Talk:Western Marxism

comment

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.

Sort of agree with comment above

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)--[

Quietism

The political "quietism" of the frankfurt school needs to further defined.

Sidney Hook?

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)

British Marxism

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)

Fair point, but seeing as there is no 'British Marxism' article, and that the term is not particularly recognised in the same sense as 'Western Marxism', perhaps a small section on British Marxism should be added to the article, with your referenced reasons for why the differentiation is made? Miliband and Williams are huge theorists, even if they never made sexy academic myths of themselves like some French theorists! --Tomsega (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Merleau-Ponty

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)

Not so. See Joseph Bien, "Translator's Introduction," Adventures of the Dialectic, by Maurice Merleau-Ponty (Northwestern University Press, 1973), pp. ix-xxix. On p. xii: "Until the 1950s Merleau-Ponty was the unofficial political editor of Les Temps modernes, the journal associated with Jean-Paul Sartre. Dwalls (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Rosa Luxemburg

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)

Blanked the section 'British Cultural studies'

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.

Almost nothing in the article has citations. I see no special reason to remove that particular paragraph. To be consistent, you would have to blank almost the entire article, and I don't see that as being constructive. I do agree that in general uncited material should be removed, but in this case it does not seem like an appropriate way to proceed. Please understand that your changes are potentially controversial and need to be discussed. You might want to ask members of the philosophy project for advice or assistance. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes

@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

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)

Redundancy?

Please see Talk:Cultural_studies#Redundancy? Sennalen (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Removal of pertinent cited information

Generalrelative removed the following text from the lede.

Because of its attention to culture, Western Marxism (or elements of it) are also known as cultural Marxism.

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)

Cherry picking a few sources and making a WP:SYNTH case out of them doesn't make the two terms synonyms. And some of these don't actually support the change: 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 from 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)

Later in Tuters, 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)

Since everyone else isn't talking about 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)

Nonetheless, the key thinkers, as well as some of their ideas do not cease to be the same key thinkers and ideas. Sennalen (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I dare say that when the key thinkers and their ideas are 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)

If the main objection is that "cultural Marxism" is sometimes perjorative, then it is possible to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM by mentioning "It is sometimes perjorative." However, I do not think giving the controversy even the slightest attention on this page is appropriate, per WP:ONEWAY. Nothing in the controversy invalidates the fact that "cultural Marxism" refers to Western Marxism outside the controversy. Sennalen (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The main objection is that the two terms don't mean the same thing, so we cannot equate them. MrOllie (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

We can, since RS do. The only wiggle room is whether cultural Marxism is the same as all of Western Marxism or just some subset of it. Sennalen (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

No, they really don't, as I've already mentioned above. That a few cherry picked sources happen to use two words next to each other doesn't support this change. This is the same argument that has been made (and rejected) many times, including an recently closed instance at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory#I. Antisemitism insinuations, II. Contemporary use. MrOllie (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

An overwhelming quantity and quality of sources that make exactly the claim they are cited for is not "cherry picked". It has not been rejected with valid justifications anywhere at any time, that link included. If it had been, it would be possible to say what those justifications are. Sennalen (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

That you personally disagree does not make the justifications invalid. MrOllie (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

They are invalid because they are not based in facts, policy, or sources. Sennalen (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The overwhelming quantity and quality of soirces that make exactly the claim they are cited for appears 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)

• Just popping in to state that I'm broadly in agreement with MrOllie's assessment. Sennalen's argument has been made and rejected many times. Barring some new information emerging, I don't see the point of continuing this discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It has never been rejected with substantive reasoning. Since you indicate no intention to ever provide substantive reasoning, it is time to proceed to an RfC. Would I be right summarizing the principle objection to the text as the belief, against evidence, that the sources do not say Western Marxism is also known as cultural Marxism? Or is the principal objection on some other grounds, such as weight? Sennalen (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's really not up to you to decide what counts as substantive reasoning or valid justifications when you've manifestly failed to persuade others. And shouting! doesn't help. Mr Ollie has given you (what appears to me to be) a very patient hearing and a thoughtful rationale. I see no reason to repeat it. Please note that while you are entitled to engagement, the community is not required to WP:SATISFY you. This will be my final reply. Generalrelative (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

For others to be persuaded, they have to make a good-faith effort to be persuadable. All that has happened here is that you and Mr. Ollie have asserted that one source (of 7) does not say what it says. When I pointed out that it plainly does, both of you begin to point at unspecified arguments in other vague locations. This is not productive, which is why an RfC will be necessary. Sennalen (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

That does not match my reading of the above discussion at all. MrOllie (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Rather than an RfC then, perhaps dispute resolution would be more appropriate, so we can figure out exactly what the nature of the disagreement is. Sennalen (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. RFCs are dispute resolution. MrOllie (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean WP:DRN, the dispute resolution noticeboard. I think that would be more helpful while it is unclear what question to pose to the community. Sennalen (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

DRN is ineffective in repeatedly litigated disputes such as this one. MrOllie (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree it's citation WP:OVERKILL and points towards your agenda to attack this topic. To quote WP:OVERKILL:

"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."

...and I'd remind you that having many sources doesn't equate to those sources being good, or even to them being wide spread or well known in a discourse. It could indeed be the case that an obscure consideration is merely, often brought up by a single author, or a handful of authors.... or that those authors aren't from the discourse in question, and are criticizing it.

Western Marxism is a very large area of thought, too large to label as "cultural Marxism" in Wikivoice. Especially considering the term 'cultural Marxism' has never been well defined, or had wide usage, and has become mired in the Conspiracy Theory of the same name. On top of all this, we already have a page which concerns its self with the philosophies originating or deemed to participate in that conception. That page being Marxist cultural analysis - see that middle word there? CULTURAL. That's there because the page deals with Marxist ideas around CULTURE.

That you're working across multiple pages (including Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory) to insert and legitimize this term as much as possible, and have been doing so against consensus for months on end, appears very suspicious. Why is forcing this one term onto Wikipedia your priority? It's not a particularly recent, relevant, or important term within Marxist discourse. It's not even a pro-noun (never made it that far).

Including "cultural Marxism" in the lead here would be like including "trickle down" in the lead of Free Market (see your one source that's not an inaccessible paperback from the 80s for details). 14.202.44.246 (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism is exactly as well (poorly) defined as Western Marxism. The choice of term is arbitrary. The cause of citation overkill is trying to overcome editors questioning the reliability of sources based on how well they support a viewpoint. As OVERKILL also says, when existing sources have been repeatedly removed or disputed on spurious grounds. Sennalen (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

While looking at sources for Critical Theory, I accidentally stumbled across one that could avoid citation overkill here, with a single concise statement of several synonyms: 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. Sennalen (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

A schism would seem to indicate they're not all the same thing, yet so far you've been claiming they are? At any rate, I've already said I (as an individual editor) am happy for you to add which ever Western Marxists your sources deem to be cultural Marxists to the Marxist cultural analysis page, but as you well know, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is exclusively intended for the conspiracy theory, and already has a hat note disambig. to Marxist cultural analysis. 220.235.239.240 (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you aware of what page this even is? Sennalen (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Having recently upgraded my professional qualifications in indexing, I have now picked up some handy conceptual tools. :) The problem with Sennallen's "also known as" formulation is that it treats the term as a synonym - which their fabled 7 sources generally do not - while "or elements of it" implies a subset relationship. The reality is that insofar as "Western Marxism" can be defined, it refers to some elements that are part of "cultural Marxism" (by whatever conspiratorial or supposedly neutral definition) and some elements that are not. However, "cultural Marxism" also refers to elements that are Western Marxism and others - humanism say or "the long march through the institutions" - that are not. A synonym or subset relationship does not exist and cannot be constructed. Newimpartial (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The Bottomore (ed.) Dictionary is generally quite a good source. It has a longish entry on Western Marxism, which is cited several times in the article—and it includes more good information that could be added. The entry cited above, however, is to the entry on Culture, where the phrase "cultural Marxism" is literally set off in scare quotes and attributed to just one person. It should go without saying that, if anything, this is evidence that undermines the claim that the two terms are generally considered synonyms. Also, in the paragraph preceding the one cited, the author expresses doubt about the longevity of this "one-sided" interest in superstructures within the tradition of Western Marxism.

If that is not enough, I cite the first paragraph of the Marc Tuters reference:

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).

This entire objection/proposal screams bad faith. Y'all with fringe theories to promote and legitimize, please take them to more appropriately fringe parts of the Internet. This is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia.

All best, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I intended my post at the bottom of the thread to be my last word on the situation, but I feel I can't let the aspersions here pass without comment. I was originally content to leave it with the single citation to Oxford Reference, but since editors objected without reason, I did the legwork of selecting seven representative sources out of the dozens available to present a rounded view of the question in the corpus. Don't you dare pick out any single one of them to say, "aha, here is Sennalen's true belief!" or pretend to have uncovered something I endeavored to obscure. This source is here for you (collectively) to see that even when the speaker is a hostile conspiracy theorist, the referent is still Western Marxism. Unsurprisingly, this has been twisted to turn even when to only when, which is false. That can all be parsed out in expanded section. Sennalen (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The best way not to be called out for blatantly misrepresenting sources is to cite only what you have actually read and are confident supports the claim adduced. Otherwise, once again: screams bad faith. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

If the accuracy of your contributions depends upon other editors happening to own the volumes you cite, and also being at the ready to check your work, there is an objective problem with your editorial practices. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Let's try something

Indicate the first step in this chain that you do not agree with:

1. The first use of "cultural Marxism" was no later than Trent Schroyer's Critique of Domination (1973)
2. ...with specific reference to the Frankfurt School
3. ...and general application to a broader historical split between economic and non-economic Marxism.
4. The half of the split that Schroyer designated "cultural Marxism" has also been called "Western Marxism".
5. Schroyer invoked this split as part of a sustained theory and analysis (rather than an offhand mention).
6. This analysis continued to be discussed and have influence through later decades
7. ...through to the present

Sennalen (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

4. It's not a wide enough usage to be notable, and plenty of so called "cultural Marxists" also sought structural changes. Marcuse for instance had specific desires attached to his viewpoint. He wanted to limit the power of: "groups and movements which 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." - I'm sure there are plenty of other so called "cultural Marxists" who suggest structural changes, I mean Adorno too complained that:

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.

...and hence that

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.

Paul Gottfried as well as others have noted many times that 'cultural Marxism' has been used as a term to deride Western Marxism. It's intended as a dig, or a critique (which is how many of your sources are using it, yet you didn't include that in your Wikivoice text). This is how Trent Schroyer was using it, and ergo I also disagree with point 5. It's not "invoked as a split" - it's an intended part of the criticism, but not an actual solid split internal to Western Marxism. Schroyer, was not a Marxist. So he's not the pinnacle of Marxist analysis and thus shouldn't be used to wedge the term in.

6. and 7. are hence also false, as Schroyer is fairly obscure. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The proper split within Marxism is between Revolutionary Marxism, and Reformist (Fabian) Marxism, both of which have cultural and structural intents. There is no school of thought that sees Marxism as merely a superficial cultural change, and editors are dupes if they think that's the case. It's not, it's a critique of certain Marxists and Neo-Marxists who are seen as not doing enough, or going far enough in their analysis. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's useless to contend there is one "proper split" in Marxism when it has been sliced so many ways. We are on one particular page which is for the divergence of Western/cultural Marxism from orthodox/economic marxism. There is no room for doubt about the existence and importance of that division.

Compared to Perry Anderson's definitive text with ~2200 citations on scholar.google.com, Schroyer with ~440 is certainly a significant viewpoint. Beyond mere citation numbers, Critique of Domination and the suggestion of a praxis-oriented cultural Marxism was a foundational influence for Michael Apple. While some have used "cultural Marxism" perjoratively, Schroyer was not one of them. He considered himself a follower of the Frankfurt School and especially Habermas, who were obviously representing the "cultural" branch. The aim of Schroyer's work was to attempt a synthesis of cultural and orthodox. Sennalen (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for making it clear that "cultural Marxism" is being used in the lower case upper case form, as two words next to each other rather than a genuine or set school of thought. We have a page for all Marxist analysis of culture. That page, as you know is the Marxist cultural analysis page. If you wish to include any Western Marxists you can find sources saying are cultural Marxists, you're welcome to do so there. But at this point, it seems clear that "cultural Marxism" is not another name for "Western Marxism" - so including "Because of its attention to culture, Western Marxism (or elements of it) are also known as cultural Marxism." in the lead section doesn't seem to be quite as accurate as it could be, or WP:DUE.

It's clear that you've had to work pretty hard to find the sources for this claim which you have, and that many of them ARE written from a critical point of view. Perhaps this content would be more appropriate to a criticisms section?

It seems to me you've now been directed to several different ways/places you can include this information. So I hope you don't persist in trying to force it into lead sections. Thank you for researching this. 220.235.239.240 (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

1. The big C / little c distinction you have been pushing for years has no basis in RS.

2. The "two words together" theory you've been pushing for years has no basis in RS, and in fact is disproven by exactly what I just explained about Schroyer. It's barely even coherent from an epistemological perspective, and it doesn't work with "cultural" any more than it would work with "Western" or "Hegelian".

3. The "Marxist cultural analysis" page is a PoV fork that should not exist. This is the right page.

4. Why do you fight so persistently to say the opposite of what reliable sources say on this? Sennalen (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

1. 2. - it's how language works. What you "explain about Schroyer" is pretty much the definition of WP:OR. You explaining/believing something because you researched it doesn't mean it can be included on Wikipedia... in fact, it specifically means it can't be. Even when you were "explaining" you specifically said "cultural Marxism" in quotes - because the authors are not referring to or defining a set school of thought that anyone can be said to have belonged to. According to the sources, it can be said that Western Marxists have analyzed culture, or had theories about it - and there's a page for that; Marxist cultural analysis. A page you've been directed to many times now, and no doubt will be many times in the future.

3. '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.

Perhaps you should make a list with sources for each Western Philosopher the accusation has been leveled at (as has been suggested to you before). Then we'd at least know who your statement is aimed at. I'm sure all the philosophers and cultural theorists on the Marxist cultural analysis page would be on that list... and more than likely not many others. I guess that page could be a good starting point for such a list?

Including this "criticism of the few" in the lead, and saying its "just another term for all Western Marxists" whilst gesturing widely at the many, just isn't appropriate, and never will be appropriate. It's like saying "That damn dog!" is another term for the class Canine, or saying that all Canine's are domestic beagles and hence this info you've researched should thus be included in the lead of all articles relating to dogs.

4. 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)

IP, word to the wise: you can leave off now. Your energy is better spent elsewhere. Sennalen is WP:1AM on this issue and has been for some time. When someone has lost the debate, it's often best to let them have the last word. Generalrelative (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll just leave these few sources here should anyone want to start a criticisms section in the future: [1], [2], [3]. Interestingly some of these even question the coherence of Western Marxism as a category, noting its authors are spread pretty wide and far at times, others see the term as being equated to English and German speakers, and hence having a linguistic or racial bias. 60.241.181.126 (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with the 1AM characterization, if by "many" you mean you and the IP. XMcan (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably just a reference to Sennalen's longer term efforts in the topic area. 60.241.181.126 (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Anderson's attitude towards what he called Western Marxism was not positive. Considerations on Western Marxism was intended as an epitaph for what he considered an intellectual dead end. Sennalen (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's definitely not pertinent information; the sources are all passing mentions, many don't actually support the text you added at all (several, eg. Freeman or Guan, are clearly not using it as an alternative name for Western Marxism as a whole), and none of them support the idea that the term saw significant use, nor do they reflect any part of the article body. It's simply not a significant alternative name, so it fails the requirements of WP:ALTNAME while being WP:UNDUE. We don't list every possible term for a topic that has ever been used anywhere, only the most significant ones, the ones that are necessary to understand the topic; and for a topic this broad a handful of passing mentions are insignificant, without really supporting the assertion that anyone is likely to land here with that term or be confused by its absence. If it's truly pertinent, for a topic this major, it should be easy to find eg. large numbers significant works that primarily use that term or discuss it in-depth rather than ones that just note it in passing. On top of that, it appears you're trying to use this to push WP:OR - you outline your own personal history of the term above, which you seem to be arguing for but which doesn't seem to actually have meaningful sources backing it or anything in the body. And the WP:OVERCITE (using a pile of extremely weak sources in what seems to be an effort to make up for their weakness) seems to be to indicate that the sources that would actually justify including this don't exist - one good source is worth more than throwing everything you can find on Google Scholar at the wall and hoping something sticks. Again, I do have to emphasize that most of these sources don't support your argument at all - going over them, it feels like you either grabbed every mention of "cultural marxism" from a Google Scholar result, or grabbed a list of sources from prior discussions over Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, without looking too closely at them. Freeman relates it solely to the University of Frankfurt Institute for Social Research; Guan uses it to critique a specific school of thought they ascribe largely to Walter Benjamin, Macdonald mentions uses the words "cultural marxism" in a passing list of modes of Marxist analysis without relating it to "Western Marxism" or either of the other two at all, and so on. These people aren't talking about the same thing! If your goal is to argue that there's a single concrete topic here under this name distinct from the conspiracy theory, you're shooting yourself in the foot; and certainly most of them don't support the idea that it's an alternative name for "western marxism" as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  ·      it appears you're trying to use this to push WP:OR

  ·      doesn't seem to actually have meaningful sources backing it

  ·      seems to be to indicate that the sources that would actually justify including this don't exist  

  ·      one good source is worth more than throwing everything you can find on Google Scholar at the wall and hoping something sticks

  ·      it feels like you either grabbed every mention of "cultural marxism" from a Google Scholar result

  These are all vague speculations based on hunches, presumptions, and feelings about the OP, their methods, and motivations, rather than anything from RS or from what the OP actually said. Let's keep focus on the specific issues the OP raised instead of casting aspersions. XMcan (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I was using polite language, but if it bothers you, I will be more blunt: This is unambiguous WP:OR. The vast majority of sources presented do not support the text they attempted to add; the one exception is a passing mention that isn't sufficient for a blunt statement of this nature. --Aquillion (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• I thank everyone who has shared their good faith concerns, (rather than just saying "ONUS" and tendentiously refusing to elaborate.) There are some important caveats to consider about who used the phrase "cultural Marxism", when, and why. While it remains the case that the phrase was used for Western Marxism outside a conspiracy context, simply asserting that fact without context does not do the best service to the reader. The discussion also points to some of the bedrock of the article not being as firm as one assumes, when considering that the name "Western Marxism" was also first applied from a particular point of view. I believe a good path forward will be to combine elements of the "Etymology" and "History" sections, along with some new material, to make a coherent treatment of the "external history" of retrospective theories about why the Western/orthodox bifurcation was a significant axis, apart from the "internal history" of those thinkers classified as Western. Sennalen (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• 1. Schroyer does not use cultural Marxism to indicate a group or faction (which the meaning assumed by Sennalen's steps 2, 3 etc.). Newimpartial (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01701854

Farganis, J. Critical theory and praxis : A discussion of Trent Schroyer's The Critique of Domination

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)

As I have noted before on other Talk pages, the Farganis review is mistaken about Schroyer (and may actually be the origin of the mistaken "schools of thought" claim). Newimpartial (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I could not find any WP:RS to support your assertion that the Farganis review is mistaken about Schroyer. Perhaps you could supply a source which does not originate from other Talk pages on Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source, even in article space. 194.60.136.6 (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter as Schroyer "detecting" something in an obscure book from 50 years ago doesn't really count for much. He's cited as the first usage, but doesn't capitalize his phrasing into a formal term - so it's a fairly flimsy reference to something... some quality to do with some of The Frankfurt School, but also The Birmingham School (aka "British cultural Marxism"), and E.P. Thompson (whom was described as doing cultural Marxism by Dorothy Thompson)... so we have to factor in those other groupings as well. Which is why we have the Marxist cultural analysis page - to try to figure out who is "in" and "out" of this odd, informal grouping.

But the label is not in common usage in modern academia, and not that many academics investigate Marxism as their primary topic area... meaning we're left with reviews, reference works, or books from 50 years ago. So it's an obscure phrasing (made redundant in some spheres by cultural studies) that there's simply not that much reason to include in the article on Western Marxism. There's no real indication that people are confused about what Western Marxism means, it's a fairly self-explanatory term. So there's no real indication that including a discussion of what cultural Marxism might be would improve the article in any way.

Single source pushing to introduce a WP:DUE term is not really helpful to improving the article on Western Marxism. It's that simple. I mean, what do people here think this contributes to the article? Why should we be giving Wikivoice to the criticism that some Western Marxists were thought to be Marxist in cultural terms only? If that's even what "cultural Marxism" is referring to... because sometimes it's used as a criticism (see Senallen's Ian Buchanan source), sometimes it's not... so all we're able to say in Wikivoice, is that it was a fairly vague and informal group which variously included some members of The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, and sometimes E.P.Thompson... that's basically all we can say of "cultural Marxism". That's part of why conservatives were able to hijack the term, because it was obscure and never found wide usage. 220.245.14.58 (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Now if you wanted to include that Western Marxism via The Frankfurt School, Birmingham School, and the New Left, birthed cultural Studies and critical theory... that would actually be contributing something. But just demanding we insert the term "cultural Marxism" somewhere on the page? It doesn't serve building an encyclopedia, as it's not a relevant or well defined term. 220.245.14.58 (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Now I don't have the source at hand and this may be a trick of memory, but I'm not convinced that Schroyer does capitalize the term. I think he may only use the capital at the beginning of sentences and in headings. But then again, I may be thinking of someone else.

In any event, in response to the IP comment one level up: I am not proposing article content about the review, and to identify it as a misinterpretation of the source requires only a plain reading of the source and of the review. Any editor should be able to manage that. Newimpartial (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Both editions of Buchanan's dictionary mention in passing that Western Marxism is also known as cultural Marxism. I don't care whether this information is included in the article, or what people on this talk page think Schroyer meant by the term 'cultural Marxism', or what people on this talk page think 'cultural Marxism' means. I personally don't use 'cultural Marxism' and 'Western Marxism' as synonyms.

All I can tell you is that I was using the term 'cultural Marxism' in its non-conspiratorial sense for years before I had ever heard of the conspiracy theory, and I found it to be a reasonably useful term for distinguishing between so-called 'cultural' and so-called 'structural' Marxists. And I still do. Saying 'Marxist cultural analysis' instead of 'cultural Marxism' is like saying 'furniture designed for the purpose of sitting' instead of 'chair'. Well, nearly anyway.

But, I can understand why people on Wikipedia don't want to see this term used in any articles, even when this requires changing the language used by the sources 194.60.136.6 (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Long time, no see. I didn't think this encyclopaedia was still accepting the contributions of Cornishmen. :p

As far as your following aspersions are concerned, (i) I don't need to sift through my contributions from two or more years ago just to establish that I made a point that I remember making, (per WP:SATISFY), (ii) the correct use of primary sources includes reading them, and the correct use of secondary sources includes selecting how to attribute emphasis among competing interpretations, including leaving out ones that are less compelling than others, and (iii) it is simply incorrect to suggest that editors are forbidden from commenting on the quality of secondary sources on Talk pages. In fact, I remember a certain Cornishman who was in the habit of doing so, repeatedly. Newimpartial (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The geolocation tool is, erm, not very accurate. At least it doesn't put me in Devon though. :p 194.60.136.6 (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The Harry Potter edits were not made by me, by the way. 194.60.136.6 (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I am pleased to hear that your approach to primary sources includes reading them, but the only competing interpretation you 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)

The other IP said that Schroyer 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.

The process you describe goes well beyond a plain reading of the source into 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 editor to dismiss such a source as a misinterpretation without 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.

Incidentally I could find no evidence of your having noted before on other Talk pages that 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)

Wittfogel was also part of the Frankfurt School

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)