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.

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>

pure anti-semitic propaganda[edit]

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

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, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 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? (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. -- (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Stop it. Tabula Rasa (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The quote with the Trump-like attribution[edit]

Will someone supply a quote disparaging Cultural Marxism, by someone generally understood to be intelligent. "Cultural Marxism?" What the holy hell are you talking about?" --? This one is idiotic. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)