User talk:Second Dark/sandbox

Philosophical questions around "Cultural Marxism"
Hello Second Dark, you mentioned discussing some of the more philosophical issues with this subject, and I suppose here is somewhere a more fluid discussion could be had. I think one of my major philosophical questions on this topic would be; when is a movement a movement, and should the opposition of a movement be allowed to define that movement. I'm inclined to think not (although I'm sure it has happened, and as always, history is written by the victors).

It's also interesting in this case as the (right side's) claim of "Cultural Marxism" are an extension of the (left side's) Frankfurt School, which is its self a departure from traditional Marxist historical materialism (which obviously originated under an entirely different era of politics with a different sense of ideologies). That distance seems to make this topic further and further speculative.

Anyways, I'm not sure if this is the kind of discussion you had in mind, but they're my initial thoughts on the subject. --Jobrot (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also interesting are some of the current debates and understandings of this subject from the internet generation [such as found in the comments here]. I think they're definitely aware that Authoritarianism can effect the left as much as the right, they just haven't found the right words for this phenomena (and labeling the likes of Ardorno as having a hand in establishing this "progressive authoritarianism" we're seeing now, just feels false and contradictory considering his work in pathologizing that type). --Jobrot (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

An even broader philosophical discussion in light of reading through the VoxDay MailVox comments
For starters I'd like to point out that I never reported you in any official capacity (I only sort 3rd parties once you'd already done the same). The reasoning behind wikipedia having policies that ensure a higher quality of sourcing is fairly obvious (especially due to wikipedia's reputation as being "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit"), and on controversial or fringe subjects the enforcement of those policies become even more important.

As for pathologizing the left, I do really believe that language and accuracy is important when trying to articulate, admire, understand or admonish "the other side" of whatever one's personal political standpoint happens to be (and most are thankfully somewhere in the middle)... in turn and as regards to the overall conservative project, I believe the term "Cultural Marxism" isn't as helpful as something less easy to politicize, such as "Authoritarian Progressivism". The problem is one of outdated language and the speed of discourse (which in the overall scheme is very slow). One to some degree has to use the values of both sides if they are to attack either, and I think that part of this is starting with the idea that there are no ideologues, there are only humans, and whether you choose to attempt to understand when your fellow humans are coming from, or to attack them, the result will inevitably be: Human. Flawed, powered by psychology, self-interested, confusing, messy, personal, valuable and idiosyncratic; Human. --Jobrot (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Researching your link
I noticed you've added the twitlonger link, as they were addressed in the AfD I'll go through them again just quickly:

Dworkin (in "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain") only ever uses the term British Cultural Marxism (which is generally considered to be closer to the Birmingham School, not the Frankfurt School), and he states for himself that his "is the first intellectual history to study BRITISH cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual tradition" - so is tenuous at best (Birmingham, not Frankfurt) and can't be used to claim an established movement.

Douglas Kellner's essay is self published (just as citable as a self-published blog, or any student uploading his personal views to a .edu web directory - which many schools offer). It can't be cited for this reason, but even if it could - both Dworkin and Kellner conclude the END of Cultural Marxism as an influence at 1980 (and yes I have quotes at hand to this effect from both these works), so neither of them serve the conspiracy version that Cultural Marxists are currently active or control academia/the media (or even that it's currently a position).

Fredric Jameson's "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", doesn't even use the term Cultural Marxism ANYWHERE within it's covers. It ONLY uses the term in the title - obviously no good as a reference, but does serve to point out that "Cultural Marxism" can mean any number of things, from Marxist aesthetics in Culture, to Marxists who still have to live under Capitalism due to the nature of the world, to Soviet Culture to any number of different interpretations.

"Cultural Marxism" by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome has a disclaimer on it stating: "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." likewise with "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society" which is another (possibly computer compiled) subject reader that boasts: "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA Articles". Both invalid.

...so if you want to talk about The Frankfurt School - there's already a page for that. But if you want to blow out the now rarefied 1970s WP:NN usage of Cultural Marxism to claim that all critical theorist are Cultural Marxists, or that Cultural Marxism is an on going movement (ie. didn't end in the 1980s), or that Cultural Marxism is to "blame" for Political Correctness, you'll have no luck with any of the references in the Twitlonger link. That's just the facts of the matter when you look into these sources. --Jobrot (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * From Google Books: Weiner considers the work of theorists as diverse as Jurgen Habermas, Claus Offe, Alain Touraine, Anthony Giddens and Alvin Gouldner, many of whom fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement. - yeah, probably can't be referencing people who the reference claims aren't part of the movement. This term may have had some cred back in the 1970s, but it never became academically definitive in its usage or meaning, so falls below WP:NN and the right wing's WP:FRINGE meaning has taken over as the main usage. Conspiracies have to start somewhere. "Richard R. Weiner once thought it was a thing, but new it wasn't" wouldn't really cut it. Can't just throw a bunch of ideologically "diverse" theorists together and claim it's a unified ideology. That's just not on. --Jobrot (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * LOL. Simmer.  I posted those for me.  Do you have unlimited free time?  There!  See what you did?  I just broke my solemn vow not to argue on the internet until Thursday.Second Dark (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Just trying to save us both the trouble. --Jobrot (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)