Talk:Cultural Marxism

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2018

The redirect is not appropriate and seems to represent a clumsy attempt an censorship. This phrase has entered into fairly common usage now and merits a page of its own. The reference to the frankfurt school can be a link, but that obscure historical usage is at most a footnote. Helper0237621 (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure how much can be written about "Cultural Marxism" on its own other than that it's a conspiracy theory, and giving examples of the term being thrown by right-wing celebrities. It hasn't got a rich history like the New World Order, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or similar ones. Perhaps if someone writes a draft with richer content, it could be considered to be established as an independent article. BeŻet (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review

In case editors may overlook it, there was a deletion review last September as seen here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 6. It closed with no consensus to overturn but mentioned the possibility of discussion elsewhere. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Redirect is broken

Hi @EdJohnston: or other admins, the redirect is broken because the section from that article has been removed and a separate article has been created Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Please could you fix the redirect so it goes there instead?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Done - looks like there's sufficient consensus at Talk:Frankfurt_School#Split? for a new article. Sam Walton (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

For further discussion, go to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 11#Cultural Marxism. See also Talk:Frankfurt School#Split? as mentioned above by User:Samwalton9. Samwalton6 left the redirect fully protected, it just goes to a new place, the separate article on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, newly created on 11 September 2020. My guess is that this change of the redirect into an article will not be very controversial. The original problem was that people were trying to make Cultural Marxism into a real thing and not just a bugaboo. It would be helpful if somebody would officially close the discussion at Talk:Frankfurt School#Split?. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:  Done per my request. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Why is there no Cultural Marxism Wikipedia entry and why is is being redirected to a Conspiracy Theory page? Isaw (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

"Cultural Marxism" was never the primary name given to the field that Wikipedia addresses as Marxist cultural analysis. The conspiracy theory isn't related to any "real Cultural Marxism", because the conspiracy theory isn't based on anything real, and the field of study you are talking about was never widely known as "Cultural Marxism".

Perhaps more to the point: repeated, widely participated discussions have consistently reached the consensus that the only encyclopaedic topic referred to as "Cultural Marxism" is the conspiracy theory. WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, but there isn't any evidence that it actually has. Newimpartial (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

and on that page they say to come here? Looks like a Wikipedia conspiracy? :) Isaw (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

That was back in 2020. People have been kvetching about this for ages and it never gets anybody anywhere.

There does not seem to be a redirect proposal active at the moment. The correct place to start one would be at WP:RfD but please let me save you some time before you go and bother them. The redirect is correct. It is not going to be changed. There is no magical rhetorical formula that you can contrive which will bamboozle us into changing it incorrectly. All you are doing is annoying people and it is time to stop doing that. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is there no Wikipedia entry for "Cultural Marxism" and why is the page for Cultural Marxism diverting to a conspiracy Theory entry when Cultural Marxism is NOT a conspiracy theory? Isaw (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

2020 or 2010 is irrelevant! Cultural Marxism was an established academic field in the 1980s and 1990s and it is being misdirected to a page which claims Cultural Marxism is and always a far Right conspiracy Theory. How do Wikipedia correct this? Isaw (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

And in case you think that Daniel's assessment is just a single voice, let me assure you that it isn't. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if multiple editirs say Cultural Marxism should not have its own entry in Wikipedia and should instyead redirect to a Conspiracy Theory entry if they happen to be WRONG and Cultural Marxism is #NOT a conspiracy theory. How does one get Cultural Marxism to have its own actually factually true and reliable entry and not be misconstrued as a Conspiracy theory? Isaw (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

There are many cases where a topic name has multiple meanings and thus multiple articles. When there is a clear WP:primary topic, as in this case, then that is what the article of that name is about. The existence of article(s) about the other topic(s) is identified at the top of the primary article using a WP:hatnote such as {{other uses}}. So you would need to write an article (or section of an article) about the academic field and then use the hatnote mechanism to highlight it. Does that help? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia's preferred article title for "Marxist cultural studies"/"the cultural turn in Marxism"/"cultural Marxism" is Marxist cultural analysis. You could propose to move that article to Cultural Marxism, but an overwhelming consensus has concluded on at least five occasions that the main topic of "Cultural Marxism" is the conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Convert to disambiguation

This thread has been dead for more than a year. There is no point in trying to revive it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the spirit of WP:BOLD, healthy compromise, ease of finding information, and in light of the lack of consensus in both Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and Marxist cultural analysis as to how the articles should be named, I've changed the page to offer links to both articles. Both articles have links to each other, and one of the few mutual agreements between both sides of the discussion on both of the pages concede that the term "Cultural Marxism" can refer to both the application of Marxist theory to critique of things other than class, or to the alt-right conspiracy theory that uses it as a basis. Looking at the relevant Talk pages should be enough to demonstrate the ambiguity of the term on this page and justify offering both to those interested in the subject, and as contentious as the discussions may be, I believe that the simplest solution is to offer readers to look for the meaning they intended to find, rather than favoring one over the other. And again, both pages refer to each other, and both have very well sourced claims that the term "Culutral Marxism" is used to refer to each depending on the context. Nerfdart (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Re: the term "Cultural Marxism" can refer to both the application of Marxist theory to critique of things other than class, or to the alt-right conspiracy theory that uses it as a basis - no, there is no agreement on this premise. Please see the recent discussions on both Talk:Marxist cultural analysis and Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, which have both reached the opposite conclusion. The usage of "Cultural Marxism" as a synonym of Marxist cultural analysis has always been at the periphery of the field, and it is only subscribers to the conspiracy theory who argue the contrary. Newimpartial (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "it is only subscribers to the conspiracy theory who argue the contrary" is a very biased POV position to take on the subject. Both articles reference the fact that the term is used for each other. How is Cultural Marxism exclusively defined as a conspiracy theory when proponents of Marxist cultural analysis have used it interchangeably with "Cultural Marxism"? In fact, the first sentence of the third paragraph states: "Since the 1930s, the tradition of Marxist cultural analysis has occasionally also been referred to as "cultural Marxism", in reference to Marxist ideas about culture." with multiple sources, while the second sentence states "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." again with multiple sources, and between these, the use of "Cultural Marxism" to refer to "Marxist cultural analysis" predates the use of the term to refer to the conspiracy theory by more than half a century.Nerfdart (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC) If you look closely enough at the history of the articles you are citing, you will see that I wrote quite a bit of what you are quoting - I am familiar with what each article says. You are failing to distinguish between "cultural Marxism" (the typical term for the synonym of Marxist cultural analysis) and "Cultural Marxism", the trope of the conspiracy theory. The proper noun, "Cultural Marxism", was essentially never used prior to the advent of the conspiracy theory. As I previously suggested, please read the Talk pages of the two articles before launching a third front here. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC) There is already a ton of sources provided that show the term refers to both the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory(which is sourced as having been in use since the 1990's by detractors) and Marxist cultural analysis(which has been used by supporters since the 1930's). This is enough evidence to show that the term refers to two subjects commonly enough to require a disambiguation. Nerfdart (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC) You're welcome to open a new RFC to attempt to change the existing consensus. You are not welcome to simply ignore the existing consensus because you don't like it. Your editing career is likely to be short if you continue edit-warring against established consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC) (e-c) The consensus reached consistently in many, many discussions since the 2014 Cultural Marxism AfD is that the conspiracy theory is the only RS topic with this name. If you are convinced of the contrary, "Redirects for Discussion" is the relevant venue. Newimpartial (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC) That isnht true! Cultural Marxism was used decades before the Modern conspiracy Theory! For example Dennis Dworkin. Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies. (Post-Contemporary Interventions.) Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. 1997. Isaw (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Oppose disambig: the term "cultural Marxism" refers to the conspiracy theory; they are one and the same. The redirect should stay (and perhaps should be EC protected, or fully protected). --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC) No it doesnt and the talk sectioon of the redirect says that the Conspiracy Throry is a different topic to the previously established field of Cultural Marxism! For example Dennis Dworkin. Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies. (Post-Contemporary Interventions.) Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. 1997. So why is this subject entry being redirected to a conspiracy theory? Isaw (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Bit underhand that Cultural Marxism redirects here, and not to Marxist cultural analysis page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsteve (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC) That's because the usage of "Cultural Marxism" in relation to the conspiracy theory is far and away the PRIMARYTOPIC. Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Oppose this particular proposal. The common usage of "cultural Marxism" is at the very least in the culture war, if not an outright conspiracy theory. Support bringing the actual consensus of RS to the topic area. What's important is ensuring that a reader no matter what redirect or link they used to get there is informed in unambiguous wikivoice that "cultural Marxism" is a phrase that is also used entirely free of conspiracy connotations to refer to the Frankfurt School or Birmingham School. In 2014 and other times, a wrongful local consensus has formed against following RS. As Guan and Cristaudo explain in Baudelaire Contra Benjamin: A Critique of Politicized Aesthetics and Cultural Marxism (2019): The fact that the term was littered throughout scholarly literature for decades can quickly be seen by entering it in Google scholar. It has also been commonly used as a conversational shorthand for decades and, in all likelihood, even before the term initially appeared in print in 1973 in Trent Schroyer's The Critique of Domination: The Origins and Development of Critical Theory. That a collection of interviews on North America's leading Marxist literary theorist, Frederic Jameson, edited by Ian Buchanan in 2007, could appear under the name Jameson on Jameson: Conversations on Cultural Marxism, should confirm what anyone who has watched its evolution knows: that the term was not originally a perjorative term, it was purely descriptive, and was used rather loosely to refer to cover a common approach to literary and cultural studies of the sort pioneered in Critical Theory by the Frankfurt School, but also in British Marxist literary studies as found in Raymond Williams and his students. Regarding the 2014 RfC, it says, The arguments in favor of deleting the entry were were passionate, but grossly methodologically deficient in appraising what counts as "evidence" for the meaning of any term, or existence of a practice. As an editor, I 100% endorse the position of Guan and Cristaudo on this. Sennalen (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC) You are quoting two non-experts, launching broadsides in the preface to a book which is not about Cultural Marxism in either of the senses you are discussing. If you actually intend to bring the actual consensus of RS to the topic area - well, that consensus isn't reflected in these co-authors writing outside their field to defend their choice of book title, and it isn't that "cultural Marxism" is a phrase that is also used entirely free of conspiracy connotations to refer to the Frankfurt School or Birmingham School. The phrase has been used aleatorically to refer to any number of things, but there isn't any notable or consistent usage outside of the conspiracy theory (and only a minority of recent RS even entertain the question, which you propose to answer, against policy, in unambiguous wikivoice). Newimpartial (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Beibei Guan is a lecturer of European philosophy who did her doctoral thesis on Baudelaire and Benjamin. Wayne Cristaudo is Chair of Politics at Charles Darwin University. WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH Sennalen (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Exactly my point, though. Neither has any demonstrated expertise in conspiracy theories, or on the Frankfurt School, or on the Birmingham School for that matter. They situate themselves outside of "cultural Marxism" according to every attempt you have made to define it. Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC) I am not going to WP:REHASH your personal OR again. Bring sources. Sennalen (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Sources for what, though? I can't demonstrate a negative. Newimpartial (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC) You cant use a 2019 Source to propose a field of study is a conspiracy theoryu when BOOKS were published decades before in thaty academioc field! Dennis Dworkin. Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies. (Post-Contemporary Interventions.) Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. 1997. and thewre are plenty of peer reviewed articles form the 1`990s and 1980s. It does not matter what opinion of someone in 2019 is! There was wide . WORLDWIDE , publication on "Cultural Marxism" in the 1990s and 1980s and before! And they were poublished by marxist and left leaning academics and not by extreme right groups! Isaw (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)