RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3220Goal: $6000

Talk:Cultural Marxism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon conspiracy.svg

This Conspiracy theories related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png
Editorial notes

needs more on the non-conspiracist usage, when the term was alive, and its decline

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>

"If anyone rants about "Cultural Marxists taking over culture!", feel free to remind them that they're literally spouting Nazi propaganda updated for the modern era."[edit]

Really? Now only Nazis rant (talk) about Cultural Marxism, however one defines it? This bronze brain should be pasted with bullshit and feathers.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

First of all, that is an obvious strawman -- your statement has nothing to do with the quoted statement.
Secondly, it's a fact that it's literally barely-updated Nazi propaganda, attaching itself to a new purported origin (but still ultimately tracing itself to a Jewish conspiracy). The article explains that it's Nazi propaganda, where it originated, and how these things are the same. Just because you wish it wasn't Nazi propaganda doesn't mean it isn't. Whether or not people who talk about it are Nazis, they are spreading Nazi propaganda. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 15:49, 23 November 20:17 (UTC)
Like the article sources the statement that it's Nazi propaganda, and so does Wikipedia. If non-Nazis talk about Cultural Marxism, then they are unwittingly spreading Nazi propaganda, which is entirely something within the realm of possibility and is, in fact, verifiable reality, even if you don't like it. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Cat A. Lonia is correct. Saying someone is spouting Nazi propaganda is not the same as saying they are a Nazi. Similarly, one can spout Russian propaganda without being Russian. In both cases, they are often simply useful idiots. CowHouse (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
So one is either a Nazi or an idiot when discussing CM? Tell me, which one is Noam Chomsky? This article does not claim Nazism is behind CM. Being wrong is not against the rules here.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
The quote you took issue with referred to people who rant about Cultural Marxists taking over culture. And yes, you are either a Nazi or useful idiot if you rant about CM taking over culture. CowHouse (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
But, can't these ranters just be wrong? Or, overreacting instead of offering justifiable criticisms? Do they have to be Nazis or idiots?Ariel31459 (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 If someone rants about CM taking over culture they are using the same rhetoric as an alt-righter. Doing so can only help their movement. This fits the definition of "useful idiot" ("One who is seen to unwittingly support a malignant cause through their 'naive' attempts to be a force for good").
To get back on topic, rather than arguing over semantics, you originally took issue with this: "If anyone rants about "Cultural Marxists taking over culture!", feel free to remind them that they're literally spouting Nazi propaganda updated for the modern era." My comment about them being useful idiots is simply my personal opinion and is not reflected in this quote. CowHouse (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@CowHouseOK. I really don't want to argue about semantics either. I suppose the indefinite emphasis "rant" puts on a topic makes a difference. When does an expressed opinion become a rant? Also, I do think, as rhetoric, "Marxism" is too loaded to use in a critical term. So I guess I agree that "Cultural Marxism" is objectionable. I have heard the French postmodernists tried to apply Marx's economic theories to non-economic issues using techniques of their philosophy. Noam Chomsky has referred to this point.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
As I see it, the article itself is very inaccurate in describing the neological meaning of "Cultural Marxism." That is, the practice of substituting alternate terms for proletariat and Bourgeoisie, and continuing with some kind of deterministic analogy. The conspiracy part is admittedly crank politics.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
The key problem appears to be that you are still not good at reading things - David Gerard (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Could you be specific about what I do not understand? I know there is a lot, but this issue is fairly narrow.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

pure anti-semitic propaganda[edit]

even if this is humoristic, what's this obssesion with Judaism?? you went way too far — Unsigned, by: 213.57.205.41 / talk

McVeigh-Nicholson and Brevik reference of "Cultural Marxism" in their manifestos?[edit]

Maybe add a "impact on society" section? --164.52.0.226 (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Not just biased, but propagandist[edit]

I am not questioning the facts of this, nor am I an advocate of the existence of Cultural Marxism, but the language used here is not only biased, but inflammatory, to the point of triggering defensive mechanisms in readers who might be on the fence, which is who you're trying to persuade.

Cases in point:

  • "In current wingnut usage..." - characterizing anyone who uses the term as a wingnut
  • "nuttier Gamergaters..."
  • Using the phrase "bitch slut whores" as the link to the Misogyny article, as if it were a direct quote.
  • "collective jockstraps in a knot"

It's a perfectly fine read (and pretty funny) for a blog or the right news outlet, but for RATIONALWiki, shouldn't we let the facts speak for themselves without the need for invective? The truth itself is damning and persuasive enough, isn't it? — Unsigned, by: ScottAllenTVH / talk / contribs

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Erm, GC.. "Do NOT use this template if somebody comes onto a talk page with (1) a specific complaint about the article or (2) evidence (good or bad) for [Pet Theory]. Being rational requires constructively engaging other people, even those with (an) idea(s) you consider to be irrational, in order to determine whether or not their idea(s) are actually irrational. Placing this snarky template does not engage anyone in dialogue and makes RationalWiki seem aggressive to alternative ideas." Boredatwork (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Boredatwork That was mainly directed at the latter most part wherein our friend here made a fallacious argument, i.e. "It's a perfectly fine read (and pretty funny) for a blog or the right news outlet, but for RATIONALWiki, shouldn't we let the facts speak for themselves without the need for invective?". Am I one of the few users that read the "about us" style sections? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
You can't just merely point out fallacies. You need to explain why you'd disagree with those points. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Your point has pierced my chest and made me swoon... Ahem... Well then. Good point. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
"It's a perfectly fine read (and pretty funny) for a blog" This is a cultural-Marxist blog called "Rationalwiki" to make it sound less insane. Ironic huh? 86.187.162.102 (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, everyone using the term "cultural Marxism" like this is a wingnut at best - David Gerard (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

As a "commie on commie" accusation[edit]

Hi, I'm an IP editor and I recently removed the following text from your page:

'Schroyer coined the term as an accusation that some theorists were failed Marxists: merely "cultural Marxists" who had been subsumed by middle class capitalism. Or: "cultural Marxist" was originally an insult made by commies against commies who weren't commie enough. This is simply not the same as the definition used by modern conservative fearmongers.'

I both own a copy of Trent Schroyer's "The Critique of Domination" (I can take a photo of it upon request) - and I've also emailed Trent Schroyer himself to get a definition of the term. His definition went as follows:

"simply put cultural marxism is a critique of historical materialism as a paradigm of historical analysis that sees the role of social cultural norms as more fundamental to social transformations than mechanical marxism that reduces all to political economic determinants - it affords a different type of critical analysis the critiques norms that justify socially unnecessary coercions"

I think what he's saying is that orthodox/mechanical Marxism didn't critique social or cultural norms, where as Cultural Marxism does, and Cultural Marxism also sees those norms as a means for society to "justify socially unnecessary coercions" (which I suppose refers to racism, sexism, employment, ideology) - which is a fairly straight forwards definition, coherent with the works of The Frankfurt School and Birmingham School. It sounds much like Cultural Materialism.

At any rate there's nothing in there about the term being used by orthodox Marxists to chide "Cultural Marxists" - I simply don't think the term was wide spread among orthodox Marxists. It's a fairly modern term, so the timelines don't line up either. --203.192.81.6 (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)