Information icon.svg The 2017 Moderator election is closed! Results to come.

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 Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>


You call this rational wiki ... and then do not even discuss Gramsci, Lukacs or any of the Marxists who came after them and championed the need for changes to the superstructure.

Revisionist Marxism is not a conspiracy theory, and has nothing to do with anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda. Anyone who had one iota of understanding with either Marxism post-1925 or the Frankfurt School (especially Marcuse) would understand this.

Complete and utter garbage. Shameful. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

There's nothing stopping you updating the article yourself with content backed by reliable references. --Fearless (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
If you can't distinguish [claim that academic theory exists] from [claim that said academic theory underpins all of modern liberalism], then I've got a bridge to sell... Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 07:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

How about a real quote[edit]

"Cultural Marxism?" What the holy hell are you talking about? —Any sane person when exposed to the term for the first time

Substitute "quantum mechanics","the second law of thermodynamics", "Putin's dog", etc., in place of "Cultural Marxism" and one derives a statement no less profound than the one above. Perhaps someone has said something less sophomoric about the named topic?Ariel31459 (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Burden of proof Cat A. Lonia (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
See also falsifiability, the thing that distinctions the second law of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and the assertion that Putin owns a dog from cultural Marxism. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
OK. You seem to be avoiding the point. The quote is not funny and offers no insight. If one has never heard a term before, they will more than likely at least think "what the hell are you talking about." Ariel31459 (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree the quote should go, but it is different from your substitutions. Since Cultural Marxism is meant to underpin all of modern liberalism, you'd expect liberals (some of whom are sane people) to have heard of the term. Christopher (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I made the logical argument: plug in any relatively unknown topic and the response is: "what the hell is that?"
We are trying for insight when a goat is unavailable, no?Ariel31459 (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
What? Christopher (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Really? Isn't the goat the joke?Ariel31459 (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
That wasn't your original point; you're moving the goalposts. You didn't even mention the word funny, and you were very obviously equating cultural Marxism with statements that are verifiable and falsifiable. Some things deserve derision; the theory of cultural Marxism is one of them. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without argument, and the quote in question is an example of such dismissal. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 09:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Now you are continuing to miss the point, which has not changed: falsifiability is irrelevant. Those other things I listed are ideas most sane people don't know anything about. Smart people, like Noam Chomsky have talked about Cultural Marxism. So, no matter what you think of CM, the quote has no real meaning beyond the implication it's author is appealing to their own authority instead of quoting a real authority (person), which is kind of silly. Suit yourself. Being obtuse isn't against the rules here.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Falsifiability really isn't irrelevant. People put trust in things they don't understand from a technical standpoint because everyone has done some form of science or made use of science in some way. They also know the principles it is based on and that whenever they follow those principles they get the same result. And they know there are people constantly working to test and verify and falsify things like thermodynamics and quantum mechanics, etc.. Cultural Marxism is a theory spread with no such rigor. It is by nature a wild theory that requires a belief in a conspiracy, an international plot, that can never be disproven. Hence it deserves to be derided and dismissed. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC) With cultural Marxism, like with all wild conspiracy theories, contradictory evidence is attributed to the conspiracy itself. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes it is. Social theories are not in general falsifiable. What you wrote is nonsense.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


What is the converse of Cultural Marxism? Capitalist barbarianism/wandalism? Anna Livia (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Anarcho capitalism?Ariel31459 (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Cultural Marxism is not a logical statement and has no converse. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
A converse can refer to a situation or an object (description) with relevant terms transposed.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Frankfurt School[edit]

It seems to me like this article is imprecise in talking about the theories of the Frankfurt School. I'm no expert on critical theory but my understanding, based on Wikipedia's article on the Frankfurt School, is that "cultural Marxism" was very specific, not general; it was a critique of capitalist culture as being imposed from the top down by a "culture industry" that essentially tells people what they should like and enjoy, rather than coming from the bottom up. Ironically, the Frankfurt School was critiquing the very things that far-right conspiracy theorists accuse them of being responsible for.

Sources for this can probably be taken from the Wikipedia article, and I can do so when I have time if I'm not missing something. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

"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)