of tele-technics (for every language is a tele-technics). But it is not at all to denigrate him, it is even to speak in what we will still dare to call the spirit of Marx, it is almost to quote word for word his own predictions” – Jacques Derrida, “Specters of Marx,” 1993. [2]
• "A thorough examination and analysis of the tensions between political sociology and the culturally oriented Marxism that emerged in the 60s and 70s is presented in this volume. In order to create a strikingly original synthesis, Weiner considers the work of theorists as diverse as Jurgen Habermas, Claus Offe, Alain Touraine, Anthony Giddens and Alvin Gouldner, many of whom fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement." — Richard Weiner, "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology," 1981. [3]
• Emily Hicks, "Cultural Marxism: Nonsynchrony and Feminist Practice," pp. 219-38 in Lydia Sargent, "Women and Revolution: A Discussion of the Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism," 1981. [4]
• Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society, 1980, Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.

—Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Just watched a great interview with Professor Jordan Peterson where he talks about how Postmodernism is the "new skin that Marxism Wears". This I believe is called Cultural Marxism. Jordan Peterson never actually uses the term "Cultural Marxism" (whilst his alt-right followers like to put it in their video titles, I've yet to see him talk at length in those terms).

Secondly The Frankfurt School were modernists, not post-modernists. In fact Jurgen Habermas is considered key critic of post-modernism.

Thirdly, The Frankfurt School were critical of both Capitalism AS WELL AS Soviet Marxism; so can't be reduced to "Marxists".

Finally, Critical Theory is not wholly or universally Marxist, see Outline of critical theory.

I've already tried to divide up the section into serious considerations of the term vs conspiracy theory bunkum (which despite your claims, does exist en mass). That version was rejected, but can be viewed here, and the discussion about that version can be seen under the headings "Section on academic and non-pejorative use of "Cultural Marxism" for this article" and The Creation of a new Cultural Marxism page. of the talk page archives.

None of your quotes are definitive, some merely mention Marx, and others specifically say they concern authors which "fall outside of" 'Cultural Marxism'. All in all, a non-notable collection, not warranting any changes to the current section. There are many different takes on "Cultural Marxism" specifically because it is a rare and seldom defined term. This is most likely why William S. Lind chose it, and engaged on his letter writing Culture war campaign which has further clouded an already poorly defined term. --Jobrot (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Trent Schroyer and Russell Blackford, in that I believe "Cultural Marxism" was a prototype neologism acting as a temporary stop-gap prior to the formation of "Cultural Studies" as a more broad, less ideological term/area of study. Also see Cultural_studies#History, and note that all the founders of that subject were interested in critiquing Mass Culture specifically, and that it's only natural that critiquing capitalism (which provides means for that mass culture) would be a part of that academic process. Also note, that it's perfectly tenable for someone of conservative or right-leaning values to critique culture within the Cultural Studies paradigm, it's just that no academics have done so in a respectful enough manner, with enough quality sources, and using terms such as Cultural hegemony; which though it has Marxist origins, is not only available to be used by Marxists. --Jobrot (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism Section

July 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Frankfurt School. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Note I have taken a quick look at the editing history and am seeing some very charged language which raises serious NPOV concerns. As a general rule when an edit is challenged by reversion the next stop should be the talk page. Given the controversial nature of what you are attempting to insert into the article I think you should definitely refrain from further editing along that line unless/until you have first secured a consensus for those edits on the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Changes were discussed on the talk page here - where a slim (5 to 4) majority of editors expressed a desire to have new content around the issue. I've been addressing RGloucester ☎'s issues with the content when they are expressed (often without reply from them), I've also invited RGloucester ☎ to discuss it on the talk page, but for whatever reason they've decided to address me personally here. --Jobrot (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I would encourage taking this to the talk page and seeking expanded input. An RfC is always an option. You could also post a neutrally worded request for comment on relevant wiki projects. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

---

A follow-up reply about the Frankfurt School and Jobrot's edit war.

Dear Jobrot:

Please, note that the factual version of the Cultural Marxism section — which you reverted to your personal-opinion version — is based upon the cited sources; therefore, Teodor Adorno did not say or write the things you claim in your edits, that is, Adorno did not contradict himself to agree with a right-wing misrepresentation of his work. The factual version quotes the source that identifies Cultural Marxism as a right-wing conspiracy theory: “Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right”(2014) Jérôme Jamin, in The Post-War Anglo-American Far Right: A Special Relationship of Hate, edited by Shekhovtsov, A.; Jackson, P. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 84–103.

Hence, your claim that Cultural Marxism is “a thing”, in real life, is untrue, because it is just disguises U.S. politics justifying white supremacy in that one country. Your anti-intellectual polemic is about a different subject (Marxism) that is not the Frankfurt School, which is the subject of this Wikipedia article; your conspiracy-theory text is an off-topic opinion, not an objective contribution to an objective, encyclopaedic presentation of the subject.

In the Paul Weyrich section, you deliberately obscure the white-supremacy racism mongered by that fellow and his organizations (particular to the U.S.), by misrepresenting and justifying the internal racism of the U.S. as an international struggle against a “Marxist take-over of the Western World”. Which Marxists: the Koreans, the Mexicans, the Africans? Be specific, give examples. Have you any?

Moreover, as you noted, the denotations of the term Cultural Marxism have changed in time, hence, the chronologic and thematic presentations of the topic.

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Chas. Caltrop. Please be careful when you copy and paste messages, especially long stale warnings, from a user's talk page into current discussions on other talk pages. It can create confusion. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the section, as well as my viewpoint. WP:CE does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you want... nor does simply referring to it imply you're any good at WP:CE.

I'm aware of The Free Congress Foundation's involvement in justifying white supremacy. After all, I was the one who included Lind's appearance at a holocaust denial conference in the current section. But sources ALSO have to be relevant to the term "Cultural Marxism" to appear in the section. Likewise I'm the one who included Jérôme Jamin as a source for the term being a conspiracy... but the fact remains the term Cultural Marxism is sometimes used in academic circles (see Ritzer, Schroyer, Kellner and Dworkin) to refer to The Frankfurt School and Birmingham School, who did practice "a form of anti-capitalist cultural critique which specifically targeted those aspects of culture that are seen as profit driven and mass-produced under capitalism."

And no, I'm not trying to "include Marxism" as some sort of "anti-intellectual polemic" (that would be the red-menace tactic I'm here to oppose). The Frankfurt School weren't classical Marxist (hence Marcuse critiquing Soviet Marxism directly). As stated earlier, I think you're misreading both the section, and my viewpoint of it.

I also think (as mentioned in my edit summaries, which are far more detailed than "CE" or "CE, completed sentence") - that your subheadings are absurd and more in-line with the political biases of the conspiracy theorists than any factual take on The Frankfurt School proper, and that your strange rearrangements and run-on sentences are confusing and add nothing to the actual content. These changes just make the section incredibly clunky to read - to the point that it's harder to make sense of or get an "objective" viewpoint of (your choice of term, not mine).

...and bringing up a previous warning (right off the bat), which refers to an early debate of an earlier version of the section, is just strange and confusing behaviour on your part. Please visit WP:TPG, WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS and learn the basics of how to treat your fellow Wikipedians, as well as the basics of how to format a talk page response. Thank you. --Jobrot (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8pPbrbJJQs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Saying something is so, doesn't make it so. Likewise that video makes no effort to connect The Frankfurt School to "SJWs" in any direct or academic way. Also it should be noted that the youtube user who created that animation, a user by the name of 'Thorium' has since deleted it. --Jobrot (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2017

The new entries citing the work of Nikolas Kompridis in relationship to Habermas thinking violate Wikipedia protocol by 1. using the page to promote an individual's own work in a way that does not reflect the general consensus in the field 2. disproportionately citing one's own work in a way that overshadows the established thinkers and works that the page discusses. 3. Misrepresenting one person as the source of thoughts and discussions that have been ongoing in the field. For this reason, editors of this page should consider that these entries actually mislead people interested in balanced reflection of Frankfurt School thought that reflects general consensus in the field and not one person's self-promotion. Palomarebelde (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Palomarebelde: Could you please post a link or two verifying this? It looks like Kompridis started getting mentioned here in a substantial way by User:Walkinxyz with this edit but that's from eight years ago. At the top of that user's talk page, they plainly say they were a student of Kompridis but by using the word "self-promotion," you're strongly implying they are Kompridis. Is that the case? CityOfSilver 01:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frankfurt School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303170546/http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheSwiftAdvanceOfaPlannedCoup.htm to http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheSwiftAdvanceOfaPlannedCoup.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory section ambiguity

Theres ambiguity in this sentence:

"'Cultural Marxism" in modern political parlance refers to a conspiracy theory which sees the Frankfurt School as part of an ongoing movement to take over and destroy Western society

A conspiracy perpetrated by whom? What is meant by "take over and destroy Western society"? Why is this section so ambiguous? The citations discussed conspiracy theories involving specific people and groups (Bilderberg, Rothschilds) plotting to impose corporate control of the world. But the sentence above extends that specific conspiracy theory to envelop "Frankfurt School" broadly, making it appear as if anyone who believes Franfurt school of thought undermines western civilization is a conspiracy theorist. And yet, if you read the second sentence of this section, it tells you that in academia itself, cultural marxism refers to a form of anti-capitalist cultural critique. (see below). And so, how can it be critiquing the foundation of western society (capitalism), and yet not be part of an ongoing movement to "take over and destroy society", whatever that even means, especially when academia is 60% left and 13% right? In social sciences, the right is even lower, at 5-8%. So how can it be a "conspiracy theory" when Frankfurt school of thought is producing anti-capitalist, anti-industrialist students who want to dismantle pillars of western society? I can list a hundred citations of this happening.

The second sentence from section: The term 'cultural Marxism' has an academic usage within cultural studies, where it refers to a form of anti-capitalist cultural critique which specifically targets those aspects of culture that are seen as profit driven and mass-produced under capitalism

Id like to also point out those citations on the first sentence of this section are dubious at best. I don't see how linking to SPL center is any different from linking to a biased politically right organization.

--A77B (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between critiquing something, and taking something over or controlling it from within. The Frankfurt School did the former... and critique is a foundational part of a free society (so they were actively practising a pillar of democratic freedom, not looking to destroy it).

Also; NO; Mass production of culture via large scale corporations is not the bases of western society - and that's what they were critiquing. They weren't critiquing trading using currency, or small scale forms of private business and exchange. They were critiquing massive global corporate interests defining culture via the factory-style production of mass media targetted for profit, and aimed at the lowest common denominator. That's the distinction you've missed by not reading them.

Finally, you having an opinions on the matter is irrelevant to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia has rules that establish a hierarchy of sources. With Academic, Peer reviewed, and journalistic sources being around the top, and personal opinions not qualifying for inclusion. Also see WP:RS and WP:OR. Thank you. --Jobrot (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a paragraph can be added explaining Cultural Marxism as a synonym for Critical Theory used by some people. This would greatly help with vandalism on the page, and eliminate this argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.148.254 (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

That would be an Argumentum ad populum, a lot of people claiming something doesn't make it true or worthy of Wikipedia. --Jobrot (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Different Schools of "Cultural Marxism"

If you google "British Cultural Marxism" you get links to The Birmingham School and theories like those found in The Uses of Literacy (by Richard Hoggart of The Birmingham School). Likewise, if you google "Thompsonian Cultural Marxism" - you get a myriad of links relating to the theories of E.P Thompson - who with his books 'The Making of the English Working Class' and 'Customs in Common' is a historian of Marxist movements (perhaps more a case of the term meaning the culture OF Marxism)... but I'm still not sure why these legitimate variants of the term (which in the case of The Birmingham School's British Cultural Marxism indicate that the term does indeed relate to critiques of mass culture) aren't allowed in the current section on Cultural Marxism.

In my view Frankfurt School Cultural Marxism (which extends to Jurgen Habermas' critique of Post-Modernism, and Nancy Fraser's critique of Identity Politics and Liberal Feminism) and the Birmingham School's 'BRITISH Cultural Marxism' bare an obvious resemblance (in that they both critique mass culture) and Thompsonian Cultural Marxism still expresses a distinct and well founded use of the term 'Cultural Marxism'... Just not sure what the objections are to expanding on these other (legitimate) uses of the term. --Jobrot (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the state of the discourse on this article currently

Reference [58][54] is used as a reference for the very black-and-white statement: "'Cultural Marxism" in modern usage refers to a conspiracy theory". Meanwhile, the actual quote from the reference states:

• "On August 18, 2010, Fidel Castro contributed an article to the Cuban Communist Party paper Granma in which he endorsed the bizarre allegations of an obscure Lithuanian-born conspiracy theorist named Daniel Estulin in a 2005 book entitled The Secrets of the Bilderberg Club ... what makes his embrace of Estulin's book especially risible is the subordinate argument—and this is the part that most concerns me here—that the inspiration for the subversion of domestic unrest came from Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Leo Lowenthal and their colleagues at the Institute for Social search in the 1950's. Here we have clearly broken through the looking glass and entered a parallel universe in which normal rules of evidence and plausibility have been suspended. It is a mark of the silliness of these claims that they [were] even subjected to ridicule by Rush Limbaugh on his August 20, 2010 radio show ... Limbaugh, to be sure, ignored the other most blatant absurdity in Estulin's scheme, which was attributing to the Frankfurt School a position precisely opposite to what its members had always taken. That is, when they discussed the "culture industry" it was with the explicit criticism, ironically echoed here by Castro, that it functioned to reconcile people to their misery and dull the pain of their suffering ... But the opening salvo had, in fact, been fired a decade earlier in a lengthy essay by one Michael Minnicino called "New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'," published in 1992 in the obscure journal Fidelio.[4] Its provenance is particularly telling: it was an organ of the Lyndon Larouche movement cum cult, one of the less savory curiosities of nightmare fringe politics ...What began as a bizarre Lyndon Larouche coinage has become the common currency of a larger and larger public of addled enragés ..."

I can't wait to see how is that wall of text referencing the original B/W statement in as clear B/W manner as the statement itself. As you can see, the entire wall of text does not once use the words "cultural" or "marxism", yet it is used, and repeatedly put back in, as an authoritative source for the B/W statement. Nergaal (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, the [58] source is used for the sentence stating:

The term 'cultural Marxism' has an academic usage within cultural studies, where it refers to a form of anti-capitalist cultural critique which specifically targets those aspects of culture that are seen as profit-driven and mass-produced under capitalism.

Which also has several other sources([59][60][61][62]), for that sentence. I am begining to believe that you are making these claims knowing full well they are not true. Dave Dial (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Dude, do you have a problem with reading comprehension? Where does the block I quoted reference the statement I listed at the beginning of this section? You are happy-triggering reverting my edit and you can't even read the wall of text I placed here to reason the edit. How do you think your opinion is relevant at this point to this article when you blatantly, repeatedly show a complete disinterest in any actual two-way discussion? How do you think are you able to read my comments when you also remove them 5 times in a row? Nergaal (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be the one with the reading comprehension problem, "dude". You listed the wrong reference, for the wrong sentence, and then blamed me for not deciphering your mistakes. For the record, the text in a mouseover isn't the source, the reference is the source. If I have to explain that to you, you should be editing this, or any other article. The reference, which I also list above by Martin Jay, is here. It most definitely is a reliable source. Citing Martin Jay and from Salmagundi (magazine) , a respected journal of intellectual opinion. Dave Dial (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Please tone down the rhetoric. It's not helping this conversation to make accusations about reading comprehension.Teishin (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Dave Dial, twice now on this page you have in a knee-jerk fashion accused editors of making claims that they knew were not true when they merely have points of view that differ with your own. This is creating a hostile editing environment. You need to stop this and treat other editors respectfully. Teishin (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Being purposely obtuse or incompetent, giving the wrong reference, then not using the reference but just the mouseover text, is one of the two. Also you need to learn how to thread your comments, other editors can't keep fixing this Talk page for you. Dave Dial (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

That source is being used along with 5 other sources, and it does indeed provide testament to there being a conspiracy theory around The Frankfurt School. Indeed Martin Jay (a PhD professor in History at the University of California who has specialized in The Frankfurt School) is literally saying there is no evidence for the conspiracy theory, when he writes of it "Here we have clearly broken through the looking glass and entered a parallel universe in which normal rules of evidence and plausibility have been suspended." - he states this about the theory that The Frankfurt School are in league with the Bilderberg Club to destabilize nations. He's saying (in academic language) that the theory is BS. That it is a conspiracy theory - hence referring to its progenitor as a "conspiracy theorist". --Jobrot (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I created the Cultural Marxism article, where has it gone

A number of years ago I created the first Cultural Marxism article. I have come back to see how it's getting on and I find it has disappeared, only to be redirected here! Lots of people call themselves Cultural Marxists, there have even been a number of books about Cultural Marxism, such as "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies (Post-Contemporary Interventions) " by Dennis Dworkin, written over twenty years ago.

In what possible sense, then, is Cultural Marxism a "conspiracy theory"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.7.229.101 (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

In the sense in which sea lions use the term, it is a conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's pretend you did create the previous article for a second. You did a terrible job. You should have used more than nine sources. Only three of those sources actually used the term "Cultural Marxism" explicitly - and two of those three are from a single author (Douglas Kellner). You want "your" articles to stick around; source them better. --Jobrot (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It was a very long time ago, and in fact I can't even see the original article now (it must have been ten years ago now). I don't think it was a very good article, and I can't recall using sources. I was hoping someone could expand on it (and IIRC it was), but I'm still unclear as to why it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.7.229.101 (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to read the discussion that led to the deletion here. None the less to say that the more popular usage is now in the conspiratorial sense. I attempted a draft of a new article, but there's not really much to it. Cultural Marxism refers to neomarxist critiques of mass culture; as those from E.P Thompson, The Frankfurt School, and The Birmingham School. It's not a generalized term, and was in fact very specific (before the conspiracy theory usage set in). --Jobrot (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The handling of this matter has put the Wikipedia project in an unfavorable light link1link2. A few days ago I attempted to gently add some balance to what appears in the current article to be POV pushing and it got promptly reverted. Something needs to be done here to add balance as the reputation of Wikipedia is publically at stake here. Teishin (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It does seem a little foolish to say the least.The term "Cultural Marxism" is becoming part of the common parlance now, especially as people like Jordan Peterson explain the links between Marxism, academia and postmodernism. I've never heard of a "conspiracy theory" called Cultural Marxism though, simply a phenomenon. A conspiracy theory implies people collaborating with one another, I don't recall anyone suggesting that was happening. But now, when young people come to WikiPedia to find out what Cultural Marxism is, they will find it called a conspiracy theory and relegated to the margins, and they might conclude, errr, that there is a conspiracy theory against it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.7.229.101 (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

What you believe, or what Jordan Peterson believes - and what meets Wikipedia's standards are two separate things. This talk page is reserved for editorial discussion regard The Frankfurt School article, please respect WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM. --Jobrot (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

What highly influential, best-selling authors believe meets Wikipedia's standards for views on controversial issues. If the Cultural Marxism article is going to be on the page devoted to the Frankfurt School, then these views are relevant. Teishin (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson doesn't use the term Cultural Marxism, nor does he say anything notable on the matter. He does rant about "postmodern neomarxism" but seeing as Jürgen Habermas of The Frankfurt School is a key critic of postmodernism, his claims don't hold any WP:DUE weight. Jordan Peterson is not a reliable academic source as he is not qualified in the social sciences. --Jobrot (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected, Jordan Peterson has used the term. He has recorded himself saying that he would be against Gay Marriage if it was backed by Cultural Marxists. The view that the Gay Rights movement is run by Cultural Marxists and not by, gay people who want more rights, is of course, slap bang in conspiracy theorist territory. Would you really like his bizarre suggestion that Gay Rights is being "backed by Cultural Marxists" to be included in the current section? --Jobrot (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not what Peterson said in that video. He was asked a question where the questioner said that they thought the movement was backed by Cultural Marxists. Peterson in that video says he is in favor of gay marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teishin (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so the proposed text for the current section is "Jordan Peterson has stated that he would be against gay marriage if it was backed by Cultural Marxists" - then we'll use that clip as the ref. Sound good? --Jobrot (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

LOL. More substantive would be https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/795687163367161857 Teishin (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hover over the links to wikipedia in that "theamericanconservative" article you've linked to. They're discussing an entirely different article (from 4 years ago, which no longer exists). The current section doesn't include Paul Gottfried at all, so his complaints don't relate to the current text. Your changes to the article were OR. --Jobrot (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, those links are taking issue with prior iterations of this content. My purpose in providing them was to demonstrate that this subject was causing the Wikipedia project to be publicly criticized and careful attention is required here. My concern here is that giving only the conspiracy view of the subject is point of view pushing. It appears that plenty of people refer to Cultural Marxism in the same kind of way they refer to subjects such libertarianism, i.e., as an ideology or school of thought. Wikipedia needs to reflect that view in addition to the conspiracy theory view.Teishin (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is under constant criticism. A blog post from theamericanconservative, and an attempted clarification from TheConversation - really isn't a media blitz. Nor is wikipedia written to cater to media opinion pieces. It's written to reflect academic fact. On that note; "Cultural Marxism" is not an ideology, the element of "Marxism" isn't ideological - it's critical. Marxism has an ideological element (the utopian revolutionary plans of Marx) and a critical element (what of capitalism Marx criticized, poor working conditions, child labour, a lack of workers rights, ect..)... so "Cultural Marxism" (academically speaking) is NOT an ideology; it's a criticism of mass culture (also see the Culture Industry article). Specifically the critiques of mass culture as performed by The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, and E.P. Thompson. I hope that clarifies both Wikipedia's purpose - as well as what the term "Cultural Marxism" means. --Jobrot (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that your attempt to clarify Wikipedia's purpose has been helpful for identifying the editorial issue here. It seems to me that it is mistaken to assert that Wikipedia is written to "reflect academic fact." First, Pillar #2 of Wikipedia is that it is written from a neutral point of view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars. This is a case of there being a controversy. Endorsing one side of a controversy is not a neutral point of view. Second, academic views do not have a privileged position in Wikipedia. They are just one type of credible source.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources Third, academia is a party to the controversy, and as such it cannot have a privileged position. Teishin (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Most American university academics are moderate liberals according to this Inside Higher Education article which uses a Harvard study as its source. It also makes the point that there is a higher number of Marxists within the Social Sciences, but as Marx was a founding father of that discourse, and as the term has a specific meaning in that discourse; their "Marxism" is specialized and not political. The article puts it thus:

"Marxist identity was also low, but with less identifiable shift by age group (the range was 3.9 to 4.7 percent) and with the strongest disciplinary support in the social sciences (17.6 percent) and humanities (5.0 percent), with negligible support elsewhere. Gross and Simmons cautioned, however, that in fields like sociology and literature, scholars who identify as Marxist are in many cases talking about specific approaches to their research and analysis, and not necessarily about a political ideology they wish to see in operation."

Of course, much like a moon landing conspiracy theorist won't accept data from a NASA source, or a 911 denier or fluoride conspiracy theorist won't accept a government source, I'm sure you won't accept an academic source (such as the Harvard study discussed in the article). This is a common problem on WP:FRINGE articles: and ultimately results in agreeing to disagree on sourcing standards.

This puts you in the awkward (and in my view untenable) position of having to reject all academic education from this point out, on the grounds that it might be part of some large scale Marxist conspiracy - and hence biased. However, you're mistaking your position for Wikipedia's position.

I can assure you, as an organization Wikipedia does NOT subscribe to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory - and therefore maintaining its aim of reflecting academic sources is perfectly valid here. If this means you must count us (Wikipedia) as "part of the conspiracy" - then so be it. That will not change the sourcing standards of Wikipedia; which do indeed rate academic sources higher than all others. Thank you and good day. --Jobrot (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any of this being relevant to the matter at hand, which is about POV pushing. While there may be an "academic" POV, the documentation I have previously cited do not corroborate the assertion that Wikipedia's aim is to reflect that source to the exclusion of others. Pillar #2 of Wikipedia is that it is written from a neutral point of view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars. Academic views do not have a privileged position in Wikipedia. They are just one type of credible source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources . This talk page is attracting increasing numbers of editors who are concerned about the POV pushing here.Teishin (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. From the WP:RS link you're citing: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." So the Harvard study I have provided you stands as proof that there is no Marxist conspiracy taking over academia. Accordingly your view that there is, is WP:FRINGE. --Jobrot (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not my view. My view is that this article suffers from POV pushing. This article does not meet Wikipedia's editorial standards of neutrality. In reviewing past edits of this article, I found several editors who have expressed concern about this problem: @JerryRussell: @Last Contrarian: @Pretendus: @AnomieBOT: @Second Dark: @Batmacumba: @Славянский патриот: Teishin (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations, by pinging all those users you've violated WP:GANG, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and proved yourself to be working in WP:BADFAITH to WP:DISRUPT the normal editing process. Good luck avoiding a topic ban should anyone choose to bring this matter to the attention of administrators (which BTW has already happened to a few of the people you just pinged). --Jobrot (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Teishin: For your sake, you should hope that none of those editors answer your call to arms. You just proceeded to demonstrate a textbook case of canvassing that will either lead to a topic ban or worse for you. Dave Dial (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• You are referring to other uses of the term. Those works describe either Cultural studies, Critical thinking, or some other form of thought that we already have articles on. The manner in which you describe the term is covered here in the conspiracy theory section. And if you read the previous AfDs you will see this discussion covered extensively. Dave Dial (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Jérôme Jamin

My addition of this guy's article has been indiscriminately reverted. I assume nobody even bothered to open the journal article (that is at least freely available, AND peer-reviewed in some way:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/rec3.12258#rec312258-sec-0003-title

• title: Cultural Marxism: A survey

• section 2: CULTURAL MARXISM AND CULTURAL STUDIES

• section 3: CULTURAL MARXISM AS A CONSPIRACY THEORY

• section 4: CULTURAL MARXISM TODAY: THE CASE OF BUCHANAN, BREIVIK, THE AUSTRALIAN TEA PARTY AND THE BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY

Here is an academic you guys choose to use, but when it is a peer-reviewed publication that has a wider perspective on the subject, you actively disregard it. "CM as a CT" implies, to any person reasonable person that there is more to the field of CM than just a CT. Assuming good-faith on the guy's part, the book you guys keep adding is from 2014, while this article is published in 2018, presumably covering a broader that includes at least some events that happened since 2014. Nergaal (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No, we use all of Jamin's references in this article. Just not in the manner you want it to be used for. The reason for this is because you don't seem to understand that Cultural Marxism is referred to as Cultural studies, Critical theory and a conspiracy theory. The "Cultural Marxism Today" aspect is part of the conspiracy theory, as our sources state. You seem to want to mix and match the sources to mean something different. This was also tried at the last AfD, which you claim you've read. There's just nothing new that you've added here. Dave Dial (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting article. Here's a key point in it. "Finally, Cultural Marxism, as explained below, should be put in Box D, gathering non‐hidden actors having a non‐hidden activity. In many ways, there are no major disagreements on the Frankfurt School between academic scholars such as historians and conspiracy theorists. Nevertheless, the competition between scholars who study conspiracy theories and claim to produce a legitimate knowledge, and authors of conspiracy theories who do not trust the academic literature, is not as clear in this specific case than it is with other examples in Box A, B, or C." The conceptualization of "conspiracy theory" here doesn't match the one given at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory , where the usage is more narrow.Teishin (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

From Conspiracy theory:

"Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. The goals are sweeping, whilst the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, Communism, or the Catholic Church." --Jobrot (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

From Conspiracy theory:"According to the political scientist Michael Barkun, conspiracy theories rely on the view that the universe is governed by design, and embody three principles: nothing happens by accident, nothing is as it seems, and everything is connected.[6] Another common feature is that conspiracy theories evolve to incorporate whatever evidence exists against them, so that they become, as Barkun writes, a closed system that is unfalsifiable, and therefore "a matter of faith rather than proof".

So, since Cultural Marxism is not about non-hidden actors engaging in non-hidden activity, that violates the criterion that nothing is as it seems. Therefore Cultural Marxism, by the definition provided by Wikipedia, is not a conspiracy theory, but simply a conspiracy, i.e., an overt conspiracy. Wouldn't that be correct based on the materials we have?Teishin (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't decide whether it's a conspiracy. Reliable academic sources do (and as previously discussed, reliable academic sources do indeed refer to it as a conspiracy theory). But that aside, key proponents of the conspiracy theory version of events do indeed discuss it as a hidden conspiracy. For instance in the William S. Lind sources he states:

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

and:

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

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

Lind is claiming The Frankfurt School worked in the movie industry, when they didn't (in fact their main critique was OF mass produced media SEE: The Culture Industry article).

Lind is thought to have popularized this conspiracy theory, and with the help of the US think tank (The Free Congress Foundation) where the letter writing campaign which informed others was initiated. Likewise we can find Breitbart on youtube explicitly stating that it's a conspiracy theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4qkvu3ACUU

The republican publication The National Review can be found publicizing Michael Walsh's view that it's secretly Satanic (when The Frankfurt School were non-religious):

"Because otherwise it’s just a pointless ant farm, a satanic Matrix in which we’re all just basically batteries." [5]

"Further, the Left has cast aside much of the mufti it was forced to adopt in the United States — “tolerance” being its principal mask — and can finally be seen for what it is really is: a totalitarianism masquerading as beneficence. If that isn’t satanic, I don’t know what is." [6]

"Because every single one of the issues we are discussing politically today has its roots in the verities of human culture, and in the conflict between what I term the sacred ur-Narrative of man’s individual heroism and the anti-Narrative of man’s meaningless collectivist nature as pushed by the satanic Left. And I mean that in the nicest possible way. The problem is we are discussing symptoms when we should be discussing root causes: the conflict between good and evil." [7]

So there we have it, key figures in right wing politics, and in the construction of the conspiracy theory viewpoint - all talking of it as a hidden agenda, even referring to it as a conspiracy theory. --Jobrot (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Weasel wording

Expressions like "modern political parlance" and "found fertile ground" are poetic expressions that have no relevance to an encyclopedic, non-essay treatment of a serious subject. Bad-faith abounds. Nergaal (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed the weasel words in question. Returned the Martin Jay reference. Do not remove it again. --Jobrot (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

So you are using an essay-based quote as an encyclopedic statement? You need to read more Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Nergaal (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You know Nergaal, I once tried to separate the academic usage from the conspiracy theory usage ENTIRELY: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frankfurt_School&oldid=792073607 - but it was rejected by another editor. --Jobrot (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hell, I once tried to write an entirely new article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jobrot/sandbox/Cultural_Marxism_(culture_studies) --Jobrot (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You should look at this Nergaal https://cominsitu.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/a-conversation-with-theodor-w-adorno-spiegel-1969/ it outlines how the radical left students protested Adorno (once drowning out an entire lecture), and how Adorno protested both Moscow and Washington's attempts to take over the world. --Jobrot (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear to me how a discussion from 1969 translates to the usage of a term in 2018. Nergaal (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. The term "cultural marxism" is used differently now than in 1969. It is a term in common discourse now, not merely academic literature. Teishin (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A point made in the article. --Jobrot (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, Teishin. "Cultural Marxism" is now also a conspiracy theory and shibboleth of the alt-right. Newimpartial (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice POV pushing there, Newimpartial. This is a political topic. It's a controversial topic. There are multiple perspectives on it even though you don't like them. Wikipedia's editorial standards call for neutrality.Teishin (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not "pushing POV", I am endorsing reality. WP is not some kind of relativist playground where "political" and "controversial" topics are treated in a way that awards equal respect to all perspectives regardless of evidence. Conspiracy Theories are treated as such and all perspectives are subject to requirements for sourcing. In the case of "Cultural Marxism", this means that the sea lion perspective is treated as a CT and not as an actual thing. Newimpartial (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not surprised if "centrist" points of views are shut down by people with agendas behind. That version you linked was far more sensible, since it talked about the CM general term in a wider sense, not strictly in a derisory one. How was that version rejected? I can't pinpoint the exact history of the edits from a year ago. Nergaal (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It is becoming increasing obvious that there is no interest in constructive edits

My edit removing a reference that blatantly does not support the current statement in the article has been reverted even though I provided summary why the removal was appropriate. I think this is reaching the point a wider discussion is necessary, where cabals like Jobrot do use weak claims of consensus from years ago to disregard blatant uncyclopedic practices currently existing in this article. Nergaal (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The current article is putting Wikipedia into a bad light because it fails at Wikipedia's editorial standards. Teishin (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I've quoted you the editorial decisions and the polices they're based on. You'll have to go higher up than this is you want Wikipedia to stop considering academic sources as reliable. --Jobrot (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Jobrot, you are mischaracterizing my position. I am saying these sources cannot be reliably considered objective and I am saying that they are not to be relied upon to the exclusion of all other sources. I am saying you are constraining the choice of sources in order to support your POV pushing.Teishin (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I am constraining the choice of sources based on Wikipedia policy. Nothing more, nothing less. Wikipedia seeks to include reliable academic sources, and exclude unreliable unqualified or non-notable opinions. That's the nature of the policies. WP:OR WP:RS WP:UNDUE WP:NN --Jobrot (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)