![]() | Western Marxism received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on April 2020 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | Western Marxism received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on January 2021 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-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 |
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
Western Marxism, a term defined in contrast to the official Eastern, or Soviet variety, and sometimes also referred to as Hegelian Marxism, represents the break from orthodoxy. It also, and this confuses the picture to some extent, represents the separation between theory and practice that Marxism has still to overcome. None of the thinkers usually classified as part of the Western Marxist tradition, including Gramsci even though he was General Secretary of the Italian Communist Party, certainly not Lukacs, Korsch, Bloch, Adorno or the other members of the Frankfurt School, were ever in a position to integrate their theoretical insights into the practice of the workers movement to any significant degree. This practice on the other hand, in particular that of the Communist Parties, divorced as it was from the intellectual efforts of the best Marxist minds the century has produced, soon degenerated into an extension of the Foreign Ministry of the USSR, dressing up the zigzags of Soviet diplomacy in sterile formulas drawn from the language of Marxist terminology.
Perry Anderson in Considerations on Western Marxism characterises it as basically the academic marxism that grew up between the wars at some distance from classical, orthodox Marxism - obsessed by philosophy, particularly epistemology, and language - ie topics somewhat remote from politics, economics and the class struggle. Anderson specifically names Deutscher, Roman Rosdolsky and Mandel as the foremost contemporary (in 1975) practitioners of the classical school inspired by Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg. Ironically of course this Wikipedia entry puts Anderson himself in the 'western marxism' category. Why not a 'the information on this page is contested' flag? -- Duncan 15:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)--[
The political "quietism" of the frankfurt school needs to further defined.
The case can be made that the American philosopher, Sidney Hook, in his earlier work, was a kind of Western Marxist. His 1933 book, Towards the Understanding of Karl Marx was heavily influenced by and built upon the work of both Lukacs and Korsch. And the book he wrote after that, From Hegel to Marx, explored the Hegelian roots of Marxism. That's sort of ironic considering that later on, Hook was the scourge not only of Communists but also of the New Left including its intellectual heroes like Herbert Marcuse, who was a noted Western Marxist of the Frankfurt School.
-- JimFarm 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Although "Western Marxism" is undoubtedly a broad church, I'm not sure if British Marxists such as Raymond Williams, Stuart Hall, Ralph Miliband, E.P. Thompson etc. can be counted among its members. "Western Marxism" does not mean non-Soviet Marxism or academic Marxism; rather, the term is mainly used for thinkers who tackle issues such as epistemology, metaphysics, etc. by way of Marxist theory. While Williams et al did share common ground with the likes of Lukács in addressing issues of culture that previous Marxists had dismissed as unimportant, their approach to these issues emphasised empirical research where Lukács, the Frankfurters, etc. tended to discuss cultural/superstructural matters by reference to abstract Hegelian theory. Hanshans23 ( talk)
Merleau-Ponty was not a Marxist, as it is evident from that his article contains no mention of Marx. He was a disciple of Martin Heidegger, an opponent of Marxism, and was not known for any socialist/communist views. Wandering Courier ( talk) 03:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Was not a left communist. The fact that she was critical of Lenin doesn't put her in the camp of people who rejected Leninism utterly. She considered the Russian Revolution a great advance and achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.43.115.248 ( talk) 17:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Speaking as a Left Communist who considers the October Revolution a great advance and achievement, I'm not sure what to say. While Left Coms are generally critical of Lenin, we don't reject his contribution to Marxism out of hand. You're correct that Rosa Luxemburg is not a Left Communist though, since the term describes those who split from the Communist International in 1920, after her death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.43.103 ( talk) 13:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The lead line of which read Usually seen as a separate current of thought, Cultural Studies developed by British academics in the 1960s shares much common ground with Western Marxism and the rest of which was patchy at best. None of it had citations. If something is usually seen as separate from, and merely shares common ground with something else - then it probably shouldn't share a wikipedia page. That is to say, lots of areas of human endeavor could be construed in this fashion (Polo and mini golf, murder and surgery, The Renaissance and Dulux). Also, as indicated by the rest of this talk page, this topic is particularly open to questionable edits and inclusions.
@ Claíomh Solais: Can you explain your changes here. Per WP:LEAD, the article lead should summarise the contents of the body of the article. You haven't WP:CITED anything in support of these changes. Perhaps attach references to the material you referred to in writing the new lead? L.R. Wormwood ( talk) 18:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm not asking you to explain the content of the lead. I'm asking why you have re-written the lead to include material not discussed in the main body. Perhaps you would like to re-write the main body, too? L.R. Wormwood ( talk) 18:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I think we have to realistically look at this article as a stub. The main content of the introduction before (ie - mentioning Hegel) is not really described in the body either which is mostly dedicated to the British New Left and Stuart Hall (who isn't even a Western Marxist, but a Rhodes Scholar-type British liberal). I based this on what Oxford Reference says. Hopefully this will lead to some impetous for expanding the article itself, based more firmly on Continental thinkers. The non-ML articles are very confused at the moment (the Neo-Marxism article could probably be merged here). I hope to add some more myself, but dealing with such revisionist figures isn't particularly inspiring, I have to admit. Claíomh Solais ( talk) 22:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 20:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Cultural_studies#Redundancy? Sennalen ( talk) 23:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Generalrelative removed the following text from the lede.
No specific reasoning has been provided for removing this well-cited and pertinent text. Per MOS:ALTNAME it is appropriate to mention alternate names for the topic in the lede. The statement is sourced to one tertiary source and six secondary sources, all academic books or journals by authors and editors with appropriate expertise in the field. They span the years 1982 through 2019 and attest usage of the name "cultural Marxism" going back to 1973. The list includes authors with liberal, conservative, and with no obvious political affiliation. It includes sources that do not mention controversies associated with the phrase "cultural Marxism" as well as sources that discuss the controversies while still supporting the basic claim that it is an alternative name for Western Marxism. By any reasonable measure this is citation WP:OVERKILL, but was provided since there was opposition to the original one source. Nevertheless, this is not an exhaustive collection of works that could be cited to support the claim. This has been a subject of serious and sustained attention in the body of reliable sources, so it is not WP:UNDUE. Sennalen ( talk) 01:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Cultural Marxism is a term of art used to disparage the canon of Western Marxist thought as propagating a conspiracy to undermine presumably traditional Western valuesfrom Tuters is clearly defining it as about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, not the the topic this page covers. Some of these are out of date, too. If Tuters says that the usage was coined in the 90s, sources from the 80s are obviously writing about different things. MrOllie ( talk) 14:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The concept of Cultural Marxism seeks to introduce readers unfamiliar with – and presumably completely uninterested in – Western Marxist thought to its key thinkers, as well as some of their ideas, as part of an insidious story of secret operations of mind-control, making it clear that even when the conspiracy theorists are nutters, they are still talking about the same Western Marxism as everyone else. Sennalen ( talk) 15:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
an insidious story of secret operations of mind-control, no, I do not believe that is correct. MrOllie ( talk) 15:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
key thinkers, as well as some of their ideasdo not cease to be the same key thinkers and ideas. Sennalen ( talk) 15:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
key thinkersand
their ideasare presented within the metanarrative of mind control, it "hits different" than when they are presented as actual intellectual history - to the point, in fact, that they do
cease to be the same ... ideas. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
overwhelming quantity and quality of soirces that make exactly the claim they are cited forappears to be a Sorelian myth, rather than a thing that has actually happened. I for one have not seen multiple, good sources stating that "Cultural Marxism" refers to a school of thought (rather than an activity, which is how some early sources use the term). Newimpartial ( talk) 13:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
"One cause of "citation overkill" is edit warring, which can lead to examples like "Graphism is the study[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] of ...". Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word, as an editor desperately tries to shore up one's point or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that their opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for their edit."
when existing sources have been repeatedly removed or disputed on spurious grounds.Sennalen ( talk) 16:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
The schismatic relation between critical Marxism (also western Marxism, Hegelian Marxism, or cultural Marxism) and scientific Marxism (also orthodox Marxism, automatic Marxism, or mechanical Marxism) must be placed in historical perspective.[8] Sennalen ( talk) 16:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
A central concept in the contemporary genre of right-wing manifestos, Cultural Marxism is a term of art used to disparage the canon of Western Marxist thought as propagating a conspiracy to undermine presumably traditional Western values. Initially coined by political commentators in the US in the early 1990s, the concept was popularized by the American paleo-conservative figure Pat Buchanan – famous for having promoted the notion of a “culture war” for “the soul of America” at the Republican National Convention in 1992 – and has experienced a resurgence in popularity in the late-2010s with the emergence of the so-called “alt-right” around the election of Donald Trump. The concept of Cultural Marxism seeks to introduce readers unfamiliar with – and presumably completely uninterested in – Western Marxist thought to its key thinkers, as well as some of their ideas, as part of an insidious story of secret operations of mind-control whose nuances may differ but whose basic premise is remarkably similar whether told by Anders Breivik (2011) or Andrew Breitbart (2011).
References
Indicate the first step in this chain that you do not agree with:
Sennalen ( talk) 19:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
In our age the objective social tendency is incarnate in the hidden subjective purposes of company directors, the foremost among whom are in the most powerful sectors of industry – steel, petroleum, electricity, and chemicals. Culture monopolies are weak and dependent in comparison. They cannot afford to neglect their appeasement of the real holders of power if their sphere of activity in mass society (a sphere producing a specific type of commodity which anyhow is still too closely bound up with easy-going liberalism and Jewish intellectuals) is not to undergo a series of purges. The dependence of the most powerful broadcasting company on the electrical industry, or of the motion picture industry on the banks, is characteristic of the whole sphere, whose individual branches are themselves economically interwoven. All are in such close contact that the extreme concentration of mental forces allows demarcation lines between different firms and technical branches to be ignored.
The idea of “fully exploiting” available technical resources and the facilities for aesthetic mass consumption is part of the economic system which refuses to exploit resources to abolish hunger.
'The "Marxist cultural analysis" page is a PoV fork that should not exist. This is the right page.'- you're the only editor saying that the lead of Western Marxism is the right place for this. But I guess you've done the research and can explain it to everyone - and yet; everyone seems to disagree with your mega merge ideals. Even your sources note the descriptor is a criticism, and hence not just "another name for Western Marxism" as you've been claiming. It's been explained to you many times already; Western Marxism includes many STRUCTURAL Marxists, who are clearly not "cultural Marxists" nor are they the targets of any specific criticisms attached to that term.
Why do you fight so persistently to say the opposite of what reliable sources say on this?- because your desire to include the term goes against consensus, is incorrect, goes against policy, and doesn't fit many of the Western Marxists you're attempting to label, what's more the sources you are using aren't particularly strong, and mostly they use the word cultural next to Marxism, as a criticism. Your arguments have no legs to stand on beyond the fact that you can explain them at length and repeatedly. Well good for you, but a conversation shouldn't be a one way phenomenon. Learn to step back and take stock sometimes, eh? Especially when you've been told there's room in say, a criticism section, or on the Marxist cultural analysis page. It's not like you've not been given alternatives or that no one has tried to negotiate a compromise with you. 60.241.181.126 ( talk) 04:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
cultural Marxismto indicate a group or faction (which the meaning assumed by Sennalen's steps 2, 3 etc.). Newimpartial ( talk) 11:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Along the way, Schroyer detects a bifurcation in the Marxist interpretation between the "cultural Marxists," who have abandoned the traditional categories of political economy, and the "scientific Marxists," who have evolved a new version of the crisis theory of late capitalism. The basic argument of the book is that these two schools of thought remain incomplete in their isolation from one another, and Schroyer's own contribution is to attempt a tentative synthesis and application at the conclusion of his study.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.136.6 ( talk)
the Farganis review is mistaken about Schroyer. Perhaps you could supply a source which does not originate from
other Talk pageson Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source, even in article space. 194.60.136.6 ( talk) 15:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
reading them, but the only
competing interpretationyou have supplied so far is your own. Again though, this discussion is a waste of time as no changes to the article are being proposed. By the way Farganis seems to be barely mentioned in any namespace on Wikipedia as far as I can see, so it should be pretty easy for you to find. 194.60.136.6 ( talk) 16:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
doesn't capitalize his phrasing. Which is correct. Schroyer does not in fact capitalize the word 'Cultural', except in the contexts you mention. Hopefully that clarifies the matter.
plain reading of the sourceinto the realm of original research, which is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. Note that James Farganis is a well-respected author and academic, and you are, like myself, and with all due respect, an unknown person on the internet with no verifiable credentials. I certainly would not find it acceptable for
any editorto dismiss such a source as a
misinterpretationwithout supplying an equally high-quality published source that said so. Since neither you nor I are
proposing article content, however, this is unlikely to cause problems and is probably not worth discussing further.
noted before on other Talk pagesthat
the Farganis review is mistaken. Maybe you could direct me to the appropriate talk page discussion. Or perhaps you are thinking of a different review or interpretation of Schroyer by another 'mistaken' academic. 194.60.136.6 ( talk) 15:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The list of Western Marxists is very good, still there are a few names missing, the most important (to my mind) probably Karl August Wittfogel: who was an orthodox (USPD, then KPD) communist and Stalinist in the Weimar Republic, but was not happy with total defeat in1933. His kind of Marxism incorporated Max Weber. (Wittfogel and Castoriadis are to my mind way more interesting sociological or traditional-philosophical thinkers than the others on the list, with the exception of Henri Lefebvre - and probably Gramsci)-- Ralfdetlef ( talk) 15:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Western Marxism received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on April 2020 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | Western Marxism received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on January 2021 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-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 |
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
Western Marxism, a term defined in contrast to the official Eastern, or Soviet variety, and sometimes also referred to as Hegelian Marxism, represents the break from orthodoxy. It also, and this confuses the picture to some extent, represents the separation between theory and practice that Marxism has still to overcome. None of the thinkers usually classified as part of the Western Marxist tradition, including Gramsci even though he was General Secretary of the Italian Communist Party, certainly not Lukacs, Korsch, Bloch, Adorno or the other members of the Frankfurt School, were ever in a position to integrate their theoretical insights into the practice of the workers movement to any significant degree. This practice on the other hand, in particular that of the Communist Parties, divorced as it was from the intellectual efforts of the best Marxist minds the century has produced, soon degenerated into an extension of the Foreign Ministry of the USSR, dressing up the zigzags of Soviet diplomacy in sterile formulas drawn from the language of Marxist terminology.
Perry Anderson in Considerations on Western Marxism characterises it as basically the academic marxism that grew up between the wars at some distance from classical, orthodox Marxism - obsessed by philosophy, particularly epistemology, and language - ie topics somewhat remote from politics, economics and the class struggle. Anderson specifically names Deutscher, Roman Rosdolsky and Mandel as the foremost contemporary (in 1975) practitioners of the classical school inspired by Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg. Ironically of course this Wikipedia entry puts Anderson himself in the 'western marxism' category. Why not a 'the information on this page is contested' flag? -- Duncan 15:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)--[
The political "quietism" of the frankfurt school needs to further defined.
The case can be made that the American philosopher, Sidney Hook, in his earlier work, was a kind of Western Marxist. His 1933 book, Towards the Understanding of Karl Marx was heavily influenced by and built upon the work of both Lukacs and Korsch. And the book he wrote after that, From Hegel to Marx, explored the Hegelian roots of Marxism. That's sort of ironic considering that later on, Hook was the scourge not only of Communists but also of the New Left including its intellectual heroes like Herbert Marcuse, who was a noted Western Marxist of the Frankfurt School.
-- JimFarm 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Although "Western Marxism" is undoubtedly a broad church, I'm not sure if British Marxists such as Raymond Williams, Stuart Hall, Ralph Miliband, E.P. Thompson etc. can be counted among its members. "Western Marxism" does not mean non-Soviet Marxism or academic Marxism; rather, the term is mainly used for thinkers who tackle issues such as epistemology, metaphysics, etc. by way of Marxist theory. While Williams et al did share common ground with the likes of Lukács in addressing issues of culture that previous Marxists had dismissed as unimportant, their approach to these issues emphasised empirical research where Lukács, the Frankfurters, etc. tended to discuss cultural/superstructural matters by reference to abstract Hegelian theory. Hanshans23 ( talk)
Merleau-Ponty was not a Marxist, as it is evident from that his article contains no mention of Marx. He was a disciple of Martin Heidegger, an opponent of Marxism, and was not known for any socialist/communist views. Wandering Courier ( talk) 03:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Was not a left communist. The fact that she was critical of Lenin doesn't put her in the camp of people who rejected Leninism utterly. She considered the Russian Revolution a great advance and achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.43.115.248 ( talk) 17:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Speaking as a Left Communist who considers the October Revolution a great advance and achievement, I'm not sure what to say. While Left Coms are generally critical of Lenin, we don't reject his contribution to Marxism out of hand. You're correct that Rosa Luxemburg is not a Left Communist though, since the term describes those who split from the Communist International in 1920, after her death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.43.103 ( talk) 13:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The lead line of which read Usually seen as a separate current of thought, Cultural Studies developed by British academics in the 1960s shares much common ground with Western Marxism and the rest of which was patchy at best. None of it had citations. If something is usually seen as separate from, and merely shares common ground with something else - then it probably shouldn't share a wikipedia page. That is to say, lots of areas of human endeavor could be construed in this fashion (Polo and mini golf, murder and surgery, The Renaissance and Dulux). Also, as indicated by the rest of this talk page, this topic is particularly open to questionable edits and inclusions.
@ Claíomh Solais: Can you explain your changes here. Per WP:LEAD, the article lead should summarise the contents of the body of the article. You haven't WP:CITED anything in support of these changes. Perhaps attach references to the material you referred to in writing the new lead? L.R. Wormwood ( talk) 18:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm not asking you to explain the content of the lead. I'm asking why you have re-written the lead to include material not discussed in the main body. Perhaps you would like to re-write the main body, too? L.R. Wormwood ( talk) 18:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I think we have to realistically look at this article as a stub. The main content of the introduction before (ie - mentioning Hegel) is not really described in the body either which is mostly dedicated to the British New Left and Stuart Hall (who isn't even a Western Marxist, but a Rhodes Scholar-type British liberal). I based this on what Oxford Reference says. Hopefully this will lead to some impetous for expanding the article itself, based more firmly on Continental thinkers. The non-ML articles are very confused at the moment (the Neo-Marxism article could probably be merged here). I hope to add some more myself, but dealing with such revisionist figures isn't particularly inspiring, I have to admit. Claíomh Solais ( talk) 22:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 20:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Cultural_studies#Redundancy? Sennalen ( talk) 23:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Generalrelative removed the following text from the lede.
No specific reasoning has been provided for removing this well-cited and pertinent text. Per MOS:ALTNAME it is appropriate to mention alternate names for the topic in the lede. The statement is sourced to one tertiary source and six secondary sources, all academic books or journals by authors and editors with appropriate expertise in the field. They span the years 1982 through 2019 and attest usage of the name "cultural Marxism" going back to 1973. The list includes authors with liberal, conservative, and with no obvious political affiliation. It includes sources that do not mention controversies associated with the phrase "cultural Marxism" as well as sources that discuss the controversies while still supporting the basic claim that it is an alternative name for Western Marxism. By any reasonable measure this is citation WP:OVERKILL, but was provided since there was opposition to the original one source. Nevertheless, this is not an exhaustive collection of works that could be cited to support the claim. This has been a subject of serious and sustained attention in the body of reliable sources, so it is not WP:UNDUE. Sennalen ( talk) 01:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Cultural Marxism is a term of art used to disparage the canon of Western Marxist thought as propagating a conspiracy to undermine presumably traditional Western valuesfrom Tuters is clearly defining it as about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, not the the topic this page covers. Some of these are out of date, too. If Tuters says that the usage was coined in the 90s, sources from the 80s are obviously writing about different things. MrOllie ( talk) 14:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The concept of Cultural Marxism seeks to introduce readers unfamiliar with – and presumably completely uninterested in – Western Marxist thought to its key thinkers, as well as some of their ideas, as part of an insidious story of secret operations of mind-control, making it clear that even when the conspiracy theorists are nutters, they are still talking about the same Western Marxism as everyone else. Sennalen ( talk) 15:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
an insidious story of secret operations of mind-control, no, I do not believe that is correct. MrOllie ( talk) 15:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
key thinkers, as well as some of their ideasdo not cease to be the same key thinkers and ideas. Sennalen ( talk) 15:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
key thinkersand
their ideasare presented within the metanarrative of mind control, it "hits different" than when they are presented as actual intellectual history - to the point, in fact, that they do
cease to be the same ... ideas. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
overwhelming quantity and quality of soirces that make exactly the claim they are cited forappears to be a Sorelian myth, rather than a thing that has actually happened. I for one have not seen multiple, good sources stating that "Cultural Marxism" refers to a school of thought (rather than an activity, which is how some early sources use the term). Newimpartial ( talk) 13:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
"One cause of "citation overkill" is edit warring, which can lead to examples like "Graphism is the study[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] of ...". Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word, as an editor desperately tries to shore up one's point or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that their opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for their edit."
when existing sources have been repeatedly removed or disputed on spurious grounds.Sennalen ( talk) 16:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
The schismatic relation between critical Marxism (also western Marxism, Hegelian Marxism, or cultural Marxism) and scientific Marxism (also orthodox Marxism, automatic Marxism, or mechanical Marxism) must be placed in historical perspective.[8] Sennalen ( talk) 16:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
A central concept in the contemporary genre of right-wing manifestos, Cultural Marxism is a term of art used to disparage the canon of Western Marxist thought as propagating a conspiracy to undermine presumably traditional Western values. Initially coined by political commentators in the US in the early 1990s, the concept was popularized by the American paleo-conservative figure Pat Buchanan – famous for having promoted the notion of a “culture war” for “the soul of America” at the Republican National Convention in 1992 – and has experienced a resurgence in popularity in the late-2010s with the emergence of the so-called “alt-right” around the election of Donald Trump. The concept of Cultural Marxism seeks to introduce readers unfamiliar with – and presumably completely uninterested in – Western Marxist thought to its key thinkers, as well as some of their ideas, as part of an insidious story of secret operations of mind-control whose nuances may differ but whose basic premise is remarkably similar whether told by Anders Breivik (2011) or Andrew Breitbart (2011).
References
Indicate the first step in this chain that you do not agree with:
Sennalen ( talk) 19:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
In our age the objective social tendency is incarnate in the hidden subjective purposes of company directors, the foremost among whom are in the most powerful sectors of industry – steel, petroleum, electricity, and chemicals. Culture monopolies are weak and dependent in comparison. They cannot afford to neglect their appeasement of the real holders of power if their sphere of activity in mass society (a sphere producing a specific type of commodity which anyhow is still too closely bound up with easy-going liberalism and Jewish intellectuals) is not to undergo a series of purges. The dependence of the most powerful broadcasting company on the electrical industry, or of the motion picture industry on the banks, is characteristic of the whole sphere, whose individual branches are themselves economically interwoven. All are in such close contact that the extreme concentration of mental forces allows demarcation lines between different firms and technical branches to be ignored.
The idea of “fully exploiting” available technical resources and the facilities for aesthetic mass consumption is part of the economic system which refuses to exploit resources to abolish hunger.
'The "Marxist cultural analysis" page is a PoV fork that should not exist. This is the right page.'- you're the only editor saying that the lead of Western Marxism is the right place for this. But I guess you've done the research and can explain it to everyone - and yet; everyone seems to disagree with your mega merge ideals. Even your sources note the descriptor is a criticism, and hence not just "another name for Western Marxism" as you've been claiming. It's been explained to you many times already; Western Marxism includes many STRUCTURAL Marxists, who are clearly not "cultural Marxists" nor are they the targets of any specific criticisms attached to that term.
Why do you fight so persistently to say the opposite of what reliable sources say on this?- because your desire to include the term goes against consensus, is incorrect, goes against policy, and doesn't fit many of the Western Marxists you're attempting to label, what's more the sources you are using aren't particularly strong, and mostly they use the word cultural next to Marxism, as a criticism. Your arguments have no legs to stand on beyond the fact that you can explain them at length and repeatedly. Well good for you, but a conversation shouldn't be a one way phenomenon. Learn to step back and take stock sometimes, eh? Especially when you've been told there's room in say, a criticism section, or on the Marxist cultural analysis page. It's not like you've not been given alternatives or that no one has tried to negotiate a compromise with you. 60.241.181.126 ( talk) 04:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
cultural Marxismto indicate a group or faction (which the meaning assumed by Sennalen's steps 2, 3 etc.). Newimpartial ( talk) 11:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Along the way, Schroyer detects a bifurcation in the Marxist interpretation between the "cultural Marxists," who have abandoned the traditional categories of political economy, and the "scientific Marxists," who have evolved a new version of the crisis theory of late capitalism. The basic argument of the book is that these two schools of thought remain incomplete in their isolation from one another, and Schroyer's own contribution is to attempt a tentative synthesis and application at the conclusion of his study.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.136.6 ( talk)
the Farganis review is mistaken about Schroyer. Perhaps you could supply a source which does not originate from
other Talk pageson Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source, even in article space. 194.60.136.6 ( talk) 15:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
reading them, but the only
competing interpretationyou have supplied so far is your own. Again though, this discussion is a waste of time as no changes to the article are being proposed. By the way Farganis seems to be barely mentioned in any namespace on Wikipedia as far as I can see, so it should be pretty easy for you to find. 194.60.136.6 ( talk) 16:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
doesn't capitalize his phrasing. Which is correct. Schroyer does not in fact capitalize the word 'Cultural', except in the contexts you mention. Hopefully that clarifies the matter.
plain reading of the sourceinto the realm of original research, which is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. Note that James Farganis is a well-respected author and academic, and you are, like myself, and with all due respect, an unknown person on the internet with no verifiable credentials. I certainly would not find it acceptable for
any editorto dismiss such a source as a
misinterpretationwithout supplying an equally high-quality published source that said so. Since neither you nor I are
proposing article content, however, this is unlikely to cause problems and is probably not worth discussing further.
noted before on other Talk pagesthat
the Farganis review is mistaken. Maybe you could direct me to the appropriate talk page discussion. Or perhaps you are thinking of a different review or interpretation of Schroyer by another 'mistaken' academic. 194.60.136.6 ( talk) 15:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The list of Western Marxists is very good, still there are a few names missing, the most important (to my mind) probably Karl August Wittfogel: who was an orthodox (USPD, then KPD) communist and Stalinist in the Weimar Republic, but was not happy with total defeat in1933. His kind of Marxism incorporated Max Weber. (Wittfogel and Castoriadis are to my mind way more interesting sociological or traditional-philosophical thinkers than the others on the list, with the exception of Henri Lefebvre - and probably Gramsci)-- Ralfdetlef ( talk) 15:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)