Talk:Cultural Marxism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] why is this article listed with the Conspiracy theories?

why is this article listed with the Conspiracy theories? im removing it from the list since it shoudnt be on it the list any more than bible study should be.

From a german point of view it ist no wonder, it should be listet as a Conspiracy Theory. Beside the fact that the term "cultural marxism", in german "Kulturmarxismus" originally as "Kulturbolschewismus" was and is still used nearly only by nationalsocialists, it seems to be to easy to list all non-conservative thinkers from adorno to barthes as a great party of underminers of the humanistic ideals of capitalism

--Cberlet 00:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Please do not accuse of weasel words without explanation. Ros Power 16:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ros. Please see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Every paragraph in this article has one or more weasel words, leaving the article in whole feeling very wishy washy. I think it needs to be rewritten.
Additionally, these sources don't even mention "cultural marxism":
While these do (but they are both by the same author, meaning this article has one primary source):
In effect, this whole article seems to originate from the thoughts of, William S. Lind, which is to say it has a single highly POV author. Could you find some alternative theorists? If not, then the article needs to be rewritten to say, "Cultural Marxism is a theory developed by William S. Lind..."
Here's a tip, instead of just saying "allegedy" -- say exactly who is doing the alleging and quote directly from an original source. Also:
  • some people what people? be specific.
  • to describe what they perceive as an attempt to undermine western civilisation this needs to be more specific. who do they think is attempting to undermine western civilisation? Also, explain their reasoning, pulling directly from sources. And how exactly are these cultural marxists undermining western civ? And are they doing it on purpose? This article makes it sounds like they are, which puts this article in the conspiracy theory category.
  • is alleged to have originated who alleges that it originated here? do they have any proof? is the source reliable?
  • it is also thought thought by whom?
  • central tenets how do we know what the central tenets of these shadow figures are? we need a source that's actually close to the subjects before we can claim this.
I'm wondering if you'd take a stab at a rewrite, pulling directly from sources, avoiding weasle words, and trying to present a NPOV. Thanks much. I'll be watching and seeing where I can help. -Quasipalm 14:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The idea the Bill Lind originated the ideas of “Cultural Marxism” or “political correctness” is completely false. The term “Cultural Marxism” has been in use since the 1920's. And similar views on “Cultural Marxism” or “political correctness” are held by a large number of other conservative writers such as Patrick J Buchanan, Paul Gottfried, Samuel Francis, and Joe Sobran.-Doktor Faustus

Thanks, this is exactly the kind of information we need in this article. -Quasipalm 16:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Except that the term "Cultural Marxism" as used in the 1920s is used primarily at the time by Marxists to describe a form of cultural criticism. The term is converted in the past few years by far-right critics of liberalism to suggest that liberals are dupes of closet Marxists. The same right-wing conversion of terminology to shift meaning applies to "political correctness." --Cberlet 16:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The terms "Cultural Marxism"/"Cultural Bolshevism" were also used by conservative writers as early as the 1920's.
"In 1932 Pope Pius XII advised the Centre Party to work with Hitler's National Socialists in a coalition to stop what was called the "cultural Bolshevizing" of Germany. In 1933 Paul Renner published an anti-Nazi pamphlet titled “Kulturbolschewismus?” (Cultural Bolshevism), attacking the German government's campaign against modern art and architecture[8]. At the time, both were seen by conservatives as criticisms of forms of socialism."

NB - In 1932 the Pope was Pius XI and not Pius XII

The Frankfurt School is Marxist... from the article: "The Frankfurt School is a school of neo-Marxist social theory, social research, and philosophy." -Doktor Faustus 24 August 2006

[edit] Further reading

  • Cultural Marxism in Post War Britain: History, the New Left and the Origins of Cultural Studies (1997) - Dennis Dworkin ISBN:0822319144
This book explains the rise of Cultural studies in the UK.

These sources may provide material for a more balanced view of cultural marxism. --Jahsonic 22:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV, needs major work

As it stands now, the article presents the views of anti-Marxists as fact and quotes extensively from Buchanan to the point of endorsing his ideas. -- Nikodemos 23:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but this is more so because the article lacks a historical view right now, without a good neutral description of who these Cultural Marxists were, what they wanted and what they accomplished. Intangible 23:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I added some balance--Cberlet 02:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You don't add balance by inserting quips with do not concern itself to the subject at hand. Maybe you should instead have inserted some discussion of Marcuse's text "Repressive Tolerance." Intangible 16:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The original page represented a fantasy conspiracy theory by a tiny group of far-right ideologues with a history of flirting with fascism and antisemitism. What I inserted was appropriate.--Cberlet 18:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Marcuse was after some form of nihilist utopia. If you look at the way through which he wants to establish that, the link is easily made with political correctness, his own words are enough to show that. Somehow you have missed this? Intangible 19:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is BY FAR the most unbalanced entry I have yet come across! I'm not a cultural Marxist myself, but this is just absurd. You can't make statements about "Marxism" failing in the economic arena, etc. as facts. There are a great many people who don't believe the Soviet Union was "Marxist" but rather Stalinists. In fact, these people internationally are in the millions! The whole article is absurd. There is more discussion of Buchanon's mindless ranting than there is of cultural Marxism. Could someone actually familiar with the Frankfurt School and perhaps Marcuse's actual theories please rewrite this atrocious entry. I've read One-Dimensional Man and (by the way, I don't agree with Marcuse's pessimistic conclusions) I can say WITHOUT ANY DOUBT that he DEFINITELY DID NOT call for a "nihilist utopia." Intangible should perhaps actually read the works in question rather than what rightwingers SAY about them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.90.219 (talk • contribs)

Let me say two things. The current form of the article is not the one I support. I was trying to built from a different version ([9]), start at the beginning. User:Cberlet never would let this article have a chance. About your notion of Marcuse's nihilist utopia, if you have a reputable source that gives a different reading, it can be added to the article. You cannot hold it against me that I tried to build on a highly reputable source here (Eidelberg). Eidelberg quite explicitely states that Marcuse is looking for an utopia based on a doctrine of nihilism ("activistic hedonism"). Intangible 19:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of 90% of page

This is really not appropriate. Let's discuss the issues here and not resort to such major deletions.--Cberlet 21:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, really, it's not an aceptable action here at Wikipedia to delete 90% of a page under discussion. We are supposed to keep discussing specific edits, not engage in revert wars or delete 90% of a page. You are in heated disputes on numerous pages, Intangible, please ask yourself, why? Maybe you have not yet learned the culture of Wikipedia. That's normal, but try to be less aggressive in promoting your narrow political views. On many pages you have been criticized for your actions. Think about why that would be happening. Visit some of the Wikipedia help pages for new users. Learn the system. Please.--Cberlet 22:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is disputing my changes? Really, when I first looked at this article it was in full disarray and had been for some time. No better then to claim first principles then. Intangible 23:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I am disputing your massive POV deletions. Please discuss here before again deleting 90% of the article.--Cberlet 15:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the OR, again. Intangible 16:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not OR. Most of it is directly cited. You just disagree with it, and are rewriting the entry to reflect only your POV. This is totally not proper.--Cberlet 16:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cites

There are no direct cites in the current article. What happened to all the material from the political right especially Lind and Buchanan? What happened to all the material from the political left, especially Kellner, one of the world's leading authorities on the Frankfurt School? What happened to all the material from the Southern Poverty Law Center?

What does the following uncited original research paragraph have to do with Cultural Marxism?

  • Instead of using direct political action, Herbert Marcuse would argue in his 1965 essay Repressive Tolerance, that was is needed is a form of tolerance against intolerance, to break the "Repressive Establishment." Marcuse, in his 1954 book Eros and Civilization, already had argued for a form of utopianism based on an individual's strife towards pleasure, because that would break the struggle between "eros" and "thanatos." This strife towards pleasure is a form of absolute egalitarianism though, because the "needs" and "wants" and "demands" of each individual are absolute in terms of critical theory. The moral and cultural relativist language by the "Establishment" does not allow for any notion of "good" and "bad," and thus in the present epoch, cannot decide upon what individual "needs" and "wants" are "good" or "bad." Marcuse on the other hand is a nihilist, he sees no "nature of man," instincts are beyond "good" and "evil."

The new version of the article is 100% uncited original research.--Cberlet 21:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the entire article with cites to Doug Kellner about the history and influence of Cultural Marxism. I have asked for page protection against any further attempts to delete 90% of the page. Let's take a section at a time and discuss changes.--Cberlet 23:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I've protected until such a time as someone actually explains the underlying dispute here. Phil Sandifer 14:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, when I first came to this article it was in a mess, so I did a quick fix of the introduction and removed some irrelevant material [10]. User:Nikodemos was quick to note that article remained heavily biased by a "conservative" reading, to which I concurred [11]. So my idea was to go back to "first principles" and work from there. Resulting in this version of the article: [12]. I've included many references from where one could find further inspiration from. Probably the article would have ended by describing some of the links between cultural marxism and postmodernity. I am not sure what User:Cberlet wants, but cultural marxism is foremost a critique against the bourgeois modern liberal state, and not against "conservatism," although the end conclusions reached by cultural marxists might anger some of them. Intangible 16:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Most of the text deleted by Intangible--whether from the center, left, or right--was actually cited to specific authors with many quotes. None of the text added by Intangible was actually cited to a specific author. It was entirely OR. All of the text was written from a right-wing POV in which Cultural Marxism is seen as a subversive plot. It was POV. I disagree with much of the text I restored, especially the material from Lind and Buchanan, but it is not proper for Intangible to simply delete 90% of the page and then set out to remake the page reflecting only a narrow right-wing point of view. The material I added in the lead is based on the work of Kellner, one of the leading authorities on the subject of Cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt School. It is properly cited.
I would be happy to enter into mediation with Intangible, but Intangible has refused mediation on another page, and is embroiled in multiple edit wars on multiple pages over inserting far-right POV into pages, and deleting material that Intangible finds objectionable.
I am willing to attempt to edit collaboratively and constructively, but sought page protection because Intangible has demonstrated a penchant for aggressive revert wars masked by dubious subject summaries and the claim that simply making a statement on the talk page somehow is evidence of a consensus when no such consensus exists.
I would like to start by looking at the material by Lind and Buchanan. Why does Intangible feel it is OK to simply delete it when it is properly cited?--Cberlet 16:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
"None of the text added by Intangible was actually cited to a specific author. It was entirely OR. All of the text was written from a right-wing POV in which Cultural Marxism is seen as a subversive plot. It was POV." Have you even looked at [13]? Intangible 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
A series of single and double words in quotes with no sense of what the original author was actually saying. In addition, the text originally appeared with no cite whatsover. See, for example: [14]. The cite was not added until here: [15]. Are we to assume this cite is accurate? Are we to conclude that the original text was plagiarised? I think an explanation is in order. Please include some actual quoted sentences from the cited text.--Cberlet 17:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

<--------

  • "We may even say he [Marcuse] identifies needs with demands."
  • "Until that time [that Utopian society], therefore, the very meaning of one's thoughts, one's values, one's beliefs, one's loyalties, one's very sense of identity must remain in doubt."
  • "What is striking about Marcuse's critique of American society is that it is fundamentally a critique of moral relativism, the relativism propagated by the three establishments, especially by the Academic Establishment."
  • "From Eros and Civilization we learn that the essence of being is the striving for pleasure."
  • "Marcuse's critique of American society [the positivistic liberal bourgeois] thus springs from a relativism based on absolute egalitarianism."
  • "We have here a doctrine of nihilism, but which I prefer to call activistic hedonism."
It's striking that User:Cberlet should ask me for direct quotes, which I have been asking him for epochs now in other articles. Intangible 17:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
compare the above actual quotes to the paragraph in the entry attributed to it:
  • Instead of using direct political action, Herbert Marcuse argued in his 1965 essay Repressive Tolerance, that was is needed is a form of tolerance against intolerance, to break the "Repressive Establishment." Marcuse, in his 1954 book Eros and Civilization, already had argued for a form of utopianism based on an individual's strife towards pleasure, because that would break the struggle between "eros" and "thanatos." This strife towards pleasure is a form of absolute egalitarianism though, because the "needs" and "wants" and "demands" of each individual are absolute in terms of critical theory. The moral and cultural relativist language by the "Establishment" does not allow for any notion of "good" and "bad," and thus in the present epoch, cannot decide upon what individual "needs" and "wants" are "good" or "bad." Marcuse on the other hand is a nihilist, he sees no "nature of man," instincts are beyond "good" and "evil."
I do not think this paragraph accurately represents the underlying text. It also uses the word "strife" instead of "strive." "Strife" made no sense at all. Either we accurately quote Eidelberg or we directly quote Marcuse. Otherwise this is simply original research.--Cberlet 19:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not see how your nitpicking over the somewhat antiquated meaning of strife I used, makes an argument for WP:OR. Intangible 19:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not think the paragraph you wrote accurately represents the underlying cited text. The use of the wrong word--"strife"--is a different issue. Why not just quote Marcuse or Eidelberg? I do not think the paragraph is accuarte as written. It makes leaps of conclusion and interpretation that are OR and POV--Cberlet 19:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Because one wants to be terse. I do not see any POV or OR, maybe you should be more specific then. Intangible 20:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not think the paragraph makes any sense. I do not think the paragraph accurately reflects the views of either Marcuse or Eidelberg. I see no connection to the paragraph and the entry, which is about "Culteral Marxism." Why is Marcuse being singled out? This is not a page on Marcuse. I propose we delete the paragraph.--Cberlet 20:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
As you can see here [16], this paragraph is in the "Origins" section. It is pointless to talk about cultural Marxism without some of its background. I do not single out Marcuse, but I did find it logically to start with him, because he had a reasonable influence on the American New Left. Intangible 20:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

<----The "Origins" section written by Intangible was not accurate:

  • "When history caught up with the historicism of the Frankfurt School during the Cold War,"
Actually, Cultural Marxism as a trend existed before the Frankfurt School, and well before the start of the Cold War. And the first line is a POV assertion about "history caught up with the historicism."
  • "a new interpretation for the "Marxist Revolution" based on critical theory"
Critical theory emerged from Cultural Marxism--not the other way around.
  • "Revolutionary change, a transition to socialism from the "capitalist system," was found not to be immediately possible"
According to whom? Not all Marxists agreed with this contention.
  • "succinctly shown before and during the Second World War by the "Fascist" response to radical social change."
Which was before the start of the Cold War, so the whole paragraph is garbled.

There is already a page on Herbert Marcuse. The material on Marcuse inserted by Intangible (even if it was accurate) is not related in any meaningful way to the topic. There are already pages on |Marxism, the Frankfurt School, the Frankfurt School version of Criticial theory, etc. This page should focus on "Cultural Marxism," its history and the contemporary debates surrounding the term.--Cberlet 21:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

From Leiss (1974): "In the 1930s, Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse gave an interpretation of critical theory and its aims. Both Horkheimer and Marcuse prefaced the republication in 1968 of their earlier essays with a reassessment of the state of critical theory, and both contended that changing historical circumstances in the period from the 1930s to the present undermined certain crucial presuppositions of the theory and necessitated modifications in its aims and structure. Their basic intention was to assist that transition by unmasking a problem which had received insufficient attention in the Marxist literature up to their day—namely the inhibition of the revolutionary potential of the masses through the manifold devices of culture which had resulted from the centuries-long internalization of relations of domination and subordination within the charachter-structure of individuals among the exploited social classes."
Do you want me to go on? Intangible 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
This is good writing. We should quote it. Apparently you are under the delusion that what you wrote in any way reflects the texts you are now citing. Allow me to correct that mistaken perception.--Cberlet 23:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
So what was not accurate? Intangible 23:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I explained the many errors of fact above. Please do not walk in circles.--Cberlet 00:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
From Leiss (1974): "Their [Marcuse and Horkheimer] basic presupposition had been that the transition from capitalism to socialism in at least some of the European countries was a real and immediate posibility." Needless to say that the Second World War started not soon thereafter. Intangible 00:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and if you start wondering about the "historicism," from Eidelberg: "It is all the more surprising, then, to discover that Marcuse himself is a relativist [to that Utopian Society], one belonging to the school of historicism. According to historicism, each historical epoch is governed by a particular weltanschauung, a perspective on life that dominates its morality and politics, its philosophy and religion, its art and its science." Intangible 01:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
What I am stating, quite clearly, is that your use of English is questionable, your political bias makes your contributions dubuious, and you show no ability to summarize underlying text in an accurate manner. I am happy to discuss the current text, however.--Cberlet 01:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
So after I provided all these quotes you simply resort back to empty platitudes? Intangible 01:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

<-----No, I demonstrated above that your opening paragraph was factual wrong. You have given no reason for the inclusion of the large paragraph on Marcuse. I suggested we start with a discussion of Lind and Buchanan. You went another direction. I find that you seldonm actually engage in constructive discussion, but I hioped it might be different on this page. Assume good faith and all that. That's why I suggested mediation. Are you willing to accept mediation on this page? I think a mediator will help. This is a yes or no qustion. Please respnd with one word. It simplifies things so much, don't you think?

In this case it might. So that would be a qualified Yes. Intangible 02:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what "a qualified Yes" means, so let's start with a Request for Comment and see if that helps. I have filed the Request for Comment. Let's wait a few days and see if anyone offers advice.
There have been no comments. Alas. Suggestions?--Cberlet 18:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
At this point I usually show up and offer to unprotect to see what happens. Sometimes cooperative editing is better than discussion. How do you feel about that? Remember that if things don't work we can still protect again. --Tony Sidaway 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Good idea.--Cberlet 13:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{main articles}} to {{main}}

''{{Main articles|[[Marxism]], [[Frankfurt School]], [[Critical theory (Frankfurt School)|Criticial theory]], [[Postmodernity]], [[Cultural hegemony]], [[Cultural studies]], [[Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies]]}}'' needs to be changed to '''{{main|Marxism|Frankfurt School|Critical theory (Frankfurt School)|Postmodernity|Cultural hegemony}}{{main|Cultural studies|Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies}}''' per TfD to Orphan. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 21:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It was unprotected, and I tried, but too many params. Made it a {{seealso}} instead. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 20:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poisoning the well

As soon as the criticism of cultural marxism appeared, it had to be portrayed as politically incorrect, hadn't it? The editors of the "Critics of the right-wing concept" section, needs to educate themselves about the fallacy of poisoning the well. And they should try to resist the temptation of lumping the opponent together with a bit of everything. --85.165.67.60 14:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Cultural Marxism section

SPLC is a partisan organization, and it shouldn't be included in this discussion unless it has arguments that aren't ad hominem attacks. WP:RS

We need facts folks, not simply ad hominem accusations of Anti-Semitism or xenophobia.

For all we know, it could have fabricated the story of Bill Lind speaking in front of a holocaust-denier's convention. Additionally, if it is true he attended, it's not known whether Lind knew what kind of group he was speaking to in advance.

It happens from time to time that a paid speaker who is unfamiliar with the organization they have been paid and invited to speak in front of. As a result they later find out their hosts are less than savory.

Lets try to keep the opposition side to scholars who dispute Lind's facts and conclusions based upon his facts, not weak ad hominem arguments. Conservative Jewish commentator Dennis Prager attests to the following about his fellow Jews attraction to Left-wing politics:

"Along with their rejection of Jewish religiosity, Jews also feared and loathed their Christian neighbors' religiosity. European Jews had suffered for centuries from religion-based (especially European Christian) anti-Semitism. For example, Jews were tortured to death on a charge of "desecration of the Host," which essentially meant being murdered for allegedly torturing a wafer. Christian anti-Semitism in Europe ensured that virtually no Jew would feel sympathetic to religion generally, let alone Christianity specifically. Therefore, when European culture began warring on Christianity, many Jews completely identified with the anti-religious warriors. Those warriors were the men of the Enlightenment, the self-righteous title the anti-Christians gave their movement."[17]

Lind and the Free Congress Foundation work closely with Orthodox Jewish leaders. Asking this, if Lind and his boss Paul Weyrich hate Jews, why do they associate with them and work with right-wing Jews? A Jew is a Jew, isn't he or she.

By contrast, Abe Foxman of the ADL always gets a pass when he hatches anti-Christian conspiracy theories, quite a double standard, indeed on the Left's part.--68.45.161.241 05:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

II agree with you about the SPLC, it is a far left-wing group that often puts out poorly written ad hominem attacks. I did note that the articles were partisan attacks. I added them in an attempt at balance, I agree with William S. Lind for the most part. The problem the Left has is facts cannot be used to dispute Lind's facts, so they use weak ad hominem arguments.-Doktor Faustus 26 August 2006

The quote of Lind saying the Frankfurt school "were all Jewish" seems to be manipulative and possibly out of context. It's not fair to include it unless we can see the context within the speech. For comparison, I've found another speech by Lind with a similar quote- www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3810eb1e0d57.htm and he says there "The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled." Clearly, he's not being anti-semitic, he's explaining that they fled Germany because they were Jews and the Nazis had taken power. The quote should be removed.82.71.30.178 05:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but why, why, why would the guy bother to focus on their Jewishness? The Southern Poverty Law Center has accused Lind of making this quote at a conference organized by a Holocaust denier! [Click here to read http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_hate.jsp?id=618] That's a very serious allegation, coming from a more-or-less respectable outfit. What's the point of saying that the Frankfurt School members were Jews? As far as I can tell, Lind only says this to damage their credibility, link them with anti-Americanism, and imply that they undermined American values. That, to me, is definitionally anti-Semitic. Smilo Don 15:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the PRIMARY objections to this article being "right wing" come from User:Cberlet...and if you look on his user page, here User:Cberlet#Identity_Spoiler, he states that he rights frequently for partisan publications and organizations, the SPLC being among them, and the y are all exclusively left-wing partisan affiliations. Thus, Cberlet is coming here with a partisan point of view... and specifically with political affiliations to those who have declared that ANY and ALL lying is justified to achieve their goals. 76.226.85.2 (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

I think I can help explain a bit what's happened here. "Cultural marxism" is a phrase which basically speaks to an intellectual tradition of the Frankfurt School. Its influence has persisted--somewhat--in cultural studies. In about 1991, Patrick Buchanan wrote a book called The Death of the West, in which he claimed that 3-4 German Jewish profs (Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse) had corrupted the minds of the American corporate media, turning it into a giant vehicle for socialist ideas. Hmmm. Needless to say, no serious scholar--right or left, conservative or liberal--has given Buchanan's idea the time of day. Arguably, Buchanan basically had next to no understanding of the Frankfurt School (actually, he might have appreciated some of their critiques!). Still, the error has lasted a bit, and was recently picked up by William Lind--another guy who probably has never actually read a word of cultural marxism. Along the way, a few paleocons and College Republicans confused "cultural marxism" with the USSR, Leninism, Bolshevism, etc. This only makes the misunderstanding more grave.

It's not that conservatives can't critique cultural marxism, though. It's just that Buchanan and Lind are the wrong guys to quote. There are serious, intelligent critiques of cultural marxism without referring to anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists. Herbert Marcuse's work, in particular, was heavily critiqued by major scholars of the conservative persuasion.

In sum, this is not the place to debate marxism, communism, bolshevism; nor should it be a place to promote the complete misunderstandings of Buchanan and Lind. Nor is this a place to promote the career of marxists like W.F. Haug. Let's stick to the topic and to scholarship. --Smilo Don 21:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I had that same thought also a while back. Maybe you can look for Eidelberg's work instead to put into this article? Intangible2.0 02:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

_______________________ Buchanan published Death of the West in 2002. The phrase cultural Marxism is now commonly associated with Lind, but had been in fairly common use previously as a neutral term for Marxism translated from cultural to economic terms. See: "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins ... By Dennis L. Dworkin" URL: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dY1Cgg8NV64C&dq=history+of+cultural+Marxism&pg=PA1&ots=t3h2PwCC6L&sig=5LyD0MVb_2t-IkieCCfHnTdoBTQ&prev=http://www.google.co.uk/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dhistory%2Bof%2Bcultural%2BMarxism%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch%26meta%3Dcr%253DcountryUK%257CcountryGB&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1 -Simon Newman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.74.11.24 (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] left-wing reception?

I was hoping to find something here on the reception (including critical) of cultural Marxism among groups on the left... right-wing criticism is well covered it seems, but nothing on left-wing criticism. I'd be interested in a summary of how cultural Marxism is/was received among the wider world of Marxists, for example. There's a very small bit of that (one sentence) in the Herbert Marcuse article, pointing to critiques of Marcuse's work by Raya Dunayevskaya and Paul Mattick, but nothing here (and not much there either). --Delirium 05:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why I am deleting "2.2.1 Response to Right-wing criticism of Cultural Marxism"

1) Wikipedia is not a platform for debate. There should be no back-and-forth argument on a wiki page. 2) Criticism of Buchanan and Lind can and should be found on their respective wiki pages. 3) Their ideas are severely misrepresented. 4) There is more text devoted to bashing their ideas than presenting them.

The first paragraph has been moved to "Recent Criticism from the political right" where it properly belongs in any case, and edited for balance. 74.8.8.142 15:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, this is an article on Cultural materialism and the views on that that they present here severely misrepresent the Frankfurt school and others. Providing a wider context for their views is entirely appropriate here and not to include the--referenced--material is clearly not fulfilling NPOV. If their ideas are misrepresented, then you are free to correct that, with appropriate sources. This does not mean removing sourced material on other's response to their criticisms. The quantity of text ratio is not an argument. DionysosProteus 16:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Uh, no, it is NOT an article on Cultural materialism..that would be in an entry called "Cultural materialism". This entry is called "Cultural Marxism, therefore, it is supposed to be an article on Cultural Marxism. If you can't handle an article being about what the name of the article implies, then please find something else to do OTHER than edit Wikipedia pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.85.2 (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations Needed

Hey everyone. The article has a good premise, but I'm not seeing a lot of citations, including, citations for even why the Frankfurt School and it's associates began the concept of cultural Marxism, or who believes this movement began in the 20's. From my research it seems to be a fairly convoluted history, and the development of cultural Marxism also resides in the writings of Mao, and other places around the world. As for citations of Marx contemporaries, it would be good to sight more of Marcuse, and other influential Marxist theorists that have been around the globe (in such books as Essays on Liberation and the like). Being so difficult to pinpoint, and also for being so controversial, thorough research would shed light on the article. Infonation101 (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotes, yes, but the article is in a thorny semantic world. I mean, "cultural marxism" could mean darn near anything to anyone. To me, it applies to a specific intellectual tradition (Frankfurt School, etc., as discussed by Kellner)... It has almost nothing to do with the right-wing critique. This is just comparing apples and oranges. I think we need to sharpen the focus of the article. Smilo Don (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That would be a good first move. How do you propose to sharpen the focus? Infonation101 (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed the "Few people believe" line

I removed the line suggesting that "few people believe" a few radical German professors could . . . If it was a quote from a critic of Buchanon's views or something, that's fine or if it was referenced. But, while I personally think it's probably accurate, it doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia entry.--GenkiDama (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for creating a better WP article over desire to express opinion. If we could find a source that dates as one of the earliest uses of the term cultural Marxism, that may also be a good addition. We have ideas of what the term means today, but who was the first to use it, and in what context? The earliest document I have been able to find is from 1967. Here's an exerpt:

"Although a great many American intellectuals were influenced by Marxism at one point or another in the 1930s, one of the most important group of writers and critics among them were those who became associated with the Partisan Review. Briginating in the communist movement early in the 1930s the journal shared the interests and desires of other radical publications of its generation, but it was exceptional for its tenacity, for its cornmitment to radicalism and to the integrity of art. Its history reflects both the American intellectual's early enthusiasm for Marxism, and the gradual evolution of new responses as the events of the 1930s dimmed the prospects for radical change.

"Cultural Marxism was most pervasive during the 1930s in New York literary circles, particularly among the generation of critics which came of age during the early years of the depression. Every new literary generation to some extent rejects the ideas of its predecessors, but the economic crisis which served in so many minds as the symbol of a coming cultural decline reinforced the desire to discard old systems. The Great Crash of 1929, wrote Edmund Wilson, was 'for us almost like a reveling of the earth in preparation for the Day of Judgment7.1 It emphasized the need for revolutionary thinking, for a drastic accommodation of ideology to what was considered a new reality."

  • Gilbert, James. "Literature and Revolution in the United States: The Partisan Review." Journal of Contemporary History 2.2(1967): 161-176.
Let us know if you are able to find anything else. Infonation101 (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)