This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I hope someone else will set up this Talk page appropriately, and add appropriate projects and notices. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I recognize that this edit removed - along with lots of dreck and misleading claims - some relevant sources. I don't have any problem with the section being expanded and some of the sources added back in, with the proviso that misleading claims (such as the use made of Jameson, 2007, which made a complete hash of the source) and COATRACK elements (such as the prior discussion of media literacy) be avoided. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
We have a section on the conspiracy theory, which has its own article. I am troubled by the assumption of anti-Semitism. Now, as far as I can tell there is no definitive version of the theory about (there is no shadowy organisation organising it!) so there would have to be a solid, fundamental element to call it that. There are Anti-Semites who cling to the theory; all conspiracies attract them. However anti-Semitism Anti-Semitism is a serious charge and so we are accusing a lot of people.
If we take the Holocaust Memorial Trust's definition of Anti-Semitism, what element of the concept is within that? As far as I can see, no element of the theory (if I understand it correctly) has any reference to Jewish people. Anti-Semites will have their own version and mix it up with bits of the Protocol of the Elders of Zion fraud, but that's just them.
If you disagree, can you set out what the theory actually states and show there is an element that necessarily includes an accusation against Jewish people or any race or culture come to that?
The battle against conspiracy theories is a serious one, and flailing about won't help. Hogweard ( talk) 20:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Does this page seek to be about Marxist Cultural Analysis, a rather broad term which could span anywhere from post-modernist positions to Orthodox radical African revolutionary Marxism, to variants on fascist communist theory, which is impossibly broad for a Wikipedia page - or does this page seek to recreate content that's been forbidden elsewhere. It seems to be re-creating a lot of SALTED content about Cultural Marxism. This is far too pointed and specific for such a title. This page in it's current incarnation could very easily be nominated at Articles For Deletion. That is perhaps the correct course of action, I don't see how it's not a rather broad
WP:CONTENTFORK and it should probably be completely transformed into a general portal (although one for MarxismSocialism already exists), or (and this appears more likely) completely pruned.
59.102.45.178 (
talk) 19:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Dang Shengyuan, who is Chinese and seems to be writing about the "Cultural Turn" period within the New Left: [1] - and Douglas Keller who also discusses these things: [2] [3]. I'm asking because I'm not sure, but it would be interesting to include a Chinese perspective. 61.68.111.187 ( talk) 11:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey, found these sources [4], many of which are on Jstor, so appear to have legitimacy. I'm particularly interested in the John Brenkman source [5]. I'm aware that this page is specifically for the conspiracy theory aspects of the term "Cultural marxism" but that John Brenkman source seems to be the source for much of the salted content. Is it time to ask the question again? Should any of this appear on the current page? 220.245.58.239 ( talk) 16:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
salted content, that is, the claims on which the conspiracy theory bases itself. Does anyone else see something different in this "collection of evidence"? It looks basically like a google search result for the phrase "cultural Marxism", to me. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
The lede ends
However since the 1990s, this term has largely referred to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, a highly influential discourse on the far right without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis. [1] [2]
I have examined the sources given and can emphatically say that the claims fail verification. Jérôme identifies the origins of the conspiracy theory in concrete citations to actual works of Gramsci and the Frankfurt School. The right-wing commentators ascribe more malice and more influence to those authors as matters of interpretation, but largely agree with the mainstream on the facts. The most relevant parts from the conclusion of "Cultural Marxism: A Survey" for discussion:
Even if this led us to observe two different groups with a different attitude regarding what is the truth: the opening discussion also stressed elements of continuity between both sides, and stated it was not our goal to say where and when some authors cross the border from one side to the other, from what is supposed to be real and serious academic work and what is more about interpretation and speculation. This is important because, first, the power of conspiracy theories rest upon the use of some unquestionable facts (in “conspiracy thinking,” an unquestionable fact is something you can verify by yourself). And, second, because the case of “Cultural Marxism” as a conspiracy theory illustrates using an unquestionable fact and how this continuity works between both sides. When looking at the literature on Cultural Marxism as a piece of cultural studies, as a conspiracy described by Lind and its followers, and as arguments used by Buchanan, Breivik, and other actors within their own agendas, we see a common ground made of unquestionable facts in terms of who did what and where, and for how long at the Frankfurt School. Nowhere do we see divergence of opinion about who Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse really were, when they have met and in which universities.
But this changes if we look at descriptions of what they wanted to do: conducting research or changing deeply the culture of the West? Were they working for political science or were they engaging with a hidden political agenda? Were they working for the academic community or obeying foreign secret services?
And for the same reasons, interpretations change if we look at what they have done: did they succeed? What has been the real impact of their project? Can we locate this on campuses and academic discourses, or on culture in general? Such interpretations also change again if we look at what they knew of their own influence: were they really aware of what they were doing? Were they overtaken by the success of their works on their students and readers? Were they themselves manipulated by foreign forces? Scholars and conspiracy theories differ significantly in their assessments of such questions. These questions also show the connection between the two groups. All start with unquestionable facts, but to go on to make very different interpretation about the impact of Cultural Marxism on culture and values, with sometimes very strong suspicions about the shameful objective behind the story.
It is very clear from this that the current lede text cannot stand, but I'd welcome input on how exactly it should change. Sennalen ( talk) 18:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Nowhere do we see divergence of opinion about who Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse really were, when they have met and in which universities. But this changes if we look at descriptions of what they wanted to doThese are the trivial facts identified, that Lind knew who Horkheimer was… Thats not lead-worthy. Also i don’t see the connection to the cited passage from the lead. Do you have any suggestion on what you wish to improve? Mvbaron ( talk) 20:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
It would be closer to the truth to say without any clear distinction between what the far-right commenters are talking about and what the academics are talking about- that is unsourced, POV nonsense. Don't do that. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
The source establishes to the contrary that there is a clear relationship, namely the work of the Frankfurt School.No that's not true. What the source says (I quote again, since no one reacted to my first attempt at clarifying this):
Nowhere do we see divergence of opinion about who Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse really were, when they have met and in which universities. But this changes if we look at descriptions of what they wanted to do. The "clear relationship" is that the conspiracy theorists pin their conspiracy on real people. Which is hardly worth a mention, and I don't know why Jerome dwells on that point... But regardless, the
without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysisis correct in that the conspiracy theorists completely misrepresent the content of what the Frankfurt School said and wanted. Mvbaron ( talk) 21:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Erm, you quoted it: Scholars and conspiracy theories differ significantly in their assessments of such questions.
The implication being that the scholars are of course right, and the conspiracy theorists not. --
Mvbaron (
talk) 22:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Senallen, sure, I’m happy to support a refinement for this sentence like “There’s no relationship to the Frankfurt school, other the fact that the conspiracy theorists picked the Frankfurt School”. What do you think? Mvbaron ( talk) 23:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
most of the sources identify the object of that hostility as the actual people and actual work of the Frankfurt School, Gramsci, and others in that milieu- no reliable sources that I have seen actually do this. Jamin doesn't
identify the object of that hostility as the actual people and actual work of the Frankfurt school, and the occasional conspiracy theorist name-checking Horkheimer or Adorno doesn't make it so. This belief of yours that the "Culural Marxism" of the conspiracy theorists simply represents
discourse from people who are hostile to the program of Marxist cultural analysis- essentially, they know what Marxists are saying about culture but don't like it - lacks any RS support and is in fact a trope of the conspiracy theory. Wikipedia does not create FALSEBALANCE, or present FRINGE views as "alternative facts" alongside actual scholarship. We owe our readers better. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The idea that the idea that the conspiracy theorists understand what they read is part of the conspiracy theory is a curiously recursive theory, and I'd be interested if you have any sources for that. Meanwhile, here are a few of the sources connecting the conspiracy theories to actual Marxist cultural analysis. Since we've been discussing Jamin, we can start with some specific text there.
So we can see there is quite a lot of text available to describe how the conspiracy theorists relate to the sources. They often use them incorrectly and with anti-Semitic intent, but it should be undeniable that there is something real there they have engaged with. This is probably too much to process all at once into a better sentence for the lede, so I suggest we work bottom up, parsing out the particular claims and perspectives from different sources in the body. At a later time, those insights can be distilled into a concise lede statement. There is no deadline. Sennalen ( talk) 16:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
the conspiracy theorists just picked Adorno et al and tried to pin a bunch of crap on them. :) Newimpartial ( talk) 17:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
there is something real there they have engaged with. I will deal first with Busbridge et al., and Braune, because they represent the more substantial RS. Busbridge says that the conspiracy theorists regard Cultural Marxism
as a calculated plan orchestrated by leftist intellectuals to destroy Western values, traditions and civilisationand that they
conflatethe Cultural Marxism of the conspiracy theory with Euro-Marxism. These authors are not saying that the conspiracy theorists
have engaged with
something real.
“Cultural Marxism” conspiracy theories greatly exaggerate the Frankfurt School’s influence and power", and her reference to
a conspiracy theory that trades on the Frankfurt School’s perceived Jewishnessdoes not imply "engagement" between the conspiracy theorists and a supposed "Cultural Marxism". Of course the Frankfurt School did actually exist, and of course the conspiracy theorists took certain ideas of Marcuse, Adorno and others, distorted them, pretended that they represented a coherent political project and then applied the tropes of antisemitism to turn this (imaginary) political project into a conspiracy theory. That is what the reliable sources tell us happened, and it would be an act of total WHITEWASHING to treat that as "engagement" or "influence".
clear:
The discordance appears at two important levels. First, in the interpretation of the true will of the School's leaders: “Did they really plan to do what they have done?” Second, on the consequences the School had on Western values in both Europe and the United States: “Is the destruction of Western values a reality?” Cultural Marxist conspiracy theorists and scholars of the Frankfurt School diverge in their interpretations of these types of questions.
no clear relationshipbetween these sets of answers, and yet these propositions do clearly define a distinction between scholarship on Marxist cultural analysis and the "efforts" of the conspiracy theorists. I still, frankly, see no there, there. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Mvbaron:This would not be the page to go into unlimited depth about the conspiracy theory, since this is the page about actual Marxist cultural analysis. However, it is approprate to note the existence of the conspiracy theory and briefly explain how the two relate to each other. In fact, the article does attempt to do that, in a section at the bottom and a sentence in the lede. I assume you do not support removing those parts of the article. What I intend to do is improve that existing section, making it more reflective of the sources. Sennalen ( talk) 17:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
improvethat existing section is based on the premises that Cultural Marxism is a real thing, and that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory "engaged with" an actually existing "Cultural Marxism" based on their understanding of its
actual people and actual work, then you are most unlikely to arrive at "improvements" that would ever be supported by the BALANCE of the sources or endorsed by consensus. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment This edit is very WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, in the context of the preceding discussion. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
What the conspiracy theorists mean by "Cultural Marxism" includes actual thinkers and works in Marxist cultural analysis- that's a misrepresentation of Jamin's point.
...some of the strands of Marxist cultural analysis that conspiracy theorists have engaged with- the conspiracy theorists don't engage academically with anyone.
Where the conspiracy theories diverge from the mainstream- misrepresentation of Jamin again: there is no mainstream, and the conspiracy theorists are not doing philosophy or sociology. Mvbaron ( talk) 21:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
have innacurately paraphrased a sourceand
given undue weightto certain claims - this has already been communicated clearly to you in the preceding discussion (but apparently YOUDONTHEARTHAT). In case it wasn't self-evident, the main disputed passage is this (with particular points of dispute in italics):
however the term "Cultural Marxism" is also used by purveyors of an antisemitic conspiracy theory.[25][26][27] What the conspiracy theorists mean by "Cultural Marxism" includes actual thinkers and works in Marxist cultural analysis[25][26][27] but with significant misunderstandings and distortions. Joan Braune cites Marcuse on repressive tolerance, Adorno on aesthetics, and Fromm on the psychology of fascism as some of the strands of Marxist cultural analysis that conspiracy theorists have engaged with, though mistakenly treating these thinkers as interchageable parts of a coordinated organization rather than disparate individuals pursing their own lines of inquiry.[26] According to Jérôme Jamin, "looking at the literature on Cultural Marxism as a piece of cultural studies, as a conspiracy described by Lind and its followers, and as arguments used by Buchanan, Breivik, and other actors within their own agendas, we see a common ground made of unquestionable facts in terms of who did what and where, and for how long at the Frankfurt School.
that conspiracy theorists have engaged with, which lends (through selective presentation) misleading support for the idea that conspiracy theorists and scholars are talking about the same thing, which is not at all Braune's actual argument. And the selected quotation from Jamin emphasizes
a common ground made of unquestionable factswhich is, again, a misleading selection from the piece; the selection fails to make Jamin's own more fundamental distinctions between the Cultural Marxism of the conspiracy theory and actual Western Marxism. Jamin clearly makes this distinction, and even emphasizes it, but the proposed text does not.
So we can see there is quite a lot of text available to describe how the conspiracy theorists relate to the sources. They often use them incorrectly and with anti-Semitic intent, but it should be undeniable that there is something real there they have engaged with.This is not a page for "Right wing views of Marxist Analysis" - nor is it your personal WP:SOAPBOX to try and wedge in fringe or right wing content. This is not an exploration of the conspiracy theory ( Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory would be the page for that. -- 61.68.113.170 ( talk) 08:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia will follow the sourceson this matter: it already does, in spite of your (rather strained) assertions to the contrary. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
has nothing to do with Marxist cultural analysisin my view is not the conspiracy theory, which is a kind of Monty Python parody of the Frankfurt School pastiched together with grad school Gramscians of the 1980s, but rather your statement about
how talking about the Frankfurt School can be a surreptitous way to introduce anti-Semitic ideas without overtly talking about Jews or Judaism.That point has nothing to do with Marxist cultural analysis but pertains only to the conspiracy theory. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I found two more useful sources at the conspiracy article, which make less ambiguous statements than Jamin and Braune. The case made by all four in combination is strong.
To be clear, none of this needs to be directly described in this article. What this article needs to do is to explain succintly as possible what the relationship is between the conspiracy theory and actual Marxist cultural analysis. It is not in dispute that the conspiracy theorists are factually mistaken and anti-Semitic. Nonetheless, the thing they are mistaken about is the work of Gramsci and the Frankfurt school. They aren't talking about Charles Darwin, the morning weather report, or the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are talking about the topic of this article. They are not just mentioning the names of these people. They are talking about specific works and specific ideas in those works, and they are wrong in specific ways. Sennalen ( talk) 17:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Nonetheless, the thing they are mistaken about is the work of Gramsci and the Frankfurt school. They aren't talking about Charles Darwin, the morning weather report, or the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are talking about the topic of this article.
they are talking about the topic of this articleor they are talking about
Charles Darwinor
the Dead Sea Scrolls.
the actual people and actual work of the Frankfurt School, Gramsci, and othersare profoundly misleading. For example, the "political correctness" "reading" of Marcuse's "repressive tolerance" isn't based on Marcuse's thought in any cogent way - and even if it were, it would not turn Marcuse into a "Cultural Marxist". Conspiracy theorists grab onto specific concepts (like the Long march through the institutions, or Political correctness, or caricatures of "postmodernism"), rip them out of context, and create conspiracy theory out of them. Only incidentally are any of these building blocks related to Marxist cultural analysis, and most actual Marxist cultural analysis - like the work of E. P. Thompson or Raymond Williams, or for that matter Henri Lefevre and the French 1968 generation - is entirely ignored by the conspiracists. So to say anything like what you have proposed for this article is UNDUE and unsupported by the sources you have provided. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
"the conspiracy theorists are wrong": it matters what step of their argument loses touch with consensus reality. To simplify what I am saying, the conspiracy theorists have claimed (1) that "Cultural Marxism exists" and (2) that "the conspiracy theory offers a truer account of things than do the Cultural Marxists themselves". In my view, you are conceding that (1) may be true even if (2) is known to be false. Meanwhile, I - following essentially all of the reliable sources in the field - state that (1) is also false. Many, repeated RfCs at Wikipedia - mostly prior to or without any of my involvement, btw - have concluded that (1) is unsupported by RS. So your framing the discussion as though I were simply maintaining that
the conspiracy theorists are wrong- without specifying wrong about what - is eliding the key question on which hundreds of editors have made clear decisions, based on sources and WP policies, over the years.
@ Newimpartial: I'm beginning to understand some of the contours of your perspective. I do not agree with your narrow construal of certain words, but perhaps we can side step trouble spots with other phrasing. What do you think of this construction?:
That sounds like a reasonable addition to
Western Marxism;
- at least the first sentence - but I'm not sure why anyone would want to include it here. The second sentence is deeply problematic, because it seems to imply that the only, or the most important, difference in perspective between scholars and conspiracy theorists is whether the Marxists had "nefarious motives", which is ridiculous not supported by the sources given.
Newimpartial (
talk) 22:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
the relationship between the conspiracy theory and valid scholarshipis helpful to the reader if it implies that the conspiracy theorists took an actual "Cultural Marxist" tendency and put their own spin on it, by attributing to it loopy motives or making it "seem more monolithic". The object of the conspiracy theory, which they call "Cultural Marxism" is not a pre-existing "it" that can be interpreted in different ways - it is constructed by the conspriacists out of essentially heterogenous materials. That is what the sources say to me.
The idea that there is not actually a philosophy/movement there to critique just doesn't hold up.
- it seems fairly clear to me that you're a subscriber of the conspiracy theory, and are here to justify it (to blur the line). You don't have a
WP:SNOW snowball's chance in hell of doing that. You're claiming there's a movement? Of what, academics who don't call themselves "Cultural Marxists"? No one we've mentioned self-describes that way, how can you claim there's a movement?... Do you see how that's kind of; a conspiratorial way of thinking, in that YOU see the conspiracy but others don't see it that way. What you're attempting is complete
WP:SOAPBOX
WP:OR as far as I can tell. Trying to justify a conspiracy theory because no one points to a line and says "Here! This is the absolute line between truth and conspiracy" - well grow up. That's not what we do here. We report on sources, we don't get to interject, interpret or synthesize. What this article needs to do is to explain succintly as possible what the relationship is between the conspiracy theory and actual Marxist cultural analysis.
- NOPE! There is no policy that backs up YOUR "need" here. That's what makes it
WP:OR that it's YOUR intent for the article. What you want Wikipedia to say. That's not what goes on here. Even if you could find a claim that says whatever it is you want - it would still be just ONE single source. Your attempts here are totally
WP:undue and I'd suggest to you, that for your own sanity, you give up your snowball mission, and consider the fact that Wikipedia doesn't have needs (or at least, not the needs you're claiming). It has policies, and what you're attempting to do, goes against those policies. --
61.68.113.170 (
talk) 03:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
References
|
---|
|
I hope everyone has had an enjoyable holiday. Following the discussion above, I propose a new edit to the conspiracy theory section, which can be seen at [6]. This will satisfy some of my concerns on WP:V and WP:ONEWAY, and also incorporates feedback from Newimpartial and others in the following respects:
Sennalen ( talk) 19:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
The term "cultural Marxism" has been used in a general sense to discuss Marxist ideas in the cultural field;without the
whileand
alsoof the long-stable version, creates BOTHSIDES quality (that "people referring to 'Cultural Marxism' might be referring to the conspiracy theory or to Marxist cultural analysis") that is not supported by the BALANCE of the sources cited, much less the available sources.
Parts of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory make reference to actual thinkers and ideas that are in the Western Marxist traditionis a selective and UNDUE statement for an article on Marxist cultural analysis, and
Conspiracy theorists diverge from accepted scholarship by attributing nefarious motives to scholars,and by exaggerating the actual influence of Marxist cultural analysis in the worldfalls precisely into the objection I raised above - it concedes (against all available RS) that the conspiracy theorists are talking about "the same tradition" addressed in this article as Marxist cultural analysis, but then attribute to it nefarious motives and exaggerated influence. This is
Here are the contours of the disagreement as I understand it.
Parts of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory make reference to actual thinkers and ideas that are in the Western Marxist tradition, but they severely misrepresent the subject.is a faithful summary of the sources. I have given nine passages in six sources that support these claims. (At the bottom of this edit: [7]). Newimpartial says I have not interpreted these passages correctly. I do not understand what Newimpartial's interpretation would be well enough to attempt to summarize for them.
I believe #1 is the true, primary locus of dispute. If Newimpartial agrees that this is the case, then it would be productive to open an RfC on the narrow question of whether the passage faithfully reflects the sources. It would be especially helpful if before the posting they would provide a contrasting summary of the passages I have cited or else pointers to passages they believe are more reflective of the relationship between the conspiracy theory and Marxist cultural analysis. On the other hand, if there's no agreement on the locus of dispute, it would be better to begin the process at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Sennalen ( talk) 21:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether- while I am not arguing that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory should be omitted altogether from this article, I do believe that discussion of it must be limited for reasons of WP:DUE WP:WEIGHT. Note also that the point of the subsequent passage of ONEWAY.
Fringe theories should be discussed in context; uncontroversial ideas may need to be referred to in relation to fringe theoriesapplies to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article, not this one - the conspiracy theory needs to be distinguished from actually existing Western Marxism, but Western Marxism does not need to be distinguished from the conspiracy theory. This is the whole point of ONEWAY, which does not at all support Sennalen's proposal here. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way.Essentially, finding RS connecting Marxist cultural analysis with the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is a necessary condition for mentioning anything about the conspiracy theory on this page. Sennalen ( talk) 00:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I believe #1 is the true, primary locus of dispute.I disagree. I'm not so much interested in dissecting Western Marxism or using this page to draw clarification between two other pages (that's not the purpose of this page, this page is for clarifying the works of The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School and E.P Thompson). I don't really understand the goal here, or why it's being done on THIS page in particular. Western Marxism is not monolithic, it's very broad and can encompass everything from Marx himself to the post-modernists (if one were so inclined). We have a page for clarifying Western Marxism already. For me, what you're really completely overlooking are cases like when Breitbart states "Theodor Adorno promoted degenerate atonal music to induce mental illness, including necrophilia, on a large scale. He and Horkheimer also penetrated Hollywood, recognising the film industry’s power to influence mass culture." or when Lind writes "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)"...
While the term "cultural Marxism" has been used in a general sense, to discuss the application of Marxist ideas in the cultural field, the variant term "Cultural Marxism" generally refers to an antisemitic conspiracy theory. There is no justification for the material you wish to add:
Parts of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory make reference to actual thinkers and ideas that are in the Western Marxist tradition, but they severely misrepresent the subject. Conspiracy theorists diverge from accepted scholarship by attributing nefarious motives to scholars, and by exaggerating the actual influence of Marxist cultural analysis in the world.The juxtaposition offered by the stable article text is a BALANCED summary of the sources; the derivation of the conspiracy theory from Marxist cultural analysis (or from Western Marxism - which isn't even the topic of this article) is not supported by sources or policy.
clearand based on WP:RS. The indisputable fact that some conspiracy theory figures name-drop certain (predominantly Jewish, but otherwise apparently random) figures from the Frankfurt School, etc. does not create a "clear" relationship to Marxist cultural analysis, and each of your attempts to do so has run afoul of WP:OR and WP:TEND. I would suggest that you give it a rest. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether.Just because I am not motivated to "omit altogether" does not mean that "limiting" discussion to what is necessary for the RS topic is not the way to go - it is exactly what policy requires.
Parts of the ... conspiracy theory make reference to actual (wealthy Jewish financiers), but they severely misrepresent the subject. Conspiracy theorists diverge from accepted scholarship by attributing nefarious motives to (financiers), and by exaggerating the actual influence of (wealthy Jewish financiers) in the world. I trust that the relevance of this parallel is obvious. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Your proposed text has not summarized RS about this topic
- you have selected passages out of context, from sources that have not reached your selected conclusion at all, and employed
WP:SYNTH. But even if the support for the "Cultural Marxism" passage were the same as that for the passage I imagined about the financiers, it would not be an appropriate summary and WP would not include either summary in article space.
I don't see any problem with the current opening sentence of the section, which is amply supported by the BALANCE of RS. I am not going marine mammal hunting. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
misrepresenting
actual thinkers and ideas,
attributing nefarious motivesand
exaggerating...actual influence, as opposed to, say, fabrication or antisemitic caricature. Your isolation of and emphasis on these elements represents an original reading of the sources you are citing in support of your proposal - in other words, WP:SYNTH.
Near as I can tell, the only reason we have a page by this name is some editors are taking great pains to avoid the phrase "cultural Marxism" because of its culture war implications. Anyone whose first concern is point-scoring in the culture war is WP:NOTHERE.While this does not clearly apply to anyone in this discussion, it seems equally clear that it is intended as an ASPERSION - though it is entirely unsupported by evidence, in violation of the WP:TPG. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
the most significant differences between actual Western Marxism and the object of the conspiracy theory consist in misrepresenting actual thinkers and ideas, attributing nefarious motives and exaggerating...actual influence, as opposed to, say, fabrication or antisemitic caricature. To support this statement, you would need a source that actually isolates these aspects as the salient differences between the conspiracy theory and actually existing Marxism, and you would need to present this with in-text attribution rather than in wikivoice (because it is not a generally held view).
References
clear relationship, your speculation in this matter does not seem especially germane to this article. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Why is this here? I'm new to this page, so perhaps I'm not familiar with the prior discussions. But it surprised me that sources about the Brevik attack would be used in this article. The BBC source [8], for example, does not discuss the conspiracy theory, nor how it connects to the Marxist cultural analysis. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I have further refined the change based on additional feedback.
I am presently posting this revision to the main article, without the intention to self-revert this time. I firmly believe this is the presentation that deserves to stand. Those who disagree may of course discuss further and edit further, bearing in mind WP:PRESERVE. Sennalen ( talk) 17:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
For clarity, the version as I posed it was [9]. There have already been some edits I don't particularly endorse, but I'll let it lie and see what develops. Sennalen ( talk) 18:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Well that was a lot of argument and nothing proven. I guess someone got their way though... er, good for them? -- 124.170.170.79 ( talk) 03:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
What makes this person worthy of a paragraph in an article titled "Marxist cultural analysis"? Ꞇewꝺar ( talk) 10:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Eh don’t be silly :) it’s in a section on the conspiracy theory… Mvbaron ( talk) 12:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The conspiracy theory section has been stable awhile, so it seems time to finally address the original issue, which was OR in the lede. Rather than "without any clear relationship", there is a clear relationship of Marxist analysis being used and misinterpreted in the conspiracy theory. This is true whether one looks at the Jamin source originally cited, Braune that was used to replace it, or the full sourcing now in the later section. The material is there to fix it in the proper WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY way. I'll leave this a few days to see if anyone else wants to tackle the exact phrasing. Sennalen ( talk) 15:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
clear relationshipor
based on. Without good sourcing, this is a non-starter. The proposed "Background" section is far from establishing a "clear relationship" (which makes sense, if there isn't one). Newimpartial ( talk) 16:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
a mainly fabricated...account ofwould qualify as
based on. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Extended quote
|
---|
In the heady days immediately after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was widely believed that proletarian revolution would momentarily sweep out of the Urals into Europe and, ultimately, North America. It did not; the only two attempts at workers' government in the West— in Munich and Budapest—lasted only months. The Communist International (Comintern) therefore began several operations to determine why this was so. One such was headed by Georg Lukacs, a Hungarian aristocrat, son of one of the Hapsburg Empire's leading bankers. Trained in Germany and already an important literary theorist, Lukacs became a Communist during World War I, writing as he joined the party, "Who will save us from Western civilization?" Lukacs was well-suited to the Comintern task: he had been one of the Commissars of Culture during the short-lived Hungarian Soviet in Budapest in 1919; in fact, modern historians link the shortness of the Budapest experiment to Lukacs' orders mandating sex education in the schools, easy access to contraception, and the loosening of divorce laws—all of which revulsed Hungary's Roman Catholic population.
Fleeing to the Soviet Union after the counter-revolution, Lukacs was secreted into Germany in 1922, where he chaired a meeting of Communist-oriented sociologists and intellectuals. This meeting founded the Institute for Social Research. Over the next decade, the Institute worked out what was to become the Comintern's most successful psychological warfare operation against the capitalist West. Lukacs identified that any political movement capable of bringing Bolshevism to the West would have to be, in his words, "demonic"; it would have to "possess the religious power which is capable of filling the entire soul; a power that characterized primitive Christianity." However, Lukacs suggested, such a "messianic" political movement could only succeed when the individual believes that his or her actions are determined by "not a personal destiny, but the destiny of the community" in a world "that has been abandoned by God [emphasis added-MJM]." Bolshevism worked in Russia because that nation was dominated by a peculiar gnostic form of Christianty typified by the writings of Fyodor Dostoyevsky. "The model for the new man is Alyosha Karamazov," said Lukacs, referring to the Dostoyevsky character who willingly gave over his personal identity to a holy man, and thus ceased to be "unique, pure, and therefore abstract." This abandonment of the soul's uniqueness also solves the problem of "the diabolic forces lurking in all violence" which must be unleashed in order to create a revolution. In this context, Lukacs cited the Grand Inquisitor section of Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, noting that the Inquisitor who is interrogating Jesus, has resolved the issue of good and evil: once man has understood his alienation from God, then any act in the service of the "destiny of the community" is justified; such an act can be "neither crime nor madness.... For crime and madness are objectifications of transcendental homelessness." According to an eyewitness, during meetings of the Hungarian Soviet leadership in 1919 to draw up lists for the firing squad, Lukacs would often quote the Grand Inquisitor: "And we who, for their happiness, have taken their sins upon ourselves, we stand before you and say, 'Judge us if you can and if you dare.'" |
This source uses both the terms "Marxist Cultural Theory" and "Marxist Cultural Analysis" interchangeably. So I think it might be good to investigate for a possible expansion of the article. I will also be looking through this lecture from Stuart Hall [10], on the Origins of Culture studies (which a user has made the unfortunate suggestion of merging the article with). However, the lecture is from Stuart Hall, one of the later theorists of The Birmingham School, and (according to the transcript) makes no mention of Marx or Marxism. Culture Studies in general doesn't - and so I think they're two separate (although not unrelated) topics entirely. If I had to say it explicitly, I'd say Marxist cultural theory, or Marxist cultural analysis, is a sort of unwashed Culture Studies. Unwashed by neoliberal academia, or modern culture wars. 203.220.137.141 ( talk) 04:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Encountered a problem adding this source, Wikipedia's citation tool couldn't find the ISBN (odd). Was entering the one on Amazon. Amazon also listed Ian Buchanan's bio, which can be viewed here: https://www.amazon.com.au/stores/author/B001H6NT9K/about
During this search for the ISBN, I found the book had been updated to a 2018 version - the description of which mentions The Frankfurt School explicitly: https://www.amazon.com.au/Dictionary-Professor-University-Wollongong-Australia-dp-0198794797/dp/0198794797/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
It also locates the book as having been published by "The University of Wollongong" - a relatively small town on the east coast of Australia. Given that the source was updated in 2018, I'm hesitant to add it until the updated text in question can be reviewed further. 203.219.38.81 ( talk) 03:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
By the end of the Second World War, Western Marxism had become the almost exclusive preserve of the academy—whereas figures like Antonio Gramsci and György Lukàcs had been active in government, scholars like Walter Benjamin, and more especially Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer were strictly academic. It also started to focus more on cultural rather than economic problems and it is for this reason also known as cultural Marxism.
It also started to focus more on cultural rather than economic problems and it is for this reason also known as cultural Marxism.
It also started to focus more on cultural rather than economic problems and it is for this reason also known as cultural Marxism
Despite the name "Marxist Cultural Analysis" this discourse has steadily traveled away from Orthodox Marxism, and towards Social Democracy and Liberalism.
It is an anti-fascist, anti-capitalist critique... but that's not necessarily the same as being a Marxist critique. Theorists like those of The Frankfurt School and Birmingham School (who make up most of the topic's content) were operating solidly under Western Capitalist Democracies. The Frankfurt School even aided that infrastructure throughout WW2, and The Cold War (as reflected in their work against the Nazis for the OSS and later against the USSR during The Cold War. Likewise it's the viewpoint of some academics that they were anti-communist in their actions.
The Birmingham School barely even touches on Marxism, with this peer reviewed paper (fully available on Sci-Hub) saying on page 5 of Sci-Hub's PDF, or 228 of the actual journal: "Hoggart’s political viewpoints were not outwardly expressed until much later in life, and make clear his aversion to Marxism"... likewise Stuart Hall of The Birmingham School writes about media consumption, messages, and culture, within the neo-liberal paradigm.
No one recommends Marxism, and they barely mention Marx for the majority of their writings. Even something like, this chapter of The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception by Adorno, mentions The Marx Brothers more than Karl Marx. Likewise his essay "On the Problems of The Family" shows not even the remotest desire for Marxism. Nor does Marcus' Repressive Tolerance. They in fact express modern ideals and values in line with Social Democracy. Marcus lists who he believes are the biggest threats to freedom (and the most likely to damage democracy):
promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.
There is no desire to replace Capitalism with Marxism in their writings beyond giving sharp criticism of the moneyed classes, and industrial elites. Criticizing Capitalism is not the same as wishing to replace it with Marxism. They denounced the student revolutionaries] as doing a form of reactionary machine wrecking that was a risk to educational institutions. Adorno went so far as to call the police on protests... leading them to develop the slogan "If Adorno is left in peace, capitalism will never cease".( Source) This role as a stabilizing Socially Democratic force within Western Liberal Capitalism is even made apparent in Stuart Jefferies Timeline of The Frankfurt School ( https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/blogs/news/2844-the-frankfurt-school-a-timeline Available [here via Verso Books]) where it's stated that at just the age of 20:
1918: WW1 ends. The Habsburg Empire collapses, and defeated Germany seems on the brink of revolution. Soviet-style republics briefly established in Bavaria, and in Berlin. In Berlin’s Alexanderplatz, a young Herbert Marcuse sees revolutionary action when he is charged with shooting rightwing snipers who themselves were targeting left-wing demonstrators and revolutionary agitators.
So because of these factors, whilst this discourse has been informed by Marx, it will not be placed as "Part of a series on Marxism". It is unfortunate that this group of essentially Western Leftist thinkers have been refused admittance into The Western Cannon, and hence, have never been given an apt name that accurately describes their political position - however the least we can do is not further the idea that they were Orthodox Marxists. They are more correctly and accurately places a part of a series on The New Left. However, I cannot locate a template for that grouping. Progressivism may have to do. 118.208.226.30 ( talk) 05:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
"The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines."I've not attached any sidebar. Still looking for the right one (assuming one exists), suggestions welcome. 118.208.226.30 ( talk) 05:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I hope someone else will set up this Talk page appropriately, and add appropriate projects and notices. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I recognize that this edit removed - along with lots of dreck and misleading claims - some relevant sources. I don't have any problem with the section being expanded and some of the sources added back in, with the proviso that misleading claims (such as the use made of Jameson, 2007, which made a complete hash of the source) and COATRACK elements (such as the prior discussion of media literacy) be avoided. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
We have a section on the conspiracy theory, which has its own article. I am troubled by the assumption of anti-Semitism. Now, as far as I can tell there is no definitive version of the theory about (there is no shadowy organisation organising it!) so there would have to be a solid, fundamental element to call it that. There are Anti-Semites who cling to the theory; all conspiracies attract them. However anti-Semitism Anti-Semitism is a serious charge and so we are accusing a lot of people.
If we take the Holocaust Memorial Trust's definition of Anti-Semitism, what element of the concept is within that? As far as I can see, no element of the theory (if I understand it correctly) has any reference to Jewish people. Anti-Semites will have their own version and mix it up with bits of the Protocol of the Elders of Zion fraud, but that's just them.
If you disagree, can you set out what the theory actually states and show there is an element that necessarily includes an accusation against Jewish people or any race or culture come to that?
The battle against conspiracy theories is a serious one, and flailing about won't help. Hogweard ( talk) 20:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Does this page seek to be about Marxist Cultural Analysis, a rather broad term which could span anywhere from post-modernist positions to Orthodox radical African revolutionary Marxism, to variants on fascist communist theory, which is impossibly broad for a Wikipedia page - or does this page seek to recreate content that's been forbidden elsewhere. It seems to be re-creating a lot of SALTED content about Cultural Marxism. This is far too pointed and specific for such a title. This page in it's current incarnation could very easily be nominated at Articles For Deletion. That is perhaps the correct course of action, I don't see how it's not a rather broad
WP:CONTENTFORK and it should probably be completely transformed into a general portal (although one for MarxismSocialism already exists), or (and this appears more likely) completely pruned.
59.102.45.178 (
talk) 19:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Dang Shengyuan, who is Chinese and seems to be writing about the "Cultural Turn" period within the New Left: [1] - and Douglas Keller who also discusses these things: [2] [3]. I'm asking because I'm not sure, but it would be interesting to include a Chinese perspective. 61.68.111.187 ( talk) 11:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey, found these sources [4], many of which are on Jstor, so appear to have legitimacy. I'm particularly interested in the John Brenkman source [5]. I'm aware that this page is specifically for the conspiracy theory aspects of the term "Cultural marxism" but that John Brenkman source seems to be the source for much of the salted content. Is it time to ask the question again? Should any of this appear on the current page? 220.245.58.239 ( talk) 16:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
salted content, that is, the claims on which the conspiracy theory bases itself. Does anyone else see something different in this "collection of evidence"? It looks basically like a google search result for the phrase "cultural Marxism", to me. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
The lede ends
However since the 1990s, this term has largely referred to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, a highly influential discourse on the far right without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis. [1] [2]
I have examined the sources given and can emphatically say that the claims fail verification. Jérôme identifies the origins of the conspiracy theory in concrete citations to actual works of Gramsci and the Frankfurt School. The right-wing commentators ascribe more malice and more influence to those authors as matters of interpretation, but largely agree with the mainstream on the facts. The most relevant parts from the conclusion of "Cultural Marxism: A Survey" for discussion:
Even if this led us to observe two different groups with a different attitude regarding what is the truth: the opening discussion also stressed elements of continuity between both sides, and stated it was not our goal to say where and when some authors cross the border from one side to the other, from what is supposed to be real and serious academic work and what is more about interpretation and speculation. This is important because, first, the power of conspiracy theories rest upon the use of some unquestionable facts (in “conspiracy thinking,” an unquestionable fact is something you can verify by yourself). And, second, because the case of “Cultural Marxism” as a conspiracy theory illustrates using an unquestionable fact and how this continuity works between both sides. When looking at the literature on Cultural Marxism as a piece of cultural studies, as a conspiracy described by Lind and its followers, and as arguments used by Buchanan, Breivik, and other actors within their own agendas, we see a common ground made of unquestionable facts in terms of who did what and where, and for how long at the Frankfurt School. Nowhere do we see divergence of opinion about who Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse really were, when they have met and in which universities.
But this changes if we look at descriptions of what they wanted to do: conducting research or changing deeply the culture of the West? Were they working for political science or were they engaging with a hidden political agenda? Were they working for the academic community or obeying foreign secret services?
And for the same reasons, interpretations change if we look at what they have done: did they succeed? What has been the real impact of their project? Can we locate this on campuses and academic discourses, or on culture in general? Such interpretations also change again if we look at what they knew of their own influence: were they really aware of what they were doing? Were they overtaken by the success of their works on their students and readers? Were they themselves manipulated by foreign forces? Scholars and conspiracy theories differ significantly in their assessments of such questions. These questions also show the connection between the two groups. All start with unquestionable facts, but to go on to make very different interpretation about the impact of Cultural Marxism on culture and values, with sometimes very strong suspicions about the shameful objective behind the story.
It is very clear from this that the current lede text cannot stand, but I'd welcome input on how exactly it should change. Sennalen ( talk) 18:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Nowhere do we see divergence of opinion about who Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse really were, when they have met and in which universities. But this changes if we look at descriptions of what they wanted to doThese are the trivial facts identified, that Lind knew who Horkheimer was… Thats not lead-worthy. Also i don’t see the connection to the cited passage from the lead. Do you have any suggestion on what you wish to improve? Mvbaron ( talk) 20:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
It would be closer to the truth to say without any clear distinction between what the far-right commenters are talking about and what the academics are talking about- that is unsourced, POV nonsense. Don't do that. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
The source establishes to the contrary that there is a clear relationship, namely the work of the Frankfurt School.No that's not true. What the source says (I quote again, since no one reacted to my first attempt at clarifying this):
Nowhere do we see divergence of opinion about who Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse really were, when they have met and in which universities. But this changes if we look at descriptions of what they wanted to do. The "clear relationship" is that the conspiracy theorists pin their conspiracy on real people. Which is hardly worth a mention, and I don't know why Jerome dwells on that point... But regardless, the
without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysisis correct in that the conspiracy theorists completely misrepresent the content of what the Frankfurt School said and wanted. Mvbaron ( talk) 21:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Erm, you quoted it: Scholars and conspiracy theories differ significantly in their assessments of such questions.
The implication being that the scholars are of course right, and the conspiracy theorists not. --
Mvbaron (
talk) 22:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Senallen, sure, I’m happy to support a refinement for this sentence like “There’s no relationship to the Frankfurt school, other the fact that the conspiracy theorists picked the Frankfurt School”. What do you think? Mvbaron ( talk) 23:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
most of the sources identify the object of that hostility as the actual people and actual work of the Frankfurt School, Gramsci, and others in that milieu- no reliable sources that I have seen actually do this. Jamin doesn't
identify the object of that hostility as the actual people and actual work of the Frankfurt school, and the occasional conspiracy theorist name-checking Horkheimer or Adorno doesn't make it so. This belief of yours that the "Culural Marxism" of the conspiracy theorists simply represents
discourse from people who are hostile to the program of Marxist cultural analysis- essentially, they know what Marxists are saying about culture but don't like it - lacks any RS support and is in fact a trope of the conspiracy theory. Wikipedia does not create FALSEBALANCE, or present FRINGE views as "alternative facts" alongside actual scholarship. We owe our readers better. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The idea that the idea that the conspiracy theorists understand what they read is part of the conspiracy theory is a curiously recursive theory, and I'd be interested if you have any sources for that. Meanwhile, here are a few of the sources connecting the conspiracy theories to actual Marxist cultural analysis. Since we've been discussing Jamin, we can start with some specific text there.
So we can see there is quite a lot of text available to describe how the conspiracy theorists relate to the sources. They often use them incorrectly and with anti-Semitic intent, but it should be undeniable that there is something real there they have engaged with. This is probably too much to process all at once into a better sentence for the lede, so I suggest we work bottom up, parsing out the particular claims and perspectives from different sources in the body. At a later time, those insights can be distilled into a concise lede statement. There is no deadline. Sennalen ( talk) 16:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
the conspiracy theorists just picked Adorno et al and tried to pin a bunch of crap on them. :) Newimpartial ( talk) 17:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
there is something real there they have engaged with. I will deal first with Busbridge et al., and Braune, because they represent the more substantial RS. Busbridge says that the conspiracy theorists regard Cultural Marxism
as a calculated plan orchestrated by leftist intellectuals to destroy Western values, traditions and civilisationand that they
conflatethe Cultural Marxism of the conspiracy theory with Euro-Marxism. These authors are not saying that the conspiracy theorists
have engaged with
something real.
“Cultural Marxism” conspiracy theories greatly exaggerate the Frankfurt School’s influence and power", and her reference to
a conspiracy theory that trades on the Frankfurt School’s perceived Jewishnessdoes not imply "engagement" between the conspiracy theorists and a supposed "Cultural Marxism". Of course the Frankfurt School did actually exist, and of course the conspiracy theorists took certain ideas of Marcuse, Adorno and others, distorted them, pretended that they represented a coherent political project and then applied the tropes of antisemitism to turn this (imaginary) political project into a conspiracy theory. That is what the reliable sources tell us happened, and it would be an act of total WHITEWASHING to treat that as "engagement" or "influence".
clear:
The discordance appears at two important levels. First, in the interpretation of the true will of the School's leaders: “Did they really plan to do what they have done?” Second, on the consequences the School had on Western values in both Europe and the United States: “Is the destruction of Western values a reality?” Cultural Marxist conspiracy theorists and scholars of the Frankfurt School diverge in their interpretations of these types of questions.
no clear relationshipbetween these sets of answers, and yet these propositions do clearly define a distinction between scholarship on Marxist cultural analysis and the "efforts" of the conspiracy theorists. I still, frankly, see no there, there. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Mvbaron:This would not be the page to go into unlimited depth about the conspiracy theory, since this is the page about actual Marxist cultural analysis. However, it is approprate to note the existence of the conspiracy theory and briefly explain how the two relate to each other. In fact, the article does attempt to do that, in a section at the bottom and a sentence in the lede. I assume you do not support removing those parts of the article. What I intend to do is improve that existing section, making it more reflective of the sources. Sennalen ( talk) 17:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
improvethat existing section is based on the premises that Cultural Marxism is a real thing, and that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory "engaged with" an actually existing "Cultural Marxism" based on their understanding of its
actual people and actual work, then you are most unlikely to arrive at "improvements" that would ever be supported by the BALANCE of the sources or endorsed by consensus. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment This edit is very WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, in the context of the preceding discussion. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
What the conspiracy theorists mean by "Cultural Marxism" includes actual thinkers and works in Marxist cultural analysis- that's a misrepresentation of Jamin's point.
...some of the strands of Marxist cultural analysis that conspiracy theorists have engaged with- the conspiracy theorists don't engage academically with anyone.
Where the conspiracy theories diverge from the mainstream- misrepresentation of Jamin again: there is no mainstream, and the conspiracy theorists are not doing philosophy or sociology. Mvbaron ( talk) 21:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
have innacurately paraphrased a sourceand
given undue weightto certain claims - this has already been communicated clearly to you in the preceding discussion (but apparently YOUDONTHEARTHAT). In case it wasn't self-evident, the main disputed passage is this (with particular points of dispute in italics):
however the term "Cultural Marxism" is also used by purveyors of an antisemitic conspiracy theory.[25][26][27] What the conspiracy theorists mean by "Cultural Marxism" includes actual thinkers and works in Marxist cultural analysis[25][26][27] but with significant misunderstandings and distortions. Joan Braune cites Marcuse on repressive tolerance, Adorno on aesthetics, and Fromm on the psychology of fascism as some of the strands of Marxist cultural analysis that conspiracy theorists have engaged with, though mistakenly treating these thinkers as interchageable parts of a coordinated organization rather than disparate individuals pursing their own lines of inquiry.[26] According to Jérôme Jamin, "looking at the literature on Cultural Marxism as a piece of cultural studies, as a conspiracy described by Lind and its followers, and as arguments used by Buchanan, Breivik, and other actors within their own agendas, we see a common ground made of unquestionable facts in terms of who did what and where, and for how long at the Frankfurt School.
that conspiracy theorists have engaged with, which lends (through selective presentation) misleading support for the idea that conspiracy theorists and scholars are talking about the same thing, which is not at all Braune's actual argument. And the selected quotation from Jamin emphasizes
a common ground made of unquestionable factswhich is, again, a misleading selection from the piece; the selection fails to make Jamin's own more fundamental distinctions between the Cultural Marxism of the conspiracy theory and actual Western Marxism. Jamin clearly makes this distinction, and even emphasizes it, but the proposed text does not.
So we can see there is quite a lot of text available to describe how the conspiracy theorists relate to the sources. They often use them incorrectly and with anti-Semitic intent, but it should be undeniable that there is something real there they have engaged with.This is not a page for "Right wing views of Marxist Analysis" - nor is it your personal WP:SOAPBOX to try and wedge in fringe or right wing content. This is not an exploration of the conspiracy theory ( Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory would be the page for that. -- 61.68.113.170 ( talk) 08:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia will follow the sourceson this matter: it already does, in spite of your (rather strained) assertions to the contrary. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
has nothing to do with Marxist cultural analysisin my view is not the conspiracy theory, which is a kind of Monty Python parody of the Frankfurt School pastiched together with grad school Gramscians of the 1980s, but rather your statement about
how talking about the Frankfurt School can be a surreptitous way to introduce anti-Semitic ideas without overtly talking about Jews or Judaism.That point has nothing to do with Marxist cultural analysis but pertains only to the conspiracy theory. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I found two more useful sources at the conspiracy article, which make less ambiguous statements than Jamin and Braune. The case made by all four in combination is strong.
To be clear, none of this needs to be directly described in this article. What this article needs to do is to explain succintly as possible what the relationship is between the conspiracy theory and actual Marxist cultural analysis. It is not in dispute that the conspiracy theorists are factually mistaken and anti-Semitic. Nonetheless, the thing they are mistaken about is the work of Gramsci and the Frankfurt school. They aren't talking about Charles Darwin, the morning weather report, or the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are talking about the topic of this article. They are not just mentioning the names of these people. They are talking about specific works and specific ideas in those works, and they are wrong in specific ways. Sennalen ( talk) 17:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Nonetheless, the thing they are mistaken about is the work of Gramsci and the Frankfurt school. They aren't talking about Charles Darwin, the morning weather report, or the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are talking about the topic of this article.
they are talking about the topic of this articleor they are talking about
Charles Darwinor
the Dead Sea Scrolls.
the actual people and actual work of the Frankfurt School, Gramsci, and othersare profoundly misleading. For example, the "political correctness" "reading" of Marcuse's "repressive tolerance" isn't based on Marcuse's thought in any cogent way - and even if it were, it would not turn Marcuse into a "Cultural Marxist". Conspiracy theorists grab onto specific concepts (like the Long march through the institutions, or Political correctness, or caricatures of "postmodernism"), rip them out of context, and create conspiracy theory out of them. Only incidentally are any of these building blocks related to Marxist cultural analysis, and most actual Marxist cultural analysis - like the work of E. P. Thompson or Raymond Williams, or for that matter Henri Lefevre and the French 1968 generation - is entirely ignored by the conspiracists. So to say anything like what you have proposed for this article is UNDUE and unsupported by the sources you have provided. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
"the conspiracy theorists are wrong": it matters what step of their argument loses touch with consensus reality. To simplify what I am saying, the conspiracy theorists have claimed (1) that "Cultural Marxism exists" and (2) that "the conspiracy theory offers a truer account of things than do the Cultural Marxists themselves". In my view, you are conceding that (1) may be true even if (2) is known to be false. Meanwhile, I - following essentially all of the reliable sources in the field - state that (1) is also false. Many, repeated RfCs at Wikipedia - mostly prior to or without any of my involvement, btw - have concluded that (1) is unsupported by RS. So your framing the discussion as though I were simply maintaining that
the conspiracy theorists are wrong- without specifying wrong about what - is eliding the key question on which hundreds of editors have made clear decisions, based on sources and WP policies, over the years.
@ Newimpartial: I'm beginning to understand some of the contours of your perspective. I do not agree with your narrow construal of certain words, but perhaps we can side step trouble spots with other phrasing. What do you think of this construction?:
That sounds like a reasonable addition to
Western Marxism;
- at least the first sentence - but I'm not sure why anyone would want to include it here. The second sentence is deeply problematic, because it seems to imply that the only, or the most important, difference in perspective between scholars and conspiracy theorists is whether the Marxists had "nefarious motives", which is ridiculous not supported by the sources given.
Newimpartial (
talk) 22:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
the relationship between the conspiracy theory and valid scholarshipis helpful to the reader if it implies that the conspiracy theorists took an actual "Cultural Marxist" tendency and put their own spin on it, by attributing to it loopy motives or making it "seem more monolithic". The object of the conspiracy theory, which they call "Cultural Marxism" is not a pre-existing "it" that can be interpreted in different ways - it is constructed by the conspriacists out of essentially heterogenous materials. That is what the sources say to me.
The idea that there is not actually a philosophy/movement there to critique just doesn't hold up.
- it seems fairly clear to me that you're a subscriber of the conspiracy theory, and are here to justify it (to blur the line). You don't have a
WP:SNOW snowball's chance in hell of doing that. You're claiming there's a movement? Of what, academics who don't call themselves "Cultural Marxists"? No one we've mentioned self-describes that way, how can you claim there's a movement?... Do you see how that's kind of; a conspiratorial way of thinking, in that YOU see the conspiracy but others don't see it that way. What you're attempting is complete
WP:SOAPBOX
WP:OR as far as I can tell. Trying to justify a conspiracy theory because no one points to a line and says "Here! This is the absolute line between truth and conspiracy" - well grow up. That's not what we do here. We report on sources, we don't get to interject, interpret or synthesize. What this article needs to do is to explain succintly as possible what the relationship is between the conspiracy theory and actual Marxist cultural analysis.
- NOPE! There is no policy that backs up YOUR "need" here. That's what makes it
WP:OR that it's YOUR intent for the article. What you want Wikipedia to say. That's not what goes on here. Even if you could find a claim that says whatever it is you want - it would still be just ONE single source. Your attempts here are totally
WP:undue and I'd suggest to you, that for your own sanity, you give up your snowball mission, and consider the fact that Wikipedia doesn't have needs (or at least, not the needs you're claiming). It has policies, and what you're attempting to do, goes against those policies. --
61.68.113.170 (
talk) 03:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
References
|
---|
|
I hope everyone has had an enjoyable holiday. Following the discussion above, I propose a new edit to the conspiracy theory section, which can be seen at [6]. This will satisfy some of my concerns on WP:V and WP:ONEWAY, and also incorporates feedback from Newimpartial and others in the following respects:
Sennalen ( talk) 19:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
The term "cultural Marxism" has been used in a general sense to discuss Marxist ideas in the cultural field;without the
whileand
alsoof the long-stable version, creates BOTHSIDES quality (that "people referring to 'Cultural Marxism' might be referring to the conspiracy theory or to Marxist cultural analysis") that is not supported by the BALANCE of the sources cited, much less the available sources.
Parts of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory make reference to actual thinkers and ideas that are in the Western Marxist traditionis a selective and UNDUE statement for an article on Marxist cultural analysis, and
Conspiracy theorists diverge from accepted scholarship by attributing nefarious motives to scholars,and by exaggerating the actual influence of Marxist cultural analysis in the worldfalls precisely into the objection I raised above - it concedes (against all available RS) that the conspiracy theorists are talking about "the same tradition" addressed in this article as Marxist cultural analysis, but then attribute to it nefarious motives and exaggerated influence. This is
Here are the contours of the disagreement as I understand it.
Parts of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory make reference to actual thinkers and ideas that are in the Western Marxist tradition, but they severely misrepresent the subject.is a faithful summary of the sources. I have given nine passages in six sources that support these claims. (At the bottom of this edit: [7]). Newimpartial says I have not interpreted these passages correctly. I do not understand what Newimpartial's interpretation would be well enough to attempt to summarize for them.
I believe #1 is the true, primary locus of dispute. If Newimpartial agrees that this is the case, then it would be productive to open an RfC on the narrow question of whether the passage faithfully reflects the sources. It would be especially helpful if before the posting they would provide a contrasting summary of the passages I have cited or else pointers to passages they believe are more reflective of the relationship between the conspiracy theory and Marxist cultural analysis. On the other hand, if there's no agreement on the locus of dispute, it would be better to begin the process at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Sennalen ( talk) 21:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether- while I am not arguing that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory should be omitted altogether from this article, I do believe that discussion of it must be limited for reasons of WP:DUE WP:WEIGHT. Note also that the point of the subsequent passage of ONEWAY.
Fringe theories should be discussed in context; uncontroversial ideas may need to be referred to in relation to fringe theoriesapplies to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article, not this one - the conspiracy theory needs to be distinguished from actually existing Western Marxism, but Western Marxism does not need to be distinguished from the conspiracy theory. This is the whole point of ONEWAY, which does not at all support Sennalen's proposal here. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way.Essentially, finding RS connecting Marxist cultural analysis with the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is a necessary condition for mentioning anything about the conspiracy theory on this page. Sennalen ( talk) 00:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I believe #1 is the true, primary locus of dispute.I disagree. I'm not so much interested in dissecting Western Marxism or using this page to draw clarification between two other pages (that's not the purpose of this page, this page is for clarifying the works of The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School and E.P Thompson). I don't really understand the goal here, or why it's being done on THIS page in particular. Western Marxism is not monolithic, it's very broad and can encompass everything from Marx himself to the post-modernists (if one were so inclined). We have a page for clarifying Western Marxism already. For me, what you're really completely overlooking are cases like when Breitbart states "Theodor Adorno promoted degenerate atonal music to induce mental illness, including necrophilia, on a large scale. He and Horkheimer also penetrated Hollywood, recognising the film industry’s power to influence mass culture." or when Lind writes "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)"...
While the term "cultural Marxism" has been used in a general sense, to discuss the application of Marxist ideas in the cultural field, the variant term "Cultural Marxism" generally refers to an antisemitic conspiracy theory. There is no justification for the material you wish to add:
Parts of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory make reference to actual thinkers and ideas that are in the Western Marxist tradition, but they severely misrepresent the subject. Conspiracy theorists diverge from accepted scholarship by attributing nefarious motives to scholars, and by exaggerating the actual influence of Marxist cultural analysis in the world.The juxtaposition offered by the stable article text is a BALANCED summary of the sources; the derivation of the conspiracy theory from Marxist cultural analysis (or from Western Marxism - which isn't even the topic of this article) is not supported by sources or policy.
clearand based on WP:RS. The indisputable fact that some conspiracy theory figures name-drop certain (predominantly Jewish, but otherwise apparently random) figures from the Frankfurt School, etc. does not create a "clear" relationship to Marxist cultural analysis, and each of your attempts to do so has run afoul of WP:OR and WP:TEND. I would suggest that you give it a rest. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether.Just because I am not motivated to "omit altogether" does not mean that "limiting" discussion to what is necessary for the RS topic is not the way to go - it is exactly what policy requires.
Parts of the ... conspiracy theory make reference to actual (wealthy Jewish financiers), but they severely misrepresent the subject. Conspiracy theorists diverge from accepted scholarship by attributing nefarious motives to (financiers), and by exaggerating the actual influence of (wealthy Jewish financiers) in the world. I trust that the relevance of this parallel is obvious. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Your proposed text has not summarized RS about this topic
- you have selected passages out of context, from sources that have not reached your selected conclusion at all, and employed
WP:SYNTH. But even if the support for the "Cultural Marxism" passage were the same as that for the passage I imagined about the financiers, it would not be an appropriate summary and WP would not include either summary in article space.
I don't see any problem with the current opening sentence of the section, which is amply supported by the BALANCE of RS. I am not going marine mammal hunting. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
misrepresenting
actual thinkers and ideas,
attributing nefarious motivesand
exaggerating...actual influence, as opposed to, say, fabrication or antisemitic caricature. Your isolation of and emphasis on these elements represents an original reading of the sources you are citing in support of your proposal - in other words, WP:SYNTH.
Near as I can tell, the only reason we have a page by this name is some editors are taking great pains to avoid the phrase "cultural Marxism" because of its culture war implications. Anyone whose first concern is point-scoring in the culture war is WP:NOTHERE.While this does not clearly apply to anyone in this discussion, it seems equally clear that it is intended as an ASPERSION - though it is entirely unsupported by evidence, in violation of the WP:TPG. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
the most significant differences between actual Western Marxism and the object of the conspiracy theory consist in misrepresenting actual thinkers and ideas, attributing nefarious motives and exaggerating...actual influence, as opposed to, say, fabrication or antisemitic caricature. To support this statement, you would need a source that actually isolates these aspects as the salient differences between the conspiracy theory and actually existing Marxism, and you would need to present this with in-text attribution rather than in wikivoice (because it is not a generally held view).
References
clear relationship, your speculation in this matter does not seem especially germane to this article. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Why is this here? I'm new to this page, so perhaps I'm not familiar with the prior discussions. But it surprised me that sources about the Brevik attack would be used in this article. The BBC source [8], for example, does not discuss the conspiracy theory, nor how it connects to the Marxist cultural analysis. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I have further refined the change based on additional feedback.
I am presently posting this revision to the main article, without the intention to self-revert this time. I firmly believe this is the presentation that deserves to stand. Those who disagree may of course discuss further and edit further, bearing in mind WP:PRESERVE. Sennalen ( talk) 17:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
For clarity, the version as I posed it was [9]. There have already been some edits I don't particularly endorse, but I'll let it lie and see what develops. Sennalen ( talk) 18:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Well that was a lot of argument and nothing proven. I guess someone got their way though... er, good for them? -- 124.170.170.79 ( talk) 03:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
What makes this person worthy of a paragraph in an article titled "Marxist cultural analysis"? Ꞇewꝺar ( talk) 10:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Eh don’t be silly :) it’s in a section on the conspiracy theory… Mvbaron ( talk) 12:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The conspiracy theory section has been stable awhile, so it seems time to finally address the original issue, which was OR in the lede. Rather than "without any clear relationship", there is a clear relationship of Marxist analysis being used and misinterpreted in the conspiracy theory. This is true whether one looks at the Jamin source originally cited, Braune that was used to replace it, or the full sourcing now in the later section. The material is there to fix it in the proper WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY way. I'll leave this a few days to see if anyone else wants to tackle the exact phrasing. Sennalen ( talk) 15:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
clear relationshipor
based on. Without good sourcing, this is a non-starter. The proposed "Background" section is far from establishing a "clear relationship" (which makes sense, if there isn't one). Newimpartial ( talk) 16:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
a mainly fabricated...account ofwould qualify as
based on. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Extended quote
|
---|
In the heady days immediately after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was widely believed that proletarian revolution would momentarily sweep out of the Urals into Europe and, ultimately, North America. It did not; the only two attempts at workers' government in the West— in Munich and Budapest—lasted only months. The Communist International (Comintern) therefore began several operations to determine why this was so. One such was headed by Georg Lukacs, a Hungarian aristocrat, son of one of the Hapsburg Empire's leading bankers. Trained in Germany and already an important literary theorist, Lukacs became a Communist during World War I, writing as he joined the party, "Who will save us from Western civilization?" Lukacs was well-suited to the Comintern task: he had been one of the Commissars of Culture during the short-lived Hungarian Soviet in Budapest in 1919; in fact, modern historians link the shortness of the Budapest experiment to Lukacs' orders mandating sex education in the schools, easy access to contraception, and the loosening of divorce laws—all of which revulsed Hungary's Roman Catholic population.
Fleeing to the Soviet Union after the counter-revolution, Lukacs was secreted into Germany in 1922, where he chaired a meeting of Communist-oriented sociologists and intellectuals. This meeting founded the Institute for Social Research. Over the next decade, the Institute worked out what was to become the Comintern's most successful psychological warfare operation against the capitalist West. Lukacs identified that any political movement capable of bringing Bolshevism to the West would have to be, in his words, "demonic"; it would have to "possess the religious power which is capable of filling the entire soul; a power that characterized primitive Christianity." However, Lukacs suggested, such a "messianic" political movement could only succeed when the individual believes that his or her actions are determined by "not a personal destiny, but the destiny of the community" in a world "that has been abandoned by God [emphasis added-MJM]." Bolshevism worked in Russia because that nation was dominated by a peculiar gnostic form of Christianty typified by the writings of Fyodor Dostoyevsky. "The model for the new man is Alyosha Karamazov," said Lukacs, referring to the Dostoyevsky character who willingly gave over his personal identity to a holy man, and thus ceased to be "unique, pure, and therefore abstract." This abandonment of the soul's uniqueness also solves the problem of "the diabolic forces lurking in all violence" which must be unleashed in order to create a revolution. In this context, Lukacs cited the Grand Inquisitor section of Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, noting that the Inquisitor who is interrogating Jesus, has resolved the issue of good and evil: once man has understood his alienation from God, then any act in the service of the "destiny of the community" is justified; such an act can be "neither crime nor madness.... For crime and madness are objectifications of transcendental homelessness." According to an eyewitness, during meetings of the Hungarian Soviet leadership in 1919 to draw up lists for the firing squad, Lukacs would often quote the Grand Inquisitor: "And we who, for their happiness, have taken their sins upon ourselves, we stand before you and say, 'Judge us if you can and if you dare.'" |
This source uses both the terms "Marxist Cultural Theory" and "Marxist Cultural Analysis" interchangeably. So I think it might be good to investigate for a possible expansion of the article. I will also be looking through this lecture from Stuart Hall [10], on the Origins of Culture studies (which a user has made the unfortunate suggestion of merging the article with). However, the lecture is from Stuart Hall, one of the later theorists of The Birmingham School, and (according to the transcript) makes no mention of Marx or Marxism. Culture Studies in general doesn't - and so I think they're two separate (although not unrelated) topics entirely. If I had to say it explicitly, I'd say Marxist cultural theory, or Marxist cultural analysis, is a sort of unwashed Culture Studies. Unwashed by neoliberal academia, or modern culture wars. 203.220.137.141 ( talk) 04:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Encountered a problem adding this source, Wikipedia's citation tool couldn't find the ISBN (odd). Was entering the one on Amazon. Amazon also listed Ian Buchanan's bio, which can be viewed here: https://www.amazon.com.au/stores/author/B001H6NT9K/about
During this search for the ISBN, I found the book had been updated to a 2018 version - the description of which mentions The Frankfurt School explicitly: https://www.amazon.com.au/Dictionary-Professor-University-Wollongong-Australia-dp-0198794797/dp/0198794797/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
It also locates the book as having been published by "The University of Wollongong" - a relatively small town on the east coast of Australia. Given that the source was updated in 2018, I'm hesitant to add it until the updated text in question can be reviewed further. 203.219.38.81 ( talk) 03:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
By the end of the Second World War, Western Marxism had become the almost exclusive preserve of the academy—whereas figures like Antonio Gramsci and György Lukàcs had been active in government, scholars like Walter Benjamin, and more especially Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer were strictly academic. It also started to focus more on cultural rather than economic problems and it is for this reason also known as cultural Marxism.
It also started to focus more on cultural rather than economic problems and it is for this reason also known as cultural Marxism.
It also started to focus more on cultural rather than economic problems and it is for this reason also known as cultural Marxism
Despite the name "Marxist Cultural Analysis" this discourse has steadily traveled away from Orthodox Marxism, and towards Social Democracy and Liberalism.
It is an anti-fascist, anti-capitalist critique... but that's not necessarily the same as being a Marxist critique. Theorists like those of The Frankfurt School and Birmingham School (who make up most of the topic's content) were operating solidly under Western Capitalist Democracies. The Frankfurt School even aided that infrastructure throughout WW2, and The Cold War (as reflected in their work against the Nazis for the OSS and later against the USSR during The Cold War. Likewise it's the viewpoint of some academics that they were anti-communist in their actions.
The Birmingham School barely even touches on Marxism, with this peer reviewed paper (fully available on Sci-Hub) saying on page 5 of Sci-Hub's PDF, or 228 of the actual journal: "Hoggart’s political viewpoints were not outwardly expressed until much later in life, and make clear his aversion to Marxism"... likewise Stuart Hall of The Birmingham School writes about media consumption, messages, and culture, within the neo-liberal paradigm.
No one recommends Marxism, and they barely mention Marx for the majority of their writings. Even something like, this chapter of The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception by Adorno, mentions The Marx Brothers more than Karl Marx. Likewise his essay "On the Problems of The Family" shows not even the remotest desire for Marxism. Nor does Marcus' Repressive Tolerance. They in fact express modern ideals and values in line with Social Democracy. Marcus lists who he believes are the biggest threats to freedom (and the most likely to damage democracy):
promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.
There is no desire to replace Capitalism with Marxism in their writings beyond giving sharp criticism of the moneyed classes, and industrial elites. Criticizing Capitalism is not the same as wishing to replace it with Marxism. They denounced the student revolutionaries] as doing a form of reactionary machine wrecking that was a risk to educational institutions. Adorno went so far as to call the police on protests... leading them to develop the slogan "If Adorno is left in peace, capitalism will never cease".( Source) This role as a stabilizing Socially Democratic force within Western Liberal Capitalism is even made apparent in Stuart Jefferies Timeline of The Frankfurt School ( https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/blogs/news/2844-the-frankfurt-school-a-timeline Available [here via Verso Books]) where it's stated that at just the age of 20:
1918: WW1 ends. The Habsburg Empire collapses, and defeated Germany seems on the brink of revolution. Soviet-style republics briefly established in Bavaria, and in Berlin. In Berlin’s Alexanderplatz, a young Herbert Marcuse sees revolutionary action when he is charged with shooting rightwing snipers who themselves were targeting left-wing demonstrators and revolutionary agitators.
So because of these factors, whilst this discourse has been informed by Marx, it will not be placed as "Part of a series on Marxism". It is unfortunate that this group of essentially Western Leftist thinkers have been refused admittance into The Western Cannon, and hence, have never been given an apt name that accurately describes their political position - however the least we can do is not further the idea that they were Orthodox Marxists. They are more correctly and accurately places a part of a series on The New Left. However, I cannot locate a template for that grouping. Progressivism may have to do. 118.208.226.30 ( talk) 05:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
"The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines."I've not attached any sidebar. Still looking for the right one (assuming one exists), suggestions welcome. 118.208.226.30 ( talk) 05:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)