When you are done with this page (about cultural marxism), please place a message on my talk page and a link. Keep up the good work! Dnm (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this source is great for showing Paul Gottfrieds point of view:

"”Why allow the “anti-fascist” enemies of freedom in Europe and America to take away the term “cultural Marxist” and force us to use in its place their own flattering description of what they like? If they want to reject our term for something more soothing to their ears, then that’s all the more reason to hold on to it." (almost at the end of the text)

He makes it clear that the word "Cultural Marxism" is a political (not scientific) one and that it is controversial (it is not accepted by others). Through the description of "our term", he shows that Cultural Marxism is a paleoconservative concept (and for the use of the far-right on their "enemies").

Thanks I will make sure to do that! --Jobrot (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Samwalton9:@Zzuuzz: Hi! I've been sandboxing this possible new article titled Cultural Marxism (conspiracy theory) as there was some discussion both at talk:Cultural Marxism and talk:Frankfurt School about doing so. I was just wanting to hear from some admins about whether going ahead with creating such an article and adjusting the current re-direct accordingly would be a good idea once it's ready? I should be done within the next day or so and this will be my first wikipedia article, so as a noob I'm not sure what the procedure is in such a controversial case. Any comments on this, or feedback on the article thus far would be welcomed. The draft is currently available at my User:Jobrot/sandbox, thank you for your time. --Jobrot (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have little to no interest as to the creation of a new article so I don't have opinions on whether this draft is good or not. I'd definitely urge you to ask the community at large about the draft because the original deletion was quite contentious. If it does get moved though, Cultural Marxism would be the correct article name, no need for the disambiguation. Sam Walton (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I am using brackets in the proposed title incorrectly, and mean to adopt something more in line with these titles:

Chemtrail conspiracy theory
Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories
9/11 conspiracy theories
Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory

Which are not disambiguations, but still are declared as conspiracy theories. I wish to do this as to not violate WP:SALT or be seen as attempting to go against the consensus reached on the AfD. I agree with you that a draft version would be a good place to start, and that getting community consultation from there would be the next step. --Jobrot (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the problem the one-dimensional (the battle over the term is very Marcusean) tug of war between the conspiracy theory accusation, and the contemporary use of the CM term in the 1960s? It could instead be a phrase picked (recently, informally) to bracket a period of historical change (like 'industrial revolution'), or to reference a shift in tactics or emphasis or interest by folks in the new Left, or to reference the passing of a revolutionary theoretical baton (with continuities and discontinuities: what is taught isn't always what is learnt). Many such bracketings and perspectives are possible. This one may have its faults, but for instance Angela Davis's thinking bears the heavy stamp of her professor, Marcuse. The fact that CM is a borrowed / hijacked / misunderstood copy of an existing usage isn't relevant. The term is understood as the Cultural Marxist Shift or Moment or Switch. To name a thing is to realise it (which may be the issue). It needs its own page, disambiguated from the E P Thompson (etc) usage. Cheesusfreak (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good deletion[edit]

I just want to say that this deletion was correct. The British use of Cultural Marxism is of another sort, more in the sense of "Marxists that analyzing culture". Dnm (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Backup from Second Dark's sandbox[edit]

Philosophical questions around "Cultural Marxism"

Hello Second Dark, you mentioned discussing some of the more philosophical issues with this subject, and I suppose here is somewhere a more fluid discussion could be had. I think one of my major philosophical questions on this topic would be; when is a movement a movement, and should the opposition of a movement be allowed to define that movement. I'm inclined to think not (although I'm sure it has happened, and as always, history is written by the victors).

It's also interesting in this case as the (right side's) claim of "Cultural Marxism" are an extension of the (left side's) Frankfurt School, which is its self a departure from traditional Marxist historical materialism (which obviously originated under an entirely different era of politics with a different sense of ideologies). That distance seems to make this topic further and further speculative.

Anyways, I'm not sure if this is the kind of discussion you had in mind, but they're my initial thoughts on the subject. --Jobrot (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also interesting are some of the current debates and understandings of this subject from the internet generation [such as found in the comments here]. I think they're definitely aware that Authoritarianism can effect the left as much as the right, they just haven't found the right words for this phenomena (and labeling the likes of Ardorno as having a hand in establishing this "progressive authoritarianism" we're seeing now, just feels false and contradictory considering his work in pathologizing that type). --Jobrot (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An even broader philosophical discussion in light of reading through the VoxDay MailVox comments For starters I'd like to point out that I never reported you in any official capacity (I only sort 3rd parties once you'd already done the same). The reasoning behind wikipedia having policies that ensure a higher quality of sourcing is fairly obvious (especially due to wikipedia's reputation as being "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit"), and on controversial or fringe subjects the enforcement of those policies become even more important.

As for pathologizing the left, I do really believe that language and accuracy is important when trying to articulate, admire, understand or admonish "the other side" of whatever one's personal political standpoint happens to be (and most are thankfully somewhere in the middle)... in turn and as regards to the overall conservative project, I believe the term "Cultural Marxism" isn't as helpful as something less easy to politicize, such as "Authoritarian Progressivism". The problem is one of outdated language and the speed of discourse (which in the overall scheme is very slow). One to some degree has to use the values of both sides if they are to attack either, and I think that part of this is starting with the idea that there are no ideologues, there are only humans, and whether you choose to attempt to understand when your fellow humans are coming from, or to attack them, the result will inevitably be: Human. Flawed, powered by psychology, self-interested, confusing, messy, personal, valuable and idiosyncratic; Human. --Jobrot (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Researching your link

I noticed you've added the twitlonger link, as they were addressed in the AfD I'll go through them again just quickly:

Dworkin (in "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain") only ever uses the term British Cultural Marxism (which is generally considered to be closer to the Birmingham School, not the Frankfurt School), and he states for himself that his "is the first intellectual history to study BRITISH cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual tradition" - so is tenuous at best (Birmingham, not Frankfurt) and can't be used to claim an established movement.

Douglas Kellner's essay is self published (just as citable as a self-published blog, or any student uploading his personal views to a .edu web directory - which many schools offer). It can't be cited for this reason, but even if it could - both Dworkin and Kellner conclude the END of Cultural Marxism as an influence at 1980 (and yes I have quotes at hand to this effect from both these works), so neither of them serve the conspiracy version that Cultural Marxists are currently active or control academia/the media (or even that it's currently a position).

Fredric Jameson's "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", doesn't even use the term Cultural Marxism ANYWHERE within it's covers. It ONLY uses the term in the title - obviously no good as a reference, but does serve to point out that "Cultural Marxism" can mean any number of things, from Marxist aesthetics in Culture, to Marxists who still have to live under Capitalism due to the nature of the world, to Soviet Culture to any number of different interpretations.

"Cultural Marxism" by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome has a disclaimer on it stating: "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." likewise with "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society" which is another (possibly computer compiled) subject reader that boasts: "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA Articles". Both invalid.

...so if you want to talk about The Frankfurt School - there's already a page for that. But if you want to blow out the now rarefied 1970s WP:NN usage of Cultural Marxism to claim that all critical theorist are Cultural Marxists, or that Cultural Marxism is an on going movement (ie. didn't end in the 1980s), or that Cultural Marxism is to "blame" for Political Correctness, you'll have no luck with any of the references in the Twitlonger link. That's just the facts of the matter when you look into these sources. --Jobrot (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From Google Books: Weiner considers the work of theorists as diverse as Jurgen Habermas, Claus Offe, Alain Touraine, Anthony Giddens and Alvin Gouldner, many of whom fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement. - yeah, probably can't be referencing people who the reference claims aren't part of the movement. This term may have had some cred back in the 1970s, but it never became academically definitive in its usage or meaning, so falls below WP:NN and the right wing's WP:FRINGE meaning has taken over as the main usage. Conspiracies have to start somewhere. "Richard R. Weiner once thought it was a thing, but new it wasn't" wouldn't really cut it. Can't just throw a bunch of ideologically "diverse" theorists together and claim it's a unified ideology. That's just not on. --Jobrot (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]