Talk:Cultural Marxism/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 8 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)(back)

In a nutshell

Good basic rundown, worth a watch! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Leftist philosopher Gary Edwards also offers a worthwhile debunking. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism is definitely a thing outside of its usage as a conspiracy dog whistle.

I don't understand the objection to the use of "Cultural Marxism" as anything other than an anti-Semitic term. Yes, I understand that it has been extensively linked to anti-Semites and anti-Semitic thought, but in itself it is a perfectly objective and useful term to describe Marxist influences in many of today's most visible cultural and intellectual movements. For example, even your own pages on topics such as Identity Politics admit that the basis of many progressive intellectual movements is some variation of Marxist critical theory or social constructionism. I don't think that very many progressives or identitarians would have an issue with acknowledging a Marxist influence in their beliefs. It is what it is. When the economic aspects of Marxism are sidelined and Marxist deconstruction and criticism are applied to culture, how is that not Cultural Marxism? And how does that not describe at the very least major aspects of prominent social and academic movements such as Feminism? ^{— Unsigned, by: ‎50.253.124.30 / talk / contribs}

"I mean sure, it doesn't actually have any meaningful academic meaning aside from a vague association fallacy that's hard to take seriously, and harder to demonstrate objectively. And sure it has roots in nazi anti-semitic propoganda, and sure the phrase continues to be overwhelmingly used as an ambiguous conspiracy theory predominantly by neonazis, but that's no reason to throw out the possibility that everyone I disagree with is brainwashed by evil commies".

You're crazy, BoN, and yes, even giving you every benefit of the doubt in that all you want to do is see who's originating ideas, it's, at the very most generous interpretation an association fallacy. At every more reasonable examination, there's no there there. And it's pretty damn dumb.

"Oh look, this academic invoked the abstract idea of a "platonic ideal", they must be a neo-Platonist." That's what you sound like. It's hot garbage as a way to categorize academic thought. It's even worse garbage since I don't think you're making this argument with any level of sincerity. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Certainly the Frankfurt School is what you describe? If you actually read the entire TOW article linked, what you discuss will be covered in every detail. Just don't confuse that with the nutty conspiracy theory we cover here at RW. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's the deal. On one hand, your own pages here acknowledge the influence of culturally applied Marxism on modern academic thought, and on the other you're barely restraining yourself from calling me some kind of epithet for suggesting that the term Cultural Marxism is useful, in an academic sense or otherwise. If an academic invoked the "platonic ideal" I hardly think it's unreasonable to identify and trace the origins of that concept with Platonism, or to acknowledge that the academic's thought is clearly influenced by Platonism. Nor do I think I'd be in danger of being called a supremacist for doing so. Would you be less hostile if I suggested something like "Cultural Materialism" as an alternative? This would be an association fallacy if I claimed something like "all economists are Marxists because both they and Marxists subscribe to economic theories." In contrast, many modern academic fields clearly and openly incorporate elements of Marxism, particularly Marxist criticism. This is not a secret. It's not a conspiracy.

Furthermore, Cultural Marxism when used in a pejorative sense could perhaps be the most useful to actual Marxists, socialists and other left-leaning people, when used for example to criticize movements like indetitarianism for precluding the class and economic aspects of Marxist theory in favor of a more narrow cultural perspective. ^{— Unsigned, by: ‎50.253.124.30 / talk / contribs}

First, sign your posts(~~~~). Second, yep. You're crazy. You genuinely subscribe to the notion that if two ideas invoke the same concept, they must be the same. Thus, since you invoked cultural marxism, I'm forced to conclude that you're a Nazi. Fuck off Nazi-by-your-own-logic. I bet now that's a totally unreasonable position to take. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You're being totally disingenuous. Fields like Feminist Theory in particular are largely, if not almost entirely, modeled on Marxism. They don't just share one or two of the same, independently generated concepts, they share entire ontologies and critical methods. The only difference between Marxist literary theory and Feminist literary theory is that in one you're paying attention to what a piece of literature is saying in the context of Capitalism and class struggle, and in the other what it says in its relationship to patriarchy and power relationships between the sexes. Luciferian (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Why the constant straw man? Don't you think we know that feminism has been influenced by Marxism? Please give up trying to motte-and-bailey us into implicitly accepting a crackpot conspiracy theory that makes Occam turn in his gave. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

And, of course, Percy, it's also influenced by free market economics and neoliberalism. That's the even worse part. Even if you give him that some ideas are derived from Marx, a majority aren't and I'd argue a plurality of modern ones are derived from neoliberal ideologies: the right to decide what lifestyle suits each person, the necessity of votes for women, the opposition to the regulation of women's bodies. It's such an incredible tunnel vision that's basically nothing but confirmation bias. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I swear that I'm not trying to employ dishonest rhetoric. I'm also definitely not trying to assert in any way that there is some kind of organised and homogeneous group of conspirators who unleashed Cultural Marxism in a deliberate effort to destroy Western Society, and I'm not even going to entertain that such a group would be Semitic in composition. I just don't understand why, outside of the context of the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, which is one particular usage of the term "Cultural Marxism", it's so controversial. I'm not trying to get anyone to accept a conspiracy theory - simply that the use of "Cultural Marxism" is not inherently conspiracist or anti-Semitic. The pro-market links that ikanreed provided demonstrate exactly why the term Cultural Marxism could be useful. Sticking to Feminism as an example, it is a school of thought which heavily employs the revolutionary nature, dialectics, materialism, critical methodologies and ontological structure of Marxism without explicitly prescribing Marxist economic solutions. Since it is focused mainly on cultural equality between the sexes as opposed to economic equality between the classes, it can actually be an application of Marxist critical theory which supports and entrenches Neoliberalism and Capitalism. Thus "Cultural" Marxism. Luciferian (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

After trying to understand what you wrote i concluded that you may not know what marxism entails (maybe that helps?).I cannot follow your Reasoning neither how and why you used the words you used. What kind of "dialetics" does Feminism use that makes them Marxist? Or how does Materialism fit into that? Also "Marxist critical theory which supports and entrenches Neoliberalism and Capitalism" is an oxymoron. --Benaresh (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Note also that the relationships between orthodox Marxism, critical theory and feminism can aptly be likened to the relationships between Catholicism, Protestantism and Mormonism. In this analogy, "cultural marxism" would be equivalent to something like:

• The claim that the Catholic Church/the pope/Catholicism masterminded Protestantism/Mormonism!

Or:

• The claim that Protestantism/Mormonism is just the latest trojan horse of the Catholic Church/the pope/Catholicism!

Or indeed:

• The claim that the introduction of Protestantism/Mormonism will start society on a slow and slippery path towards Catholicism!

Notice that in this analogy between theology and theory, two other important facets of the current cultural marxism mongering translate perfectly.

Firstly, the obviously spurious nature of claims made by people showing up to RW arguing that: "Well they're all totally related, I mean both Catholicism and Protestantism/Mormonism base themselves on the same founding texts and all subscribe to Yahweh, Jesus, Jerusalem, the Trinity, hell and Satan — and sure, they differ on some ecumenical stuff and some side texts/priestly rituals (and sure, in Mormonism they've exhanged the focus on the angel Gabriel and Palestine to the angel Moroni and America) but essentially they're all the same and it's totally disingenuous of you not to acknowledge this".

Secondly, just as protestantism was a break with the central power of Catholicism, an attempt to remove stuff that didn't work while also an attempt to craft brand new theology, it was also done in protest of what Catholicism had become. The leading Protestant theologians could never just go to the Vatican and set up shop there or they'd be tried as heretics. Mormonism, in turn, kind of grew a life of its own on a separate trajectory from protestantism, and it was also in part a reaction to all that came before it as well as a heretical mix-n-match of theology.

Now then... Guess if critical theory was a break with the central power of Marxism, an attempt to remove stuff that didn't work while also an attempt to craft brand new theory, and if it was also done in protest of what Marxism had become? Guess if the leading Critical theorists could never just go to the USSR and set up shop there or they'd be tried as heretics? Guess if Feminism, in turn, kind of grew a life of its own on a separate trajectory from critical theory, and was also in part a reaction to all that came before it as well as a heretical mix-n-match of theory?

In a trivial sense, all three are basically the same (and broadly want the same things). In a non-trivial sense, all three have tons of vital difference (and specifically want different things). And just as much as the three can be seen as deviously streamlined versions of each other, they could just as much be called gutted bastardizations of each other.

TL;DR: The shared histories and interrelationship between Marxism, critical theory and feminism are well known — and they do nothing to vindicate or lend support to oversimplified, politically motivated conspiracy theories involving something something dark side. Pointing out that "If you strip out the nuance and kinda treat them all like one big monolithic thing, it kinda looks like a conspiracy!" is really not as eye-opening as some posters seem to think. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This is in response to Benaresh, the Reverend posted while I was typing.

OK, I guess we have to start at the beginning. Marxism is a method of interpreting human history through dialectical analysis. That is to say, it's the idea that things, people, organizations, and the relationships between them, can be objectively understood by examining their inherent contradictions or conflicts. The materialism comes in where the Marxist dialectic differs from the Hegelian dialectic; the latter was believed only to be useful in an examination of past events whereas Marx believed that his analyses of past events was also prescriptive of the future. Thus, he came to the conclusion that social conflict was a result of the struggle for power between the classes, and predicted that as the classes became aware of their predicaments through dialectical analyses, they would naturally cast off Capitalism and remake society in the form of Socialism, and finally, Communism.

I'm starting to wonder why I'm even arguing this, because it's pretty self-evident, open and non-controversial, but many, many academics have adopted various forms of Marxist critical analyses and dialectic reasoning and applied it to all sorts of things. When applied to something that is not based on the struggles between classes, the conclusions drawn may not support Communism at all. So basically what I'm talking about IS directly related to the Frankfurt School that the Reverend mentioned, however it's by no means limited to them whatsoever. These days, nearly everything taught in universities that isn't hard science has elements of Marxism in it, and by that I DON'T mean that all of academia supports Communism. Just that the system of critical inquiry which created and forms the basis of Marxism as an economic and political system of thought is now widely taught and used in all sorts of academic fields that don't have anything to do with economics or political science. Since "Marxism", as you so deftly pointed out, is typically associated with a system of politics and economics, the label of "Cultural Marxism" is useful when talking about one of the many areas of academia where Marxist thought is applied to something OTHER than economics.

In response to the Reverend, all of what you said is true and I'm not arguing that there's some kind of damned conspiracy, so what's the deal? Luciferian (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"The materialism comes in where the Marxist dialectic differs from the Hegelian dialectic; the latter was believed only to be useful in an examination of past events whereas Marx believed that his analyses of past events was also prescriptive of the future."

Dude, no offense, but you're way off... I have nothing but sympathies for those who can't stomach reading Hegel. But ranting on a topic one hasn't even opened a summary text on is another matter. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't phrase that in the right way, but I specifically remember Hegel stating that his dialectic method was not meant to be predictive, whereas Marx believed that his less abstract dialectic led to the logical conclusion of the procession of history from Feudalism to Communism.Luciferian (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The "Cultural conservatism in Nazi Germany" section

This essay section doesn't really belong here. This article is mostly about a certain conspiracy theory and the minor real-world thing it was based on.

Is there a better place for this, or a good title for it as its own article? - David Gerard (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Even in the case that it doesn't ultimately fit here, the content itself does indeed seem apt. As such, our articles on Nazism and Fascism (respectively) would certainly be prime candidates for absorbing the content, methinks? Other related articles (e.g. ZOG) might also come into play here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to move it where it fits best. At present the section mainly rests on a book and could be complemented by other sources. The last two paragraphs kind of stray from the topic but they click together and it would be interesting to develop the fascist narrative on the subject of capitalism.

Btw, since this is a rational wiki perhaps the similitudes rather then origins with Cultural Bolshevism should be described since there is no source or proof establishing a connection between A and B beyond doubt.

This shouldn't undermine the article as themes like degeneracy are similar if not identical in terms of discourse. Whether there is a connection or not doesn't change the fact that contempt of this kind is not ok by any standard in having inspired the murders of children in Norway. --Fearless (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Is this the RationalWiki?

I expected an objective, unbiased article about Cultural Marxism, with a description and criticism of the theory, but instead I get an incredibly biased article, written in a non-scientific irrational way. Why is this called RationalWiki if irrational articles full of bashing and emotions is allowed here? This looks like the left-wing version of StormFront. UshilRasnal (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Too bad you failed to provide any rational criticism or suggestions. Try being skeptical next time. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 16:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

If you expected unbiased articles you're on the wrong wiki; oh, and have a drink. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Explain what stands out as the most subjective or biased and suggest what should be put in its place.

Admittedly, it does seem like a few contributors had fun casting the theory in ridicule but that can be cleaned up.

As for Stormfront, they're probably promoting the conspiracy theory and it's not clear why this article would appear as a "left-wing" hate site. --Fearless (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Connection between Cultural Marxism and Cultural/Jewish Bolshevism

Is this established beyond rational doubt? --Fearless (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato What's your take on this?

It's the same thing with the same tropes. What are the differences that you're seeing? - David Gerard (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it the same thing or is it a similar thing? In combining Cultural and Jewish Bolshevism, there are parallels in terms of anti-modernism, a Bolshevist plot and the objective of "conserving" culture. No equivalent of political correctness though. --Fearless (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

If it's 90% duck, then it's probably a duck. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be the third definition of usage of cultural Marxism

Aside from its use as defined as a snarl word and as defined for the ideology of the Frankfurt School, isn't there a third common definition that it is not a snarl word but more of a rational usage in the application of Marxism's bourgeois-proletarian dichotomy of hegemonic capitalist oppressor versus oppressed working class people to various cultural instances.

This can be used both within and outside its use as a snarl word. For instance the application of the bourgeois-proletarian dichotomy to feminist interpretations of the functioning of capitalist societies in their relation to women's role in them. Or the view of the rise of Islamic fundamentalist violence in the word to be the consequence of long-term capitalist imperialism in the Middle East and exploitation of the proletariat of Muslim countries by the bourgeosie in developed countries and by their client leaders in those countries.

I am not saying that I endorse these views, but these appear to be a third definition distinct from the other two, although the snarl word may have some connections with this definition as a retaliation to such views. ^{— Unsigned, by: 69.159.45.224 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Christopher (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a fair point. There's a difference between using sloppy terminology and being an actual fascist. I've heard the term "Cultural Marxism" to refer to actual far-leftists who focus on cultural issues using a lens similar to and perhaps influenced by a Marxist one but I'd still argue the phrase "Cultural Marxism" is technically an oxymoron. Again though there's a difference between using a phrase to get across the "jist" of your opponents positions and being a neo-Nazi conspiracy nut and saying everyone who uses the phrase is a de facto racist instead of just giving the benefit of the doubt that they're just using the wrong description seems somewhat shady and dishonest to me (even if plenty of shady racists also use the phrase). Often when actual authoritarians are accused of being "cultural Marxists" they're actually part of specific school of postmodernist thought that formed when the French radical left became disillusioned with Marxism and drifted towards philosophical cores closer to idealism, which we could make clear in the article. ClothCoat (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we'd need actual examples, because I haven't a clue what this supposed "third way" is - unless you mean articles that try to use the snarl word and then add "but we don't mean like Breivik, no no no" - David Gerard (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ugh kind of, I mean explaining why even if used as a "snarl word" against the actual far-left it doesn't really work without resorting to calling everyone Nazis. Basically how it's used by more "mainstream" conservatives or centrists or whomever such as here or here or here. For all their problems are American Conservatives or EVERYONE who uses this phrase actually anti-Semitic fascists trying to smuggle dog whistles past everyone? I'm going to guess not, on this issue plenty of people are just using an incorrect phrase. Why can't we add a section saying "If applied to the cultural far-left this phrase is still incorrect because Marxism is focused on materialism and blah blah blah" which strikes me as better than just saying "anyone who uses the phrase deserves zero benefit of the doubt and should be considered a Neo-Nazi or at best right-wing conspiracy nut", especially when it strikes me as kind of obvious that in plenty uses of the phrase their invoking the idea the BoN is talking about (applying the Oppressor/Oppressed dichotomy of Marxism to other issues). ClothCoat (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

All three of your examples are pretty clearly the right-wing dog whistle. The third's headline is literally "The Totalitarian Doctrine of ‘Social Justice Warriors’". I am, amazingly, utterly unconvinced - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah you seem to be missing my/BoN's point in that it's not even a dog whistle, it's just right-leaning people straight up saying "this is a basically form of Marxism applied to cultural issues because it uses the oppressor/oppressed dynamic and applies it to cultural issues". I'm saying that's mostly wrong but it's just bizarre to accuse everyone who uses it of being a Nazi or conspiracy theorist. A lot of communists overuse or misuse the word "reactionary" and "fascists" but that doesn't make the word inhriently meaningless. If we want to rebut claims of Cultural Marxism we should do so seriously. ClothCoat (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Your proffered examples are at best lite versions of the dog whistle. If you're trying to construct a meaning that is something different, do you have better examples? - David Gerard (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Those examples are dog whistles of what? They seem to be pretty much be saying what I and the BoN are talking about and it comes up in Gary North's essay as well, and it seems to come up commonly enough online, such as here around point 5:20. I'm still saying they're wrong but it seems weird to me to accuse, say, Cathy Young of being a deep cover anti-Semite. ClothCoat (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It is possible to repeat a dogwhistle without understanding all its implications in all their glory (c.f. "international bankers", lotsa people say that without explicitly meaning "Jews" even as they're doing so implicitly). None of these would exist without the right-wing conspiracist usage the article talks about. You're desperate to recover a use for this term, but you've yet to show one that isn't clearly descended directly from the right-wing conspiracist usage. At absolute best you're speaking of a milder variation of it - David Gerard (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how anyone could have an honest political or religious disagreement since you can find "dog whistles" in most politically charged words. I'll admit "Cultural Marxism" is definitely one of the much more crank prone ones, but even our own page on Identity politics says "Leftists of a Marxist bent observed during the 1960s that, while traditional Marxism posited the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the currently most vital left wing movements revolved around matters of race (the civil rights movement) and, somewhat later, sex or gender (see feminism). The New Left was a leftist revival that sought to swap in these and other subcultural concerns as substitutes for Marxist class struggle." We can still debunk claims of Cultural Marxism pretty easily because as soon as it becomes culturally centered it is no longer Marxist but you seem hell-bent on presenting me as a true believer in it no matter how many times I say I'm not. Something being a "milder variation" of something can definitely change it enough, i.e. Welfare capitalism is a "mild variation" of capitalism compared to laissez-faires but in practice the two are clearly different from one another. ClothCoat (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@ClothCoat: Are there nonracist people who honestly think that "welfare queens" exist? Probably. But the term itself has a racist history and its concept is promoted by racists. The fact that people are (willfully or accidentally) ignorant of a term's history & connotations does not change the word itself. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 13:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

But you can pretty easily debunk both the dog whistle variety and the non-dog whistle version. I'm not sure how doing one precludes the other? In fact it seems that's exactly what we did in that very article. ClothCoat (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You could find dog whistles in anything. However, in this case it's finding the use of a term with a specific origin that is of known clear direct descent, which you seem to be in denial of - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of its use as a dog whistle or its use in more rational uses - including rational criticisms of Marxism by those on the right - there is a Marxist bourgeois/proletarian division on culture and there appears to be a more generic oppressor/oppressed division that follows a Marxist-inspired approach to it, both appear to be the basis of the critical and snarl usage of the term. It would be good to describe at the intro of the article what the basis of the outlook its - and that is the divisions described here. Regardless of whether such criticisms or snarl usages have validity, a plain description of the involvement of the bourgeois/proletarian and oppressor/oppressed component as applied to culture would be good to describe at the beginning to give basic context and then followed by criticisms of it.--69.159.45.224 (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

ESSENTIALS which our current article lack

Basically, we hardly touch upon major portions of this. For example, we just barely mention William S. Lind. In other words, we're still missing some pretty central aspects of the actual conspiracy theory.

Anyone with a minute over — please humor me for a second by parking your hiney comfortably and sitting through the above 8 minutes. It's time well spent; you'll be glad that you did.

Thankfully, leftist philosopher Gary Edwards (see video) made sure to put some very helpful sources in the description of his video (mostly relevant TOW links, so no oddball "original research"). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

And speaking of William S. Lind, another thing our current article misses out on is a truly central thesis to the cultural marxism truther movement; so-called "4GW" or Fourth-generation warfare.

This is where the Alt-right is currently at, not at the bolshevism stuff of the olden days (as relevant as that is for a historical perspective). I mean, heck — Vox Day openly wrote about 4GW just the other day.

So, again... Please watch the above video and check out its list of references afterwards (video description) — in doing so, helping yourself get up to speed on what our article sorely lacks at the moment. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

So you're volunteering to write it up? Top stuff! - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You bastard Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The Liberty Conservative has a thought on this article

Is Cultural Marxism A Conspiracy Theory?

Where did these theories come from? Where else but the Frankfurt School, who are, of course the ones that rightists always claim are the root of Cultural Marxism, and whom Rational Wiki describes as being rarely named in debates on Cultural Marxism.

And, while it is again true that the term “Cultural Marxism” was never used by them, that doesn’t change the fact that the Frankfurt school were, in fact, Marxists who wanted to apply Communist ideology to cultural and sociological rather than economic contexts.

Judging by the sheer amount of intellectual progeny the Frankfurt school has had, I don’t think it’s unfair to say that they were at least somewhat influential in creating leftist political thought as we know it today.

So if Cultural Marxism can be said to not exist, it is only non-existent in the sense that it hasn’t been formally named. In that respect, since the intellectual progenitors of much of modern “goodthink” were openly Marxist, why not just use the traditional name?

IIRC this seems to be the "moderate" approach taken by right-wingers: blame everything on "Marxism in academia" without using the words "Cultural Marxism". FuzzyCatPotato of the Universal Chisels (talk/stalk) 18:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Note also his totally plausible atheist leftist conversion testimony - David Gerard (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Gramsci, Dutschke and Cultural Hegemony

I'm curious as to why there is no mention at all of Gramsci and his views of culture. His principal idea, that capitalism is maintained by the institutions and culture of capitalist societies, had wide ranging impacts and can accurately be described as Cultural Marxism. Most pertinently, this idea that culture maintains the economic system, was pushed by Dutschke in his exhortation for "the long march through the institutions", where young Marxists were encouraged to join the institutions (judicary, media, finance, academia) and subvert it from within.

The point is, there IS a strand of Neo-Marxism, which went on to inform Eurocomunnism and then Third Way Social Democracy, that maintains the only way to change society for anti-capitalist means is to seize and then change the culture. Which is what many of those against "Cultural Marxism" are against.^{— Unsigned, by: 92.17.50.142 / talk / contribs}

You are invited to make an edit with content backed by reliable references that you sense is missing. --Fearless (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow.

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: 108.63.59.65 / 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... Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 07:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

How about a real quote

"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)

Question

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

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."

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)

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

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

pure anti-semitic propaganda

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

The page calls "Cultural Marxism" an anti-Semitic term itself, so I'm wondering how you reached that conclusion. Nabil (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Not just biased, but propagandist

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)