This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Socialism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political / Religion / Continental Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy Philosophy of religion Continental philosophy Culture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Anthropology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Marxist cultural analysis be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Thread retitled from "Please do not treat this section lightly. It is an important philosophical distinction, and we must position this article correctly.".

Hear me out: Leon Trotsky's writings on literature are not part of "Marxist cultural analysis" as it's thought of in modern times. It is a relatively modern phenomena, specifically tied up with Neo-Marxism, and Trotsky is clearly not doing it as we've defined it:

"...a form of cultural analysis and anti-capitalist cultural critique, which assumes the theory of cultural hegemony and from this specifically targets those aspects of culture which are profit driven and mass-produced under capitalism." [Emphasis added]

The largest problem with claiming he is doing this; is that neither the concept of "hegemony" (as defined by Gramsci), nor the concept of an industry that mass produces culture (eg. the culture industry as defined by The Frankfurt School) were around when Trotsky was writing Literature and Revolution.

These seem to be the two elements (1, cultural hegemony and 2, mass produced capitalist culture) that come together in modern definitions of what 'Marxist cultural analysis' is, which would perhaps be better labelled "Neo-Marxist cultural analysis" (I'm certainly open to renaming the page as such).

Gramsci is included on this page as a precursor to The Frankfurt School (and a creator of one of these two definitive elements). Including not just Trotsky as well, but also the Marxism sidebar, creates an inaccurate viewpoint of what the modern conception of Marxist Cultural Analysis is (casts it as Orthodox Marxism).

As a corollary, discussion of whether groups like The Frankfurt School are "actually doing Marxism" can be found in critiques like "The Grand Hotel Abyss" by Lukacs, and "The Strange Death of Marxism" by Gottfried. They are part of a valid and ongoing academic discussion about current strains of Neo-marxist cultural theory (and whether the Sociology of "The New Left" is actually Marxist or just a form of neo-liberalism). Ergo, we shouldn't be mixing a Marxist in with modern Neo-Marxist Sociologists. Doing so (casting the page in the light of Orthodox Marxism), doesn't just go against our definition in the lead, but also goes against Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Wikipedia SHOULD NOT be putting their thumb on the scales of this ongoing debate. It violates Wikipedia's policies to do so. We shouldn't be proposing that these two distinct phases/groups (traditional/orthodox Marxism, and the Neo-Marxist theorists of the New Left) are equivalents, as Trotsky doesn't have the basic components that define modern "Marxist cultural analysis" (which again, would better be named "Neo-Marxist cultural analysis").

Trotsky is doing a traditional Historical Materialist analysis which is mostly focused on an imagined post-Capitalist/post-Communist society and culture. It is NOT an analysis of the "profit driven aspects of mass produced culture" as seen through the duel lenses of cultural hegemony and the mass productions of the culture industry. Doing such an analysis doesn't automatically class someone as an "Orthodox Marxist", despite the name of the current page, which also serves to obscure this ongoing debate within academia, philosophy, and public life. 117.102.151.28 (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without rejecting or endorsing your change proposal, i must say that far-right author Paul Gottfried can not be used as reliable source in Wikipedia. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used him as an example of someone giving the "Frankfurt School is just neoliberalism" criticism from the far-right (I chose him and Gyorgy Lukacs from the far left, because they're on opposite ends of the political spectrum but are united in this particular complaint). So as a source of that criticism, from a specific ideology/perspective (the right wing), he can be used (as long as it's attributed to him or his book). He did study under Marcuse, so has slightly more credibility than many on the far right. But there are multiple people/groups (from across the political divide) who have made this type of critique. The World Socials Web, and Reason Magazine would be another pairing of a left and a right source for this type of critique. This is because it's a widely given critique, which is my main point.

I'm not actually asking for any of these sources to be used, because I'm actually just asking for a consensus on the removal of content from the current version of the page (because it's giving authority to a perspective in this ongoing debate which has been laced in, suggested, or grandfathered in unduely).

We shouldn't accidentally give undue credibility to the idea that The Frankfurt School are part of an unbroken chain of hardcore orthodox Marxism dating back to Trotsky, nor should we give a mistaken idea of what "Marxist cultural analysis" means in the context of modern theory/usage/practices.

Modern Marxist cultural analysis, is a cultural divergence away from more orthodox forms of Marxism, even when those orthodox forms are discussing their cultural visions of the implementation of a post-communist society (as Trotsky is). The Frankfurt School broke away from that orthodox vision in the 1930s, and started critiquing both it and Capitalism. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy mentions such in their entry on Adorno, saying the school sort to be critical and hence "equidistant from both Soviet socialism and liberal capitalism". 117.102.146.108 (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference to Trotsky says,"The original theory behind this form of analysis is commonly associated with Leon Trotsky, Georg Lukács, Antonio Gramsci, and the Frankfurt School." But the two sources used don't mention Trotsky.

The section on Trotsky says, "Soviet scholar Robert Bird considered his work as the "first systematic treatment of art by a Communist leader" and a catalyst for later, Marxist cultural and critical theories." While Bird might be right, it does not belong in the article unless that is a frequent observation.

The rest of the section on Trotsky does not belong in any case. He is not providing analysis of capitalist culture, but writing about what culture should be under socialism.

I agree therefore to remove references to him. TFD (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first few paragraphs of this article from The Platypus Review 1 - confirm that there's very little mention of Trotsky in The Frankfurt School's writings. He doesn't seem to have influenced them, or be acting as a precursor at all.

This combined with the fact that Trotsky was a contemporary of The Frankfurt School, actively writing in the same time period makes the current Wiki article's claim that he was somehow a precursor extremely unlikely.

Bird references Trotsky as performing a "Russian Critical Theory" at one point in his essay (a very unusual phrasing I've never seen anywhere else), but other than this is only able to draw parallels and perceived similarities, no hard evidence of a connection is provided. The Platypus article is outright saying there aren't any substantial/documented connections or exchanges. 117.102.146.108 (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the text that I mentioned in the post below:

"After 1917, Trotsky took sides against the concept of 'proletarian culture" and maintained a keen interest in bourgeois and avant-garde movements. Literature and Revolution (1923) discusses pre-revolutionary art; literary 'fellow-travellers' of the revolution; contemporary developments in futurism; and communist policy towards art. 'The Formalist School of Poetry and Marxism' defends a Marxist account of the relative autonomy of art against vulgar materialism and formalism, a position echoed by the Bakhtin circle and P. N. Medvedev, The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship (1928; trans. 1978). Trotsky's interest in culture and political hegemony was shared by Gramsci, whose letter to Trotsky on Italian Futurism was printed in the Russian edition of Literature and Revolution, but not in the English translation (see A. Gramsc, Selections from Cultural Writings (1985)). Trotsky continued to pursue his interestin politics and aesthetics in the 1930s, writing a manifesto for revolutionary art with Diego Rivera and Andre Breton while in Mexico." (p. 46) Patrick (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that both Trotsky and members of the Frankfurt School were interested in culture is a weak connection. Since Marxism is a systematic view of human history and social science, it's not surprising that some Marxists would examine human culture. TFD (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces, Sorry, almost missed this! That Trotsky, a prominent Marxist, wrote at length and has been anthologized writing about culture is my only argument for his inclusion in the article. (I have no position as to his influence on anyone else.)

Per the title of the article and its interpretation by @Newimpartial (as I understand them) and myself, Trotsky should be included. The lead sentence/paragraph should, per me, be broadened, and the maintenance banner should be removed. I have no specific language to propose, but I can come up with some if no one else steps up.

Or, if the scope of this article is narrower than just any credible Marxists analyzing culture, this needs to be clarified and justified with citations to a corresponding literature. Patrick (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I agree that the first sentence of the lead section is too narrow.

Overall, my preference is that the scope of the article should reflect the scope of the best sources on the article's topic: my sense is that these sources encompass the traditions of Western Marxism without being strictly limited to them. Newimpartial (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Marxist cultural analysis" is a topic with a body of literature that this article is supposed to summarize. This article cannot be about every Marxist who decided to analyze culture. Trotsky is only relevant if books and articles about Marxist cultural analysis decide to mention him.

When terms such as Marxist cultural analysis are coined, they are considered a concept distinct from the words that are put together. FDR's "New Deal" was not the only new deal in the history of the world, but the article New Deal is about his program only. TFD (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind pointing us to a few works in the secondary literature that define the scope of "Marxist cultural analysis"? Right now, it's not clear to me that your analogy to the New Deal holds even weakly. If this is just my ignorance, that's totally fine—but the article should be edited to clarify this. (See also the thread below.) Cheers, Patrick (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't a body of literature about cultural Marxism, then the topic fails notability and should be deleted. TFD (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But you cannot be agnostic on the existence of such a body of literature and also insist that it narrows the scope of the article beyond the meaning of the words "Marxist cultural analysis." So, could you please point us to a few works? Patrick (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think that sources exist, then nominate the article for deletion. TFD (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be constructive. If sources exist that narrow the scope of the article beyond what is described by the words in its title, please share those sources. Patrick (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires that a topic has been covered by reliable secondary sources. We cannot define a topic and put in whatever meets the definition. Whether or not it belongs depends on what secondary sources say. That's why Trotsky does not belong, whether or not you think he meets the criteria in the lead.

If on the other hand, there is no evidence of a distinct topic covered in reliable sources, then the article should be deleted. Since you think that is the case, I suggest you either nominate the article for deletion or move on. TFD (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited an anthology that includes Trotsky. If there is a larger literature that excludes him, that is completely fine with me too. Only please just share it. Patrick (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which anthology is that? Also, you would need to show that the anthology specifically stated that Trotsky's work was part of Marxist cultural analysis. TFD (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed all the activity in my newsfeed and came over to see what was going on. Mostly I was just struck again by how underdeveloped this article is. It's not an accident that editors have contemplated a merge on more than one occasion (a suggestion to which I am at least sympathetic).

With this in mind, could anyone suggest a high-quality overview source that might help determine what thinkers (or what topics, if we wanted to structure it that way) ought to be included?

For instance, I don't really know Trotsky's work, but just to see if it might provide something useful to the discussion above, I checked the TOC of Marxist Literary Theory: A Reader (1996) edited by Terry Eagleton and Drew Milne. It does include Trotsky, and the editors' brief intro made what seems to me like a compelling case for his inclusion. (If I can get a good scan with my phone, I'll share it.)

But the reason for this post is to share that the TOC of this anthology (23 figures, presented chronologically [1]) looks a lot a survey of what I would expect to be included in this article. It would not take a lot to go through a work like this and write the main body of the article sourced entirely to the editors' synopses (bonus points for checking them against another reference source!). The shortcomings of such a method are obvious, but that could be acknowledged here with encouragement to editors to improve the coverage of whatever parts they care about. There would at least be a rough draft of a fuller and more cohesive article to work from.

This would not, of course, put an end to the lengthy talk page discussions, but it might steer them in a more productive direction.

To be clear, I'm not volunteering to do this at this time. I am just curious what others think of the idea. Also: suggestions for appropriately short and selective sources would be most welcome. I picked this one for no other reason than that I have a copy on my shelves. Something more recent and more readily available online would easier to work with and discuss.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we don't have the resources for that level of inclusionism, I think part of the problem with this article is that it was created after the struggles at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as to not close down the possibility of making a genuine "cultural Marxism" article from a leftwing perspective... and that the main conflicts for the future of this article will be based around displaying an aesthetic distance from Marxism, for each author raised on the page.

Given that The Frankfurt School went out of their way to criticize Soviet Marxism, and to separate themselves from Orthodox Marxism (to the point that the Neo-Marxism stub mentions they didn't call themselves Neo-Marxists at all), they shouldn't be linked so strongly to Marxism (a difficult task given the title of the article).

Trotsky brings them too close to Marxism, as does the sidebar. This is why I raised the various academic/professional criticisms in the previous section as to whether their work can still be counted as Marxist, or whether at some point in cultural analysis it just becomes an extension of neoliberal Capitalism (as Marcuse suggests in One-Dimensional Man). Negotiating that distance from Marxism proper is the problem. The fact that most of the authors mentioned are Neo-Marxist, but the title is "Marxist cultural analysis" is the problem. The question of whether a "Marxist cultural analysis" is possible when Marx didn't write at length on the topic, is the problem. We're living in a Marxist contradiction when writing this article.

Given the contradictions in this task the aesthetic distance from Marxism will remain the problem, which is why I prefer a practical and exclusionist model, that focuses on a modern post-WW2 understanding of a globalized, industrialized, and a multi-media savvy analysis of culture (eg. analysis which explicitly references hegemony, and the mechanical reproduction/industrialization of mass culture).

Perhaps having a pre-WW2 section, and a post-WW2 section, with the former swinging towards Marxism proper, and the latter swinging towards Neo-Marxism and Post-Marxist schools of thought might be a way to negotiate that aesthetic distance from Marx, and the contradictions there in, landing the article more gracefully in modern times and theories.

But I also think that the title of the article - along with having a focus on The Frankfurt School, Birmingham School, and new left - renders anything I say somewhat moot. Because at any point someone might decide "Oh well, if The Frankfurt School didn't call themselves Neo-Marxists, and if people like Richard Hoggart specifically said he didn't like Marxism, then these topics can be pruned". Then we're left with a page just for orthodox Marxists who have commented on culture or done any sort of analysis of it... which would be quite far removed from modern culture, cultural studies, the new left turn, and other modern theories, and relegate the article to being a historical litany exclusionist of anyone who isn't a self-described Marxist.

Accordingly, here's how I see the "To Do List":

• Carry out the summaries of authors/ideas as you prescribe.
• Separate these into the pre-WW2 (Marxist), and post-WW2 (Neo-Marxist) sections
• Figure out our sidebars, so they more correctly remove the notion the that a) Trotsky was somehow the cause/catalyst of all these school, and that b) the entire page is about Marxists proper (eg. we need a sidebar that illustrates that theorists in the latter half of the page aren't necessarily Marxists).

Anyways, that's how I see us bringing an order to the page. But like you, I'm yet to find the motivation to perform these tasks, so progress might be slow. 117.102.146.108 (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S I'm aware this is not a clean, clear, or accurate distinction I've suggested. The point is it's simple. It lends its self to a focus on The Frankfurt School and Gramsci as the founders of the theories of the culture industry and hegemony respectively (making them "the eye of the needle" so to speak), and it resolves some of the contradictions within writing this article. Gramsci and The Frankfurt School act as a sort of gateway between the two eras. Perhaps (although again, inaccurately) Gramsci is can be cast as sort of as the final product of Pre-WW2 era of theory, and The Frankfurt School are kind of the new hope, or the carriers of the flame across Europe to the current cultural hegemon (America). I think that has a certain poetic and narrative truth, even if the categories themselves won't line up perfectly. 117.102.146.108 (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this detailed response. The amount of work you had to do even just there, however, strengthens my suspicion that this article does not meet Wikipedia WP:NOTABILITY criteria for inclusion. Those sources ought to govern discussions about what we include. Editors are not supposed to have to make them up for themselves.

If we were to do a merge, the Trotsky material could be merged into whatever other article is deemed most appropriate, and the everything else of value should probably be integrated into Western Marxism, with the Birmingham School added in an "Influence" or "Legacy" section. (Currently it doesn't even have its own article!)

The location of the redirect could be determined with reference to the original rationale for the creation of this article.

Tagging the top author (without a block) and page creator, @Howard Alexander, and top editor, @Newimpartial. I know this has come up before, but might it be worth reconsidering? If not, could you point me to the sources that establish notability to justify this as a self-standing article? I don't see them in either the first or the current version.

I'm not trying to play Wikipedia cop here. It is just that it is difficult to develop the article without at least a few good sources defining the subject, its scope, and major concepts/theories/figures.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One source that directly links Western Marxism and the Birmingham School is Bottomore's Dictionary (2nd ed) entry on "Culture" (p. 128–30). Patrick (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See now this is just confusing because you were just detailing Terry Eagleton's extended history of the cultural strain and turn within Marxism that led to the creation of The New Left.

It's my understanding that this is what this page is about - this is a subject more focused than just say Western Marxism as OBVIOUSLY a lot of Marxists from Western Marxism weren't involved in any of the work that came before The New Left, or simply, weren't focused on Capitalist culture.

If you go to the page on The New Left you can read some of what this page is about, like wise if you go to Cultural Studies you can read some of what this page is about, likewise if you go to the pages on Gramsci, The Frankfurt School, Freudo-Marxism, and The Birmingham School...

My understanding is that this page is supposed to provide what's not mentioned or included in those other pages, show the bridge/workings of how and what Marxist cultural analysis is, and demonstrate its history.

This is a historical/content blindspot on Wikipedia, and a hot topic within American culture currently. It's clear that Marxism, and Marxists have commented on culture, and that this led to, or acted as a pre-cursor to various strains of discourse (eg. The New Left, and Cultural Studies). The naming of the article seems tangential to this.

My understanding is that it became clear on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory that there are quite numerous references to a "cultural Marxism" and so Wikipedia should document what areas and schools of thought those references discussed. So this page was created with that scope.

"Cultural Marxism" as a term however, has become more synonymous with a conspiracy theory, so WP:NEO dictates that we should avoid it as a title, and went to a more general title "Marxist cultural analysis".

I'll add here - all of these are MY assumptions about the page. There's no evidence for them other than how I read the events and assumptions I'VE MADE. So it changes nothing of what other people may have suggested. This is just my best guess as someone who wasn't involved with the creation of this page.

I may be completely wrong, and this page may mean something broader involving the entire history of Marxist theory - which is why I'm open to your suggestion of using the Eagleton TOC as a jumping off point. But either way I still think we need some sort of structure for the page, so WW2 seems as a good as any (a fairly common category for pages on 20th century Western European history). 117.102.146.108 (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as to the sidebars, they are not page-specific, but their own templates designed to connect readers to related articles. You can edit them by clicking the little 'E' in the bottom right corner. I would strongly encourage that you check in on the talk before making any changes, however, because they will appear in every article that includes the template. Changes without consensus are likely to be promptly reverted. Patrick (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick, the main reason for activity in this page's newsfeed, over the years, is people arriving from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and wondering why there isn't an article about "the real Cultural Marxism". The article is designed to include Marxist approaches to culture - which certainly is a notable topic, subject of monographs and anthologies, and those books pretty much invariably include content from Gramscian and Western Marxist traditions, and sometimes also Leninist, Marxist Humanist and Structuralist work.

While I can see the point in establishing better connections between this article and specific traditions, certainly a lot of Gramscian or Western Marxist scholarship is not about cultural analysis, and no disambiguation page is going to orient the reader to the contributions of, say, E.P. Thompson in this field. Newimpartial (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Newimpartial, I myself would be inclined to send misguided folks to the Frankfurt School and Western Marxism articles instead of creating an article just for them. After all, no one actively promoting a conspiracy theory is going to change their mind based on new information. Still, I do not want to make things any more difficult for all you brave and patient souls keeping the conspiracy article grounded in fact.

Perhaps there is a way to clarify the scope of this article instead of a merge and redirect. I find it confusing, and I would describe myself as a well-informed non-expert. It never occurred to me, for instance, that Trotsky did not belong; yet the IP editor makes a compelling case.

Is there any reason not to open it up with a title along the lines of "Marxist cultural theory"? There is definitely a literature on this, and no expert knowledge would be required to assess relevance. Disallowing Soviets, for instance, seems entirely arbitrary. (And there is little danger of them overshadowing the stuff by Lukács, Gramsci, and the traditions building upon their work—for the simple reason that previous Marxists, to my knowledge, did not not spend much time reflecting upon the superstructure, which was supposed to basically just follow from the base.)

Also, the current title seems to promise second-order scholarship reporting and reflecting upon the methodology of Marxist cultural analysis in action. But that is not what it delivers, and I don't think it should be. For even if we could find such a literature, it would be difficult to explain in a manner intelligible to an audience not already familiar with at least the general Marxist conception(s) of superstructure/ideology/culture/etc.

Your thoughts?

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and feel free to point me to any old discussions that might have already addressed the issue I raise. Patrick (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think the article scope issue has been addressed at length "at this end". And while I personally don't have anything against "Marxist cultural theory", I suspect that the scope of the discourse that this article "is meant to" include features a lot of analysis that is not adequately termed "theory" - the whole bottom-up tradition represented by E.P. Thompson would fall in that category, for example, and ought to be included here. So while this ought to be the survey article for Marxist scholarship about culture, I think "analysis" does better than "theory" as a descriptive title. And as I read it, the current title reflects an article talking about avowedly Marxist analysis of actually existing culture, and is not about the analysis of Marxist cultural projects as such - large as my personal appetite might be for scholarship on Constructivism and the Situationists, that isn't the point of this article here.

Also, I'll point out that there have been discussions of disambiguation options at the Conspiracy Theory page, and those discussions landed on the DAB notice pointing here. To summarize those discussions, most editors seem to agree that "cultural Marxism" when used as a phrase in scholarship carries many possible referents, so collapsing it to the Frankfurt School or Western Marxism would represent a kind of reification. Conspiracy theorists using the phrase might be engaged in caricature of Adorno, Marcuse, Angela Davis and/or Rudi Dutschke (the latter two being out of scope for this article) - but the article scope should be based on actual Marxist cultural scholarship, and not cater to such vagaries. Newimpartial (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! If it's clear to those actively editing the article, that's good enough for me.

Should Trotsky be removed then? Patrick (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, I'd keep the discussion open for another week ago to see if other perspectives are presented, before making changes to the article. Newimpartial (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No rush on my account. For what it's worth, however, absent good reason against it, I lean towards inclusionism. This would require rewriting (or probably just moving down in the lead with slight qualification/rewording) the opening sentence of the lead. Patrick (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because he did not contribute to the school. TFD (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What school? Patrick (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist cultural analysis. TFD (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I await with bated breath the supporting literature. Patrick (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you think that this topic does not exist, get the article deleted. TFD (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Over on the Cultural Marxism conspiracy talk page[[2]], consensus seems to be that cultural Marxism doesn't need a standalone article, because it's substantially the same topic. And there seems to be no disagreement from sources that Marxist cultural analysis has also been referred to as "cultural Marxism". So shouldn't that be clarified in the intro to the article, as is common practice on Wikipedia, instead of waiting until the third paragraph? Stonkaments (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion indicates that there are only two topics, sure, but that's not the point of the text you stripped out. The two terms (even if one agrees that 'Cultural Marxism' was in wide use pre-1990, itself disputed) don't mean the same thing post-1990. That should be given context and explained, not collapsed into 'also referred to as'. MrOllie (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources saying the term was ever in wide use; Bruane, the only secondary source we have on that usage, says that it was used very occasionally and that it specifically was not used in a pattern that connected it to the Frankfurt school in any coherent way. While we have a lot of cites in the section for random things people found when throwing "cultural marxism" into Google scholar, those are the only usages of the two words adjacent to each other that exist distinct from the conspiracy theory, at least as far as people could find during the previous discussions; their usage here to argue that it's a significant term is mostly WP:SYNTH already. --Aquillion (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The usage isn't concrete or significant enough to be used as a see-also (the sources that we have here are literally the only ones that exist, and it's unclear that they all refer to the same topic.) As Bruane says, The term does appear very occasionally in Marxist literature, but there is no pattern of using it to point specifically to the Frankfurt School; truthfully, we should probably trim or remove the final paragraph based on that. Disregarding the WP:PRIMARY sources, what the sources really say is that the words "cultural" and "marxism" have appeared about seven times adjacent to each other throughout all the literature, without a single coherent definition and without being a properly defined term - that is to say that the people who use "cultural Marxism", small-c, to refer to this topic today are largely adherents of the conspiracy theory trying to falsely give the impression that it refers to something coherent or real. --Aquillion (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems that there were only five sources for the use of cultural Marxism in writings by critical theorists, the first being in 1978, long after the school's heyday. These sources would have been forgotten, except that the conspiracy theorists discovered them after they had coined their theory cultural Marxism and routinely trot them out to prove its a real thing. While "Marxist cultural analysis has also been referred to as "cultural Marxism"", it isn' signficant for inclusion in this article. TFD (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thread retitled from "Unsupported lede claim that the conspiracy theory doesn't have "any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis"".

What sources support this claim?

The cited source (Braune 2019) says: "The term does appear very occasionally in Marxist literature, but there is no pattern of using it to point specifically to the Frankfurt School"--this is a specific claim about the Frankfurt School, not the concept of Marxist cultural analysis as a whole.

In fact, other sources specifically identify a clear relationship between the conspiracy theory and Marxist cultural analysis:

• Jamin 2018: "When looking at the literature on Cultural Marxism as a piece of cultural studies, as a conspiracy described by Lind and its followers, and as arguments used by Buchanan, Breivik, and other actors within their own agendas, we see a common ground made of unquestionable facts in terms of who did what and where, and for how long at the Frankfurt School."
• Tutors 2018: "In an ironical sense this literature can perhaps be understood as popularizing simplified or otherwise distorted versions of certain concepts initially developed by the Frankfurt School, as well as those of Western Marxism more generally." Stonkaments (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The full quote from Braune is Furthermore, there is no academic field known as “Cultural Marxism.” Scholars of the Frankfurt School are called Critical Theorists, not Cultural Marxists. Scholars in various other fields that often get lumped into the “Cultural Marxist” category, such as postmodernists and feminist scholars, also do not generally call their fields of study Cultural Marxism, nor do they share perfect ideological symmetry with Critical Theory. The term does appear very occasionally in Marxist literature, but there is no pattern of using it to point specifically to the Frankfurt School--Marxist philosopher of aesthetics Frederic Jameson, forexample, uses the term, but his use of the term “cultural” refers to his aesthetics, not to a specific commitment to the Frankfurt School. In short, Cultural Marxism does not exist—not only is the conspiracy theory version false, but there is no intellectual movement by that name. Her overall point is that those scattered usages are without coherent meaning, and that the usage in the conspiracy theory is not connected to any real-world ideological framework. Jamin and Tutors don't disagree; Jamin's point is that the conspiracy theoriests are consistent with each other, not with reality. And if you read the next sentence of Tutors, it is clear the irony he is talking about is the way in which the conspiracy theorists themselves fit into the Frankfurt School's view; One such example might be the concept of “the Cathedral” (Yarvin 2008), developed by figures in the so-called neo-reactionary movement on the far right as a kind of critique of the hegemonic, unconscious consensus between powerful figures within academia and the media who use the concept of “political correctness” as a tool of oppression developed by those who (falsely) imagine themselves as being oppressed. He is saying that the irony is this mode of analysis is in line with what the Frankfurt school believed, not that the conspiracy theory itself has merit. --Aquillion (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m not convinced that the claim “without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis” is adequately supported by the cited source. As OP notes, the Braune paper [3] does not assert any claims about “Marxist cultural analysis” as a whole. Instead, the quoted statement specifically references “the Frankfurt School.” If we are now equating the two, how do we justify the existence of a separate article on “Marxist cultural analysis”?

There is another logical inconsistency. Braune states that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory [...] misrepresents the Frankfurt School’s ideas and influence. Logically, if A misrepresents B, then A must have at least one clearly defined relationship with B, meaning it misrepresents it. Therefore, it is contradictory to claim that there is no clear relationship between the two.

Thirdly, to highlight another logical inconsistency: if there is no (clear) relationship between “Marxist cultural analysis” and “Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory,” then why do these two Wikipedia articles extensively link to each other?

Lastly, I searched for the term 'clear relationship' and found an archived discussion from 2021 that includes this phrase.[4] Unfortunately, that discussion quickly devolved into arguments about the conspiracy theory. Here, I hope we can stay focused on this article and the specific issue of consistency with logic and sources. 87.116.182.140 (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You must be new to Wikipedia, Welcome to Wikipedia! What you're confused about is called Wikivoice. One of the statements is us REPORTING on Braune's viewpoint (aka an WP:INTEXT). The other is in Wikivoice. For more information, click this link to the policy: WP:Wikivoice. I hope that clears things up for you. P.S Also, usually new additions to the discussion, or new comments on the talk page go at the bottom of a page as per WP:Indent, Wikipedia has a lot of these policies and guidelines, and your time here will involve less conflict if you learn about them. 101.115.143.188 (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just adding to this, they're usually easier to learn about if you sign up an account - because you'll be told about them, and given other helpful tips on your talk page. 101.115.143.188 (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That information is already included in the third paragraph of the lede section:

"The tradition of Marxist cultural analysis has also been referred to as "cultural Marxism", and "Marxist cultural theory", in reference to Marxist ideas about culture. However, since the 1990s, the term "Cultural Marxism" has largely referred to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory popular among the far right without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis."

So Wikipedia has already done its due diligence to represent the major academic viewpoints in as accurate manner as possible for this topic. 101.115.139.171 (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How should we address the issue raised in this discussion?

1. Do nothing.
2. Remove the phrase “without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis” from the sentence. See diff.
3. Replace it with: “However, since the 1990s, the term 'Cultural Marxism' has frequently been associated with Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory embraced by the far right, which distorts the ideas and impact of the Frankfurt School.” See diff.
4. Something else (please specify).

Shall we take a poll? 87.116.182.140 (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3, because it clarifies the original sentence and is closer to what the source (Braune 2019) states: the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory [...] misrepresents the Frankfurt School’s ideas and influence. :87.116.182.140 (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 - no clear reasons to change the sentence have been presented in this discussion, and option 3 in particular presents a (sourced) statement out of context, in wikivoice, in a way that posits a determinate relationship between the conspiracy theory and the Frankfurt School in a way the sources, taken as a whole, do not support. Newimpartial (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seconded. There's still no clear ideological, political, or academic movement calling its self "Cultural Marxism". No academics identify that way. So Braune is accurate to the academic viewpoint. 101.115.130.228 (talk) 06:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 or remove the final paragraph of the lead entirely (that is, remove any mention of cultural marxism in any context from the lead completely) per my arguments above. Perhaps some rewording is possible, but I'm not seeing any of these as an improvement; a central point in the sources is that the conspiracy theory is not connected to reality and that "cultural marxism" isn't a concretely-defined thing, which needs to be clearly conveyed if we are going to mention it at all. The connection is tenuous enough that it would also be reasonable to remove it from the lead; it's just not leadworthy. --Aquillion (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless it's covered by high-quality sources on Marxist cultural analysis, I support removal of the conspiracy theory from the lead and the article. Patrick (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3, because this is important enough to mention in the lead, and reliable sources are in agreement that there is some connection between the conspiracy theory and ideas from the Frankfurt School. Could maybe tweak the wording somehow to emphasize that the connection between the two is imprecise, but to deny that any connection exists is plainly wrong and contradicts the sources. —- Stonkaments (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Re: reliable sources are in agreement that there is some connection between the conspiracy theory and ideas from the Frankfurt School - they aren't, though. That's the whole problem. There isn't any particular connection between the FS and the CT, except for some misleading name dropping. Newimpartial (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It can be argued that A misrepresenting B isn't a real relationship, but that leads us into semantics. It's better to use clearer language to avoid confusing the reader. Misrepresents is clearer than "without any clear relationship," and it's the phrasing currently used in the CT article lede. 87.116.182.140 (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 and strongly Oppose 3. The conspiracy theory has no relationship with the Frankfurt school, as it has no relationship to anything actually real. That the conspiracy theory use "cultural Marxism" and "Frankfurt school" is in no way meaningful, they are just words used as dog whistles without any real connection to the actual subjects. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've created this temporary division on the page whilst the discussion on what counts as Marxist cultural analysis continues to sort its self out. As a rule of thumb; if a theorist/school uses or comes after the creation of Gramsci's sense of hegemony, it's probably contemporary. If not, it's probably historical. Keep in mind this page should be for the WP:Primarytopic (which does discuss the "profit driven" aspects of Capitalist hegemony), and we should keep that in mind as we want to avoid becoming a WP:Coatrack article. 101.115.143.188 (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trotsky (1879 – 1940) and Gramsci (1891 – 1937) were contemporaries. If categorization and subdivision is needed, it should probably use different labels than Historical vs Contemporary. 87.116.182.140 (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trotsky doesn't use the term hegemony, and thus, isn't really known for having done a modern, sociological version of Marxist cultural analysis. The main jumping off point for this page is Gramsci, and descendant theories, such as The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, and E. P. Thompson. You can read the lead section to understand the primary topic, and definition of terms that make up the subject matter intended for this page. 101.115.143.188 (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The mid-20th century is not “contemporary”.
• EP Thompson’s work is not derived from Gramsci but from other traditions.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I appreciate the effort to organize the article. Do you by chance have a source to support this distinction? I don't have a particular problem with it other than it seems weird to call someone who died in 1937 a contemporary of us in the 21st century. This cut-off would also relegate the other major figure featured in the lead (but conspicuously absent in the body), early Lukaćs, to history. Maybe that's not a problem, but it feels a bit arbitrary.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Lukaćs uses the term hegemony throughout History and Class Consciousness (but of course, this is just the English translators choice in 1972, almost 50 years after it was originally written), I'm not that familiar with how much he references the industrialization of the mechanisms of cultural reproduction (eg. culture as an industrial function of Capitalism) - but I think given that he seemingly discusses cultural hegemony in some way that could be translated, then by virtue of that you're free to include him in the contemporary section (at least, that's how I see this suggested division playing out). I don't want to be too strict with this. I'm assuming the reasons Lukaćs hasn't been included thus far is because he's not as influential or well known as Gramsci and The Frankfurt School et al.

I don't personally see the use of 'hegemony' as being an arbitrary inclusion requirement for a theorist to be seen as 'contemporary' (although if it comes down to a question of translation, it does become more arbitrary). Either way, to me it's simply coherent with the lead section. The lead section appears to be an enduring aspect of the page, and hence crucial to the subject matter within the contemporary context (especially in regards to Sociology and Neo-Marxism).

I believe concessions were given in the above section (eg. "It never occurred to me, for instance, that Trotsky did not belong; yet the IP editor makes a compelling case.") but I don't want to step on any toes, and I think it's a complex topic area that we're all being careful to not limit too much - whilst still having some direction (and my suggestion is just that we follow the lead). My understanding is still that the article was intended to be about contemporary Marxist cultural analysis WITHIN the sociological context, and that even that much is a misnomer, as all Marxist cultural analysis is almost by definition Neo-Marxist (Karl Marx having not done much cultural analysis at all).

But you are indeed correct - it feels odd to say theories from the 1930s are contemporary. In my view this is more a problem of just how effective Cold War propaganda was on American (and hence global) cultural hegemony, WW2 is often a common demarcation and turning point for the consideration of what is "contemporary". It defined a lot of the new western mode of global analysis, internationalism, and trade. We (as in the cultural majority) are only just now catching up to the theorists of back then, but if you have less questionable terms for the headings, I'm all for finding a better match. "Pre-hegemonic theory" and "Post-hegemonic theory" might be more direct for instance (albeit, not a traditional division that Wikipedia pages commonly use).

Sorry if this response is not satisfying, I suppose another option would be to use Pre-WW2 and Post-WW2, and have sections for Gramsci and Lukaćs in the former, making it a purely chronological division. 101.115.143.188 (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this detailed reply!

It is a Wikipedia guideline (and I think a very good one) that WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. (Edit: that's actually an individually authored essay, but it is largely an explication of MOS:LEADREL.) Unless there is a literature that supports limiting this article more narrowly than what is included in anthologies and introductions to Marxist cultural/aesthetic/literary analysis/theory/studies, I believe the article should be open to encompass all material commonly included in such overview publications, and the lead should be edited accordingly.

Lukaćs is widely credited with reinjecting Hegel into Marx, whom he additionally synthesized with Weber. There would be no Frankfurt School without him. Per just my own reading of History and Class Consciousness, I do not believe that "hegemony" is a key term for him. What he does is theorize commodity fetishism as an empirical totality under the heading of reification, which he presents as the form of false consciousness that must be overcome by a genuine class consciousness.

None of that (of course!) is at all on you to add, but is just to say that he theorizes independently and in a significantly different way what is at least more-or-less the same phenomenon as Gramsci. This is low on my to-do list because I don't have a great source ready to hand, but I'll add a section on him at some point in the future if no one beats me to it.

I don't have any proposals with respect to section headings and organization—other than that I think we should continue to keep it chronological, absent a strong reason to do otherwise. We should probably also remove the maintenance template added in response to the addition of Trotsky. The way that he is treated in the lead should probably be adjusted as well to avoid overstating his influence on the Western tradition stemming from Lukaćs and Gramsci.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead did follow body until someone decided that the title of the page referenced all of Marxist cultural theory, because they didn't understand that the title was actually a way of avoiding the Neologism "Cultural Marxism" whose primary topic was a conspiracy theory, and hence problematic under WP:NEO. This was one of the reasons the original Cultural Marxism page was deleted, as per the AfD, and one of the reasons that title can't be used (because it was salted WP:SALT).

So a much more efficient and effective way to make the lead follow the body, would be to delete the sections that go against the purpose of the page up until now (eg. everything under the "Historical Approaches" section), and rename the page.

What your proposing (re-writing the lead to fit new additions that have been made to the body) would break it's relevance to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page, and drastically change the direction of the page. So it seems, we really have an issue with the title of the current page, which should perhaps be changed to "Gramscian cultural analysis".

Rather than straining to make additions to the page, and risking turning it into a coatrack for any Marxist past or present who remotely touches on, or mentions culture (regardless of whether those comments formed a solid theory or mode of analysis), I move that we simply re-title the page. That way we can keep the current lead, and majority of the contents, and avoid recreating the Western Marxism page or making a WP:coatrack here. After all it's clear neither of us have time for a large amount of copy editing right now.

Do you oppose this path forwards? If so, it may be a time for an RfC, to take the burden of deciding the fate of this page off our shoulders, and we can have it instead put on the wider community where it perhaps belongs. But if you don't oppose this path forwards, I'm happy to discuss what the appropriate naming should be, and then to get that done. 101.115.143.188 (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary to what? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of the term "Hegemony" and the idea that culture is "mechanically reproduced". As per the lead. eg. Gramscian marxist analysis as being a landmark or watershed that altered the history of Marxist analysis from then on. 101.115.130.228 (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the 1920s and the 1930s. But the 2 subsections of «Historical approaches» are about the 1920s and the 1930s too («Marxist-Leninist analysis of culture during the 1920s and 1930s», «In Literature and Revolution [1924], Leon Trotsky»), so your titles are incorrect. If you want to distinguish groups/persons who carried Marxist cultural analysis and groups/persons who carried something similar but different, then a correct title would be «Similar approaches» instead of «Historical approaches». Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This raises the question of why we have historical approaches at all, like Trotsky and Marxist-Leninism just isn't a classification The Frankfurt School and post-Gramscian cultural theory fits into.

People have just added that to the page because they've looked at the title and assumed it belongs here. So the question is - does it? We could change the name of the page to resolve this, or just allow the page to be a WP:coatrack of Marxists who have discussed culture. 101.115.130.228 (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

«This raises the question of why we have historical approaches at all» => The section was titled «Development of theory» from the creation of the article in 2020 to Special:Diff/1208602111 in february 2024. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point the article has become a coatrack. It now starts with Leon Trotsky (for some reason), being classed as a "main author" (of what?) along side Gramsci, The Frankfurt School, who specifically said they wanted to be "equidistant from Marxism, and Capitalism" [5], and The Birmingham School, which was in part founded by Richard Hoggart who expressed an aversion to Marxism [6]. The page has two side bars. It has tacked on sections at the end for Marxist-Leninism, and the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. The title of the page is clearly too broad for what it was intended to be (what the lead section describes, or once described), and we now have too many editors trying to go in too many different directions with it.

In short it's become an unmanageable WP:coatrack and should probably be deleted. 101.115.130.228 (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of theorists on this page, weren't Marxists. Many explicitly weren't Marxists (as per the previous section of this talk page)... they were NEO-Marxists at best, and some weren't even that. Thus, it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to be labeling and categorizing thinkers, theorists, and historical figures, as Marxist when they weren't Marxists. Getting basic categorization correct isn't too much to ask, and isn't unreasonable. These thinkers really shouldn't be bookended by Trotsky and Marxist-leninism as if that was their domain. 101.115.130.228 (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Etymological fallacy. It doesn't matter whether these people were Marxists, but that they were identified as cultural Marxists. The West Indies isn't actually off the coast of India, but we can refer to people as West Indian. TFD (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Trotsky and "Marxist Leninism" was never identified as "cultural Marxism". Gramscian cultural analysis was (eg. people influenced by Gramsci, like The Frankfurt School, The Birminham School, and E.P Thompson). "Marxist cultural analysis" is just Wikipedia's term, due to "Cultural Marxism" being most well known as a right wing WP:NEO Neologism. So someone randomly chose an alternative they thought matched enough. But they didn't foresee the consequences.

Trying to preserve the term "Marxist cultural analysis" when it's just Wikipedia's arbitrary choice for the article (eg. it's our choice, not the prevalent academic term for Gramscians) doesn't make any sense. Wikipedia's chosen term, isn't accurate... I agree the page is essentially supposed to be about "cultural Marxism" (The Frankfurt School, The Birminham School, and E.P Thompson) - but Trotsky and the section for "Marxist Leninism" don't belong here then, and shouldn't be included.

They've been included because the page title Wikipedia has landed on, is too general. It should be changed to "Gramscian cultural analysis" (and the redirect on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory updated accordingly). WITHOUT doing THAT, you have a general sounding page title, that doesn't retain its original function. So it includes a section on Trotsky, and Marxist-leninism for no real good reason (other than the arbitrary page title WP:NEO, allowing them to be included, because it's now a broader topic than it should be.117.102.133.36 (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural hegemony is averaging less than 1 view/day and could be cannibalized to improve coverage of Gramsci in this area. I'm not sure why, though, you think this article is properly about him and his heirs/successors/whatever. Why not just let it be whatever is covered in an introductory cultural studies course on Marxist theory?

The problem is that the body is underdeveloped and doesn't appear to follow any particular secondary literature. My approach would be to look at a few anthologies or introductory overview sources. The figures or schools that receive the most attention in the most of them are what should be covered here. Surely this would include precursors such as Marx himself and perhaps Trotsky as well.

But no one is asking me for an assignment...so, over and out.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stated directly above that several of the thinkers/groups listed weren't particularly Marxist, and can best be described as neo-Marxist OR LESS. Such as Hoggart (of The Birmingham School) whose described in academic sources as having an aversion to Marxism [7]... and The Frankfurt School who are widely understood to have been critical of both Capitalism AND orthodox Marxism, wanting to be (as the internet encyclopedia of philosophy page for Adorno states) equidistant and critical of both systems ("The final break with orthodox Marxism occurred with the Frankfurt School’s coming to condemn the Soviet Union as a politically oppressive system. Politically the Frankfurt School sought to position itself equidistant from both Soviet socialism and liberal capitalism. The greater cause of human emancipation appeared to call for the relentless criticism of both systems.").

So to proclaim them as a major part of MARXIST cultural analysis, is a falsification of their position. This (along with my other complaints to you about Trosky's inclusion) is precisely why I don't think the page title is appropriate, and is in fact, a mischaracterization of the bulk of the authors being used (eg. from The Frankfurt School, and Birmingham School).

Saying "we can just add more thinkers" doesn't resolve the problems with their inclusion. Removing Trotsky and this silly little stub section about "Marxist-lenism" and renaming the page to Gramscian cultural analysis DOES resolve these issues (and is a lot easier, doesn't require handing out assignments, or cannibalising other pages).

P.S Wikipedia isn't about the popularity or view count of pages, saying "this page gets less views, so we should canibalise it" goes against being here to WP:BUILD and encyclopedia, which is suppose to be a repository of authoritative knowledge, not a popularity contest, or a website for only the knowledge which is popular or widely viewed/clicked/desirable. 117.102.149.13 (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support development of this article's coverage of Gramsci. Copying from the article I mentioned would be one very easy way to do this, and I'm sure the original contributors would be happy to expand the reach of their work. (For instance, the Frankfurt School section was lifted from my own rewrite of the lead to that article. My reaction was basically just "Lazy, but sure, fine—I did a decent job with that sentence.")

Although I will probably check in on this article from time-to-time, I am unfollowing. The discussion here is too rarely about improving the actual article. Those reading this should be aware that I am extremely unlikely to support renaming or deleting this article. Please don't ask. Feel free, though, tag me in any discussion about improving the article.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve trimmed Hoggart. There are no non-Marxist thinkers now taking up space. Frankfurt School were Marxist; they broke with orthodox Marxism not with Marxism. Have also slightly expanded Gramsci. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn’t expand Gramsci. I expanded content about him in the Birmingham sdxifoj. His section could still do with more adding. I also expanded Frankfurt section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, don't make the article flow better or easier to read - and it's not a good idea to try to remove Hoggart as if he wasn't part of The Birmingham School when he (along with Raymond Williams) was one of the two founding members. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP comment seems to assume that the scope of this page is (or ought to be) "Gramscian cultural analysis", but that doesn't reflect reality or this article's sources. Of the main groups discussed in the article, only the Birmingham School is (mostly) Gramscian. In so far as the Frankfurt School share a common intellectual heritage, that would be Lukacs (e.g., his Hegelian Marxism), not Gramsci. And I can't think of any of the Marxist Humanists who carry any particular Gramscian influence (though they were all by definition Marxists, and some were also Hegelian).

The IP comment also carries the odd implication that Soviet Marxism and/or "Orthodox Marxism" are the real Marxism, but when it comes to cultural analysis that simply isn't the case. The question whether Frankfurt or Birmingham scholars performed Marxist analysis of culture (a concept that includes what some more nitpicky writers have called Marxisant analysis) - well, that's a question for the literature, and to the best of my knowledge the literature says that they did. Newimpartial (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretending Gramsci and Hegel are somehow competing schools is a false dichotomy. Most Gramscians are Hegelians. The polemics of class politics is kind of ingrained in the idea of hegemony, that there might be a popular or ruling class culture, then a working class culture that competes with it. That's obviously a Hegelian position Gramsci is taking. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This allegation that Gramsci was a Hegelian, and that his thought somehow paralleled that of Lukacs who influenced the first generation of the Frankfurt School, is unsupported by evidence and looks to be WP:OR. Newimpartial (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well, @Newimpartial the critical theorists are now apparently cast as Orthodox Marxists, and Hoggart has been removed from The Birmingham School - as per the thread immediate above this one ("I’ve trimmed Hoggart"). Immediately below this one, you have Patrick saying he wants to put Trotsky back in. Have fun with all this re-writing of history, it's what you wanted for the "Critical Theorists" isn't it? 101.115.128.217 (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial @Patrick - so you've both made these weird additions to the page then run away? You've created a quagmire but don't want to defend it here? You just want to recreate the article on Western Marxism, cast founders of Critical Theory as just simple Marxists, not particularly doing a new kind of cultural analysis: a Gramscian cultural analysis. But instead lump them in with Marx, Lenin, Trotsky... Stalin? Mao? Where are you guys drawing the line on this - if anywhere? Basically you're saying - the modern left are communists. Not in so many words, but you're essentially saying: They have the same theories and use the same form of analysis AS COMMUNISTS (which ignores their LARGE BODIES OF CRITICISM OF SOVIET MARXISM AND ITS CULTURE)...

...you're saying, they don't need to appeal to hegemony, and that's not a particular characteristic of their pursuit, they're just Marxists, just like Trotsky, Lenin, Mao... that's what YOU TWO specific authors/editors have argued and supported on this page. Now you're just running away. Just lumping the founders of modern left-wing theory, with the indefensible nature of Leninism, Maoism, and Stalinism, and then running away as if that's right? That's OUTRAGEOUS is what it is, tantamount to little more than VANDALISM. There's no reason for a Western Marxism coatrack to be recreated here.... and if you're not going to argue these points when there's CLEAR AND OBVIOUS AND EXTENSIVE OBJECTIONS, and REASONABLE SOURCE BASED ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT! Then I see no reason your personal opinions (and that's what they are) should hold sway here. Especially and particularly if you're not going to do the copy writing to make clearer your distinctions, or why say, Mao's cultural analysis might be different from Habermas' - if you're just going to do the damage and run away without addressing these things, these arguments AGAINST what you've done, well that's not really a consensus. Consensus is formed by ARGUMENTATION, NOT THE POPULAR VOTE. 101.115.145.140 (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I do not understand this comment. My actual position is that this article needs to follow the high-quality sources (i.e., scholarship) on the various Marxist traditions offering analysis of culture, in some rough proportionality to the way those traditions are covered in this scholarship.

By my reading of that scholarship, most of the Marxist analyses scholars incorporate when discussing this topic take the form of "critique", including Hegelian Marxist (Frankfurt School), Gramscian, and Marxist Humanist traditions (only a portion of which would normally be considered as "Western Marxism"). Some scholars incorporate Marxist theories of culture from before Lukacs and Gramsci, potentially including classical Marxist, Orthodox, and Leninist or Trotskyite approaches. Likewise, I believe some scholars include such later developments as Critical Theory (post-Marcuse), Socialist Feminist analysis, and Laclau&Mouffe-style post-Marxist approaches to cultural critique.

In my view, all of these elements belong here to the extent that scholarship supports their inclusion. It is my impression that scholarship does not notably support the inclusion of explicitly Stalinist or Maoist approaches, so I'm not at the moment convinced that they should be included (I say "avowedly" here to pre-empt arguments that "X scholar was a member of a 3rd International party/promoted Maoist causes and therefore should be excluded based on their political affiliation" - I don't see those facts as relevant to determining what contributions are or aren't part of an intellectual tradition).

Also, I am deeply puzzled by the reference here to CLEAR AND OBVIOUS AND EXTENSIVE OBJECTIONS - objections to what? If the allegation is that clear, obvious and extensive objections have been raised to the existence of this article - well, that issue isn't really on topic for this Talk page. If these supposedly "clear" objections are focused on some more specific aspect, I'd really appreciate being told what aspect that is.

The final confusion I have about this comment is that it treats Western Marxism as though it were all Gramscian and based on the concept of hegemony, which is demonstrably false and therefore makes it harder for me to triangulate where the IP's comment is intended to lead. Newimpartial (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with NewImpartial. OP in this thread is also pretty abusive. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already told you (and it's noted in the copy of the article) that multiple authors referenced on the page aren't Marxists. The majority are Neo-Marxists, and some are explicitly not-Marxist (eg. Hoggart, Habermas).

It's also clear that ALL of the theorists are from or related to the Gramscian school of cultural analysis. The only one that wasn't - was Trotsky, and he was correctly hat noted, as perhaps not being relevant.

He's not relevant (was not a Gramscian, nor was he particularly doing a cultural analysis, he was writing about a Utopian vision he had for culture). The lead has always referenced components of Gramscian cultural analysis. This mischaracterization of these thinkers, has now been corrected by moving the page.

HOWEVER - I whole heartly support you, and who ever else is interested in the project, creating another page which is more widely focused on Marxist cultural theory in general. But that's never been the scope of this page. The theorists on this page, have always centered around Gramsci, hegemony, and the eras in which the mechanical reproduction of culture by industry became noteworthy, under the term the culture industry.

Again I want to ENTHUSIASTICALLY ENDORSE, your idea of having a wider page that covers all strains of Marxist cultural analysis. However that was never the intention behind this page. As soon as this page was created, it was used as a hatnote on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and is referenced on the talk page there, MANY TIMES, as being the more realistic take on The Frankfurt School, Gramsci, and the other thinkers who were interested in the effects of hegemony in the Culture Industry. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP makes a number of mistaken statements here, including that As soon as this page was created, it was used as a hatnote on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. This isn't so. And none of the claims made by the IP qualify as "clear" or "obvious"; they read rather as an idiosyncratic WP:IDONTLIKEIT objection to mainstream scholarship on this topic.

As noted previously, the argument that all those discussed in this article (except Trotsky) are Gramscians is blatantly false; so is the assumption that "Neo-Marxist" and "Marxist" are mutually exclusive categories. Therefore, I have reverted the undiscussed page move, for which I have seen no support on Talk apart from the IP. Newimpartial (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well NewImpartial, now that you've made your bed, you'll have to sleep in it.

Soon this page will become a WP:Coatrack and there'll be not possibility of drawing a line for what can or can't be included. It will become less and less of an appropriate hat note for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page.

...and by the way, this page was actually created from a DRAFT of a Cultural Marxism article - which can be found here[8] - but for some reason you yourself blanked. So whether you admit it or not - this page was originally written to only include thinkers relevant to that term. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While there were problems with early drafts of this article - which I tried to address with my edits of November 2020 - I don't think any version of it was especially dependent on material from Jobrot's draft, which I blanked after they became inactive. Newimpartial (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have particularly strong feelings about it, but I would support restoring the Trotsky material, perhaps as a "precursor" theorist. Aside from being a major figure in his own right, he's at least sometimes anthologized on cultural stuff. Patrick (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well Patrick, you, Newimpartial, and BobFromBrockley currently have the consensus. So you're free to add back in Trotsky, and whatever other Marxists you see fit at your leisure. I'll be stepping away from the two articles on here I've been involved with. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is my impression that scholarship does not notably support the inclusion of explicitly Stalinist or Maoist approaches. @Newimpartial

Stalin and Mao didn't have notable approaches to cultural analysis? You are aware of the Cultural Revolution right? Or Socialist Realism. How does that not fit with the current title, which is apparently supposed to be a catch all for Marxist cultural theories. Why do Mao and Stalin fall out of that purview? Plenty has been written on the techniques of cultural manipulation performed by both Mao and Stalin. Why shouldn't the scholarship around Stalin's Speech (via his representative) Andrei Zhdanov, to the 1934 Soviet Writers Congress [9], be included as an expression of his "Marxist cultural analysis"????? Like, if you want the page title to be about that - there's no limits between Stalin and Habermas. Nothing in between them. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, notable approaches to cultural analysis does not, in my view, equate to a catch all for Marxist cultural theories. I suspect you aren't a fan of the term "critique", but there is an evident difference between the analysis of culture performed by a Benjamin or a Gramsci, and "cultural theories" of Stalinist or Maoist varieties - or even Constructivist or Situationist cultural theories (which I personally find much more amenable). This isn't a matter of Marxist critique=ILIKEIT and Marxist cultural creation=IDONTLIKEIT, either; I really like Constructivism, as should be clear from my tattoos, and I find a lot to like about Situationism as well. But they don't belong here, because while they are cultural projects they aren't in any important sense cultural analysis.

You can read Billy Bragg as E P Thompson applied to cultural creation, and that doesn't make Bragg cultural analysis, either - but Thompson definitely is.

Also, as an aside, to preempt some of the discussion in the IP's more recent section: none of the choices to be made in this article's content and terminology ought to be settled by leaning into any supposed conventions emerging from disciplinary sociology. The best scholarship on Marxism is basically not by sociologists, while the best scholarship produced out of the sociological imagination in this area is by political sociologists, who do not generally observe those conventions. More fundamentally, the idea that Marxist ideas can be vivisected and divided into separate impacts on economic, political and social thought is absurd; Marxist cultural analysis is a good example of an instance where political economy (q.v. "mechanical reproduction"), sociology and philosophy intermingle - or rather, they cannot really be distinguished at all. Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My god I find Billy Bragg to be cringe worthy. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody created a page at Cultural Marxism (disambiguation) last week, pointing to this page and the conspiracy theory by that name. How do other editors feel about this? Newimpartial (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a multi-page WP:CROSS-POST [10][11][12]. I suggest moving the discussion to Talk:Cultural_Marxism_(disambiguation). 87.116.177.103 (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Marxism (disambiguation) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm porting my sources over from the AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cultural_Marxism_(disambiguation) because I'm sick of people saying there's no academic backing for my viewpoint. That viewpoint being that whilst Critical Theory originated from Marxist principles, it is not its self a Marxist philosophy. That's why it's called Critical Theory - because it represented a BREAK from Marxist and even Neo-Marxist approaches:

• Source 1 - "Hoggart’s political viewpoints were not outwardly expressed until much later in life, and make clear his aversion to Marxism"
• Source 2 - "The final break with orthodox Marxism occurred with the Frankfurt School’s coming to condemn the Soviet Union as a politically oppressive system. Politically the Frankfurt School sought to position itself equidistant from both Soviet socialism and liberal capitalism"
• Source 3 - "This is Habermas' basic judgment on Marx: Marx's praxis philosophy is still a kind of subjective philosophy, while behind the concept of “labor” in praxis philosophy is still a single rationality: cognitive-instrumental rationality." (hence why we don't say Habermas is a Marxist on his page - because he wasn't.)
• Source 4 - A whole article about The Frankfurt School's anti-communism, and their involvement with the CIA (even listing the small amount of work Horkhiemer did for the Congress for Cultural Freedom).
• Source 5 - "Phil Slater traces the extent, and ultimate limits, of the Frankfurt School's professed relation to the Marxian critique of political economy... ...He shows that, in particular, the analysis of psychic and cultural manipulation was central to the young rebels' theoretical armour, but that even here, the lack of economic class analysis seriously restricts the critical edge of the Frankfurt School's theory."
• Source 6, page 10 - "Nothing intrinsicaly Marxist, that is to say, defines "cultural Marxism," save for the evocation or hope of a postbourgeois society... ...The mistake of those who see one position sequeing into another is to confuse contents with personalities."
• Source 7 - "The Frankfurt School, known more appropriately as Critical Theory"
• Source 8 - "As Daniel Morley explains, these were the pseudo-Marxist ideas of the so-called Frankfurt School... ...Their lives are spent in the ivory towers of academia, churning out anti-Marxist verbiage."
• Source 9 - "There are two distinct periods in the work of the Frankfurt school....The second period is that of the postwar years, in which there was a social consensus that was formed under the umbrella of the cold war and rising prosperity (what the French call Les Trente Glorieuses) and in which it was declared that class and class struggle had come to an end. Frankfurt school theories about commodification, alienation, reification and false consciousness were revived by the 1968 movement as a way of explaining away the apparent passivity of the working class. Indeed, it was during this period that the working class began to be seen as part of the problem rather than the solution. The forward march of labour was halted, social democratic and communist parties accommodated to the new consensus and, as the philosopher André Gorz had it, it was "farewell to the working class"."
• Source 10 - "A considerable part of the leading German intelligentsia, including Adorno, have taken up residence in the ‘Grand Hotel Abyss’ which I described in connection with my critique of Schopenhauer as ‘a beautiful hotel, equipped with every comfort, on the edge of an abyss, of nothingness, of absurdity. And the daily contemplation of the abyss between excellent meals or artistic entertainments, can only heighten the enjoyment of the subtle comforts offered.’ (The fact that Ernst Bloch continued undeterred to cling to his synthesis of ‘left’ ethics and ‘right’ epistemology (e.g. cf. Frankfurt 1961) does honour to his strength of character but cannot modify the outdated nature of his theoretical position. To the extent that an authentic, fruitful and progressive opposition is really stirring in the Western world (including the Federal Republic), this opposition no longer has anything to do with the coupling of ‘left’ ethics with ‘right’ epistemology.)"
• Source 11 - "As is reasonably well known, the early years after the Institute’s founding seem an anomalous period in retrospect. Gerlach’s untimely death in October 1922 led to the appointment of Carl Grünberg as the Institute’s first director. He ensured that the Institute’s Marxism would assume a fairly orthodox cast. Martin Jay, citing a letter from a student at the Institute during the mid-twenties, characterizes it as ‘unimaginative’, suggesting that the student’s attitudes would ‘be shared by the Institute’s later leaders, who were to comprise the Frankfurt School. . . ’.footnote8 However that may be, the research carried on prior to Horkheimer’s directorship scarcely corresponds to the School’s conventional image. "

So no there's not some lack of sources on this. It's not some aberration or unsourced claim to say The Frankfurt School and other strains of Critical Theory (such as The Birmingham School) weren't Marxist in their mode of analysis. They were breaking from Marxism. They're Sociologists, NOT political ideologists (the same can be said for The Birmingham School).

To put them back there, and re-label them as Marxists, IS the position that lacks sources. Ergo - they don't belong on this page as it is currently titled. It's not some absurd claim to say they weren't Marxists (even if they started out with Marxist principles as a key influence/guide, that doesn't warrant putting them under such a heading). The real absurd and unsourced action here, is filing them next to Trotsky as fellow Marxists, or trimming the amount of mentions of people from these schools if they're not Marxist enough to fit in with the current page title. That's absurd. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks a lot like the Gish gallop approach I have seen so many times on this page - the sources also do not support the claim of the section title ("it is NOT academic to label The Frankfurt School as Marxists") nor so they support the conclusion ("not Marxist enough to fit in with the current page title").

Many of these sources say nothing whatsoever about whether Frankfurt School thinkers were Marxists, and the ones that do are overwhelmingly sectarian tracts rather than peer-reviewed scholarly sources.

As far as "Critical Theory" is concerned, (1) this isn't used as a synonym for the Frankfurt School in its first generation, and (2) this article doesn't claim all of Critical Theory as Marxist cultural analysis. So I'm not seeing any there, there. Newimpartial (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So when you said we follow the sources - you meant only when it's convenient for you. I wonder why you think they were called Critical Theorists if they were in fact just Marxists.

"not Marxist enough to fit in with the current page title" was in reference to Hoggart's mention being "trimmed" from The Birmingham School because sources (that you're now saying aren't valid because there's too many) state his aversion to Marxism. Sounds like you're conflicted on when a source counts and when it doesn't. So when there's not enough of them, there's not enough of them, and when there's too many of them it's the Gish gallop, rather than a widely accepted viewpoint. Again I ask: Where are your sources saying they're Marxists? You've presented ZERO sources, I've apparently presented too many, from too a wide array of people. What a hypocrisy.

Like there's a reason Peter Thompson (director of the Centre for Ernst Bloch Studies at the University of Sheffield), The New Left Review, Lukács, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and two academics (eg. the sources that aren't "Sectarian") are agreeing with the three that perhaps could be described that way (Marxist.com, thephilosophicalsalon.com, and historian Paul Gottfried)... it's because it's a widely held viewpoint. I don't see how including 3 authors from outside the left/academia, suddenly invalidates that, or makes it a Gish Gallop. It doesn't. You just don't like that it's a widely held viewpoint across multiple different perspectives (most of whom are left wing academic sources). What you're really saying is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Again, all of this is in defense of a poorly titled page. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the debate currently sits. 8 reliable sources (eg. The director of the Centre for Ernst Bloch Studies at the University of Sheffield. The New Left Review. Regular peer reviews/edited academics and authors). 3 less reliable sources (Marxist.com, Thephilosophicalsalon.com, Paul Gottfried). BOTH groups of sources all express general agreement. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are misconstruing most of these sources - the viewpoint you are attributing to them is at best a mistake. None of the higher-quality sources you've cited actually present the Franfurt School as non-Marxist. Newimpartial (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 most definately says Hoggart had an aversion to Marxism.

Progressives using Marxist frameworks for social aims, but they don't push for anything particularly Marxist. They critique Capitalism as per Source 2's statement on their positioning themselves equidistant between the two systems.

Source 3 says correctly that Habermas wasn't particularly Marxist. Hence us not calling him a Marxist on his Wikipedia article.

'Source 4 I can understand dismissing.

Source 5 does explicitly note their lack of economic class analysis, because they're Sociologists, not Ideologues or Marxist political theorists (as I've been saying). Source 9 (which is from an expert on them) concurs with this view. So these two quality sources are backing each other up.

Source 6, page 10 I can understand dismissing.

Source 7 is an encyclopedic reference which correctly positions them - unlike our article.

Source 8 I can understand dismissing.

Source 9 already mentioned above, but again, Direct of the Ernst Bloch society is a very relevant field.

Source 10 whilst is WP:Primary and a well known criticism, so I can understand dismissing.

Source 11 is a very credible source. The Frankfurt School veering well away from Marxism (particularly under Horkhiemer) is a well known part of their history.

Making those cuts, that's still 6 WP:RS sources, which are definitely saying what I'm claiming they're saying. It's there in black an white. I find Source 9 PARTICULARLY condemning of the current page because it's from a very credible expert, and it's stating a well known fact about The Frankfurt School's post WW2 turn away from Marxism. This is also discussed in sources 2, 11, and 5.

So to claim these well known turns didn't occur within The Frankfurt School - leading them from being essentially a study group of Marx, through being Marxian Sociologists, to being so far removed from that (in the post-WW2 period) that they became "Critical Theorists" with, as multiple sources note, a separation from Class Politics and what's understood as a Marxist politics. This is just how they evolved. This is the history of The Frankfurt School - whose main notability to English Speakers - IS their post-WW2 phase!

You can deny it in short form terse responses (without any sources of your own).... but that doesn't stop it being there in black and white. I'm merely here to make sure your hypocrisy in passing The Frankfurt School off as Marxists, is noted for the record. 101.115.147.34 (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good first purge of the sources the IP presented originally, but let's look at the ones that remain:

• source 1 presents Hoggart as anti-Marxist, so editors have removed him from this article.
• source 2 says nothing about Adorno being anti-Marxist, but presents an opposition to "orthodox Marxism". The key word there being "orthodox".
• source 3 says nothing about Habermas being opposed to Marxism; it presents Habermas's interptetation and critique of Marx.
• source 5 is a reprint of a 1977 publication; I don't see anything in it arguing that the Frankfurt School isn't Marxist.
• source 7, once again, presents Frankfurt School theorists in opposition to "orthodox Marxism", not as anti-Marxist.
• source 9 doesn't present any opinion that I can see on whether the Frankfurt School was or wasn't Marxist.
• source 11 doesn't identify the Frankfurt School as non-Marxist or anti-Marxist, though it does have something to say about the opposition between these scholars and Soviet Communism.

So from this review, I am counting zero sources treating the Frankfurt School as external to or opposed to Marxism. In their conclusion above, the IP has also thrown in Class Politics and what's understood as a Marxist politics as though those phrases included an operational definition of what counts as "Marxist" - but, ever since Marx's "I am not a Marxist", the actual use of the term has been more nuanced than that. The sources this article uses clearly treat most Frankfurt and Birmingham School writers as participating in Marxist traditions. Newimpartial (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source 1 presents Hoggart as anti-Marxist, so editors have removed him from this article.

Yes, you've decided to remove one of the two founding members of The Birmingham School, because their views are inconvenient to your argument. This is Revisionist History and shows you're not here to WP:BUILD and accurate encyclopedia.

source 2 says nothing about Adorno being anti-Marxist, but presents an opposition to "orthodox Marxism". The key word there being "orthodox".

Orthodox Marxism is generally what Marxism means. When you say someone was a Marxist, or doing something Marxist, it generally refers to Orthodox Marxism, rather than Neo-Marxism, or Post-Marxism.

source 3 says nothing about Habermas being opposed to Marxism; it presents Habermas's interptetation and critique of Marx.

A critique, is somewhat of an opposing statement. But again, I didn't say he was OPPOSED to Marxism, I said: he wasn't a Marxist.

source 5 is a reprint of a 1977 publication; I don't see anything in it arguing that the Frankfurt School isn't Marxist.

That's why I bolded it for you. It says they had a "lack of economic class analysis" - which is generally consider core to Marxism, and being a Marxist. Which is what the page's title is suggesting they were, which is why I have an issue with the title.

source 7, once again, presents Frankfurt School theorists in opposition to "orthodox Marxism", not as anti-Marxist.

I never said they were anti-Marxists, I said they weren't Political Marxists as the page title suggests. Source 7 is use to note that they're more appropriately called Critical Theorists, which is a step away from Marxism.

source 9 doesn't present any opinion that I can see on whether the Frankfurt School was or wasn't Marxist.

It says they dropped working class politics? Which again, is a pretty core aspect of the philosophy known as Marxism. Sorry I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here - we're both talking about Marxism right? You do know, what that is correct? It's just between you saying, it doesn't involve economic class politics, and now saying it doesn't involve working class politics.... it just seems like you're ignoring the fundamental tenants of what Marxism is - in order to present some idea that anything can be Marxist? (except Hoggart)... so I really don't know what you think qualifies. Perhaps you're leaning towards Andrew Brietbart's statement that it's all about "oppressor vs oppressed" dynamics and they can be applied anywhere with any meaning anyone decides. Which I'd suggest, is more post-modern than Marxist.

source 11 doesn't identify the Frankfurt School as non-Marxist or anti-Marxist, though it does have something to say about the opposition between these scholars and Soviet Communism.

It's about them veering away from conventional Marxism.

Anyways, it seems you have your own personal and very unorthodox understanding of what the word Marxism means. You've not offered to change the page to Neo-Marxist cultural analysis for instance. So yeah, your definition of "Marxism" (just that single word) doesn't seem to correspond to any sources, other than your own personal WP:OR opinion. When you remove class politics, and economic politics, and working class politics from having any relation to the word - you're steadily approaching absurdism. Which would explain attempting to erase Hoggart from The Birmingham School. It's all just a bit ridiculous don't you think?

I certainly wouldn't characterize it as reasonable. I'd suggest you maybe even take a step back and think about some of what I've said above. 117.102.138.58 (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have my own personal and very unorthodox understanding of what the word Marxism means - to define it I would start, for example, with what Leszek Kolakowski means by the term.

You are the one bringing in a priori assumptions (seemingly from an undergraduate course in Sociology), assumptions that don't apply to the topic of this article. If you don't understand what Orthodox Marxism means, read Kolakowsli - that really isn't a me problem. If you think Neo-Marxism isn't Marxism, read Frederic Jameson - again, not a me problem. If you think Marxism has to involve working class politics, then there are many Marxisms that you don't understand, and that is once again not a me problem. If you think Marxism has to rely on economic class analysis then, depending on what is meant by "economic", you may just have excluded Gramsci from Marxism - again, not a me problem. If you think Marxism can be equated with conventional Marxism then you don't understand what this literature is trying to say - really not a me problem.

To put it simply, IP, you have assembled a list of sources that don't exclude these various figures and schools from Marxism - the sources don't say these aren't Marxists - and you then interptet the sources as supporting your "personal understanding" that they aren't Marxists, because of your own priors. On Wikipedia we call that kind of mental operation WP:SYNTH, and we aren't allowed to do that.

As far as you're not here to WP:BUILD and accurate encyclopedia (sic.) - That's an unsubstantiated WP:ASPERSION and personal attack - don't do that. This isn't the article on The Birmingham School - if the sources shown that one thread of that school is influenced primarily by Marx and Gramsci and another thread isn't, then one thread belongs in this article and the other does not. That isn't revisionism; it's simple plain-eyed vision, based on sources. Newimpartial (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

because of your own priors mother fucker, you don't know jack shit about my priors. 117.102.150.254 (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But yes, obviously Marxism gets called something else when it has less of a focus on economics, class, and the defense of the working class. Which is exactly why we have terms like Neo-Marxism and Post-Marxism (which are more accurately describe the current theorists listed on the page).

Which as I've said to you repeatedly, is the very reason why The Frankfurt School theorists became known as Critical Theorists, rather than Marxists.

Your lack of basic comprehension is the issue here. I've provided sources in line with what I'm saying. You have not. I've suggest a mid-way compromise (Neo-Marxist cultural analysis) you have ignored this.

This is not a me problem. It's a YOU problem, and YOUR failure to WP:LISTEN, and to make assumptions about me instead. End of story. 117.102.150.254 (talk) 11:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's lack of civility is certainly a them problem, and is verging on becoming disruptive IMO.

IP, you seem to believe that neo-Marxism isn't a kind of Marxism. No sources presented here support this. The sources you've provided are only in line with what you're saying if the reader assumes what you assume, e.g., that "Marxist" refers to a politics and not social theory, that "neo-Marxist" and "Marxist" are mutually exclusive, etc. The RS you've cited here don't actually do any of this work for you. When we have a choice between what sources actually say and what editors fervently believe, we have to follow the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, another editor has already noted the "abusive" tone of the IP. The only reason I haven't said anything myself is because I'm involved and because accusations of incivility are expressly discouraged by the civility policy itself.

This is also count three of editors (you and me) explicitly expressing concerns about unnecessary disruption. This is the point at which admins seriously consider blocks/bans without additional notice.

If anyone wants to involve another party, I would support that. My suggestion, however, would be that we both just walk away. If the IP takes this as license to sabotage the article, that will be very easy to correct. (If they change tune, however, and are willing to make improvements without revising the basic topic of the article that would of course be most welcome. Editing Wikipedia is not an all-or-nothing endeavor.)

Oh, and IP, you might want to consider striking the comment addressing another editor as a "mother fucker". It really makes you look bad.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars who take "Marxist principles as a key influence/guide" are generally described by the adjective "Marxist". This doesn't by itself align them with an particular political platform if that is your concern. There's plenty of room for internal diversity. Patrick (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Sociology, the term would at best be "Marxian" - and only in reference to ideas that are explicitly stated as Marxist. They're usually just called Sociologists, or as sources above note: Critical Theorists. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nonsense argument. In mainstream scholarship, "Marxian" and "Marxisant" are strains of "Marxist", not mutually exclusive categories. And "Critical Theorist" was applied to the Frankfurt School as a retronym, not as a result of them being "not Marxist enough".

As far as your list of sources goes, IP, the only quality sources you listed are nuancing the relationship between various later thinkers and prior Marxisms, not creating a mutual opposition. The only ones doing that are the poor/sectarian sources.

To be clear, not all Critical Theorists are Marxist, and not all Cultural Studies scholars are Marxist. But the first generation of the Frankfurt School and the golden generation of the Birmingham School definitely are - according to the sources. And so are the Marxist Humanists that you so conveniently ignore. Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nonsense argument. In mainstream scholarship, "Marxian" and "Marxisant" are strains of "Marxist"

In mainstream POLITICAL sources, YES. In mainstream SOCIOLOGY sources, NO. Because Marx's politics is considered divorced from his Sociology (a discipline he was one of the 5 founders of, Comte, Marx, Spencer, Weber, Durkheim). Because as I've said above, Sociology, is not a politics. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This distinction between Marx's Politics and Sociology seems tangential to this article, which is about the analysis of culture. Also, the mental operation on behalf of the disciplinary organization of knowledge that vivisects Marx and places part of his brain into a "sociologist" jar, stacked alongside the similar-sized jars for Weber and Durkheim - well, fortunately, that isn't an approach followed by the sources used in this article (or reliable recent sources in general IMO). Newimpartial (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This distinction between Marx's Politics and Sociology seems tangential to this article, which is about the analysis of culture.

No it's not, Marx didn't spend a lot of time on the analysis of culture (beyond defining base and super structure) so once again, you're attempting to put your claims that "Marxist" is the best summation of the theorists listed is placed on a completely false argument.

Of course SOCIOLOGY is relevant to the page when most of the authors listed were SOCIOLOGISTS, and at best NEO-MARXISTS. Your persistent demand they be described as "MARXISTS" is based on JACK SHIT. You've provided NOTHING to say the current title is the best description, other than your own want to control (WP:OWN) the page, and gatekeep what happens here - all without presenting any sources, or doing any sort of encouragement of a WP:GOODFAITH approach. 117.102.150.254 (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I didn't know that—and I bet a lot of readers don't either. Do you have a source so we could add it to the article? In the humanities, the Frankfurt School (or at least the first generation) are consistently termed "Marxists". If the social sciences employ a different vocabulary, that would be nice to include. Patrick (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, as it's more just understood within Sociology. There's this [13] - but it's not specific to The Frankfurt School's sociology in particular. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think what I'm picking up on [14], is just the general vibe that isms, and ists, are political... whereas ians (eg. Wikipedians) are attempts at being apolitical or located more in theory that ideology. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about something from Marxist sociology and its sources? Addressing any disciplinary issues in the article seems like a better solution than trying to decide here who does or does not really count as Marxist. Patrick (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

seems like a better solution than trying to decide here who does or does not really count as Marxist. I would go one step further, and suggest - maybe we shouldn't be fabricating a category here at all. Maybe we should just call them Critical Theorists, like the rest of academia does. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using the term "Critical Theorist" wouldn't be going "further". It would be replacing "Marxist" with a separate, but overlapping, category to which the Frankfurt School also belongs. It's not clear to me how this would be helpful. Some critical theorists, such as Foucault, were not Marxists.

I'll say again that I'd be happy to see you build out the coverage of Gramsci or to add material on the specifically sociological terminology and its significance.

Otherwise, I'm concerned that this conversation has veered too far away from how to improve the article. Patrick (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foucault wasn't a Critical Theorist, he's a post modernist (he notes on page 119 of this interview that he hadn't found The Frankfurt School until late in life).

In the most genuine sense, only the first generation of The Frankfurt School are Critical Theorists, that's then stemmed out a bit further to the second and third generations (which is why people like Habermas and Nancy Fraser also adopt the term) - people outside of that are "choosing" to call themselves that rather than having a necessary connection to the school of thought.

I'm trying to improve the article because I don't think the writers/thinkers listed (with the exception of Gramsci) are particularly focused on Marxism. Nor do I think there's a reasonable justification for turning this page into a WP:Coatrack for Marxist theorists - which is obviously something that is going to happen if the current name is retained. It's called custodianship. If you don't get the categories correct, you face WP:Coatrack issues down the line. This is part of being here to WP:BUILD and encyclopedia, rather than using Wikipedia to do whatever we like. As @NewImpartial has said elsewhere, we have to follow the sources. 101.115.147.34 (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your essentialist definitions are at odds with massive amounts of scholarship in the humanities.

If they represent mainstream sociological practice (or really anything non-fringe), please add a section to that effect. It would be a space within the article where you could make many of the points you've made on this talk page.

Otherwise, arguing at length against acknowledged consensus to change the established topic of the article is simply disruptive. It wastes the time of other editors and does not contribute to building a better encyclopedia. Thank-you for not edit warring, but this is still not cool.

I'm going to give Newimpartial a barnstar for their patience in actually going through, and responding individually, to way more sources than would ever be necessary to establish basic facts (and not for the first time). Patrick (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your essentialist definitions are at odds with massive amounts of scholarship in the humanities. No the scholarship (as I've provided with sources above) says they weren't Political Marxists.

There's a fundamental difference between you and NewImpartial saying that "we've addressed all that" or "the scholarship disagrees" - and what backs my argument; which is a wide range of reliable sources, ranging from peer reviewed journal articles, to books, to The Director of the Ernst Bloch Institute, to The New Left Review. All of which are very credible, all of which say specific things (which I'm quoting) stating their turn away from Marxism.

Also, I don't care who you give out Barnstars/Goldstars to. I don't care about your special relationship, you don't have to tell me you're doing these things. 117.102.138.58 (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To get a sense of what figures and what ideas are generally considered Marxist, I suggest conferring with even just a few TOCs of any general introductions or anthologies of the history of Marxist thought.

If your views are representative of any more broadly held in sociology, please by all means do add this to the article. It would also be fine to qualify the Marxism of the various figures presented here. They don't all agree about everything, and there is room for additional nuance.

We are not, however, going to purge the article everyone who flunks your arbitrary purity test, which so far appears to be complete OR.

Otherwise, once again, you are simply being disruptive, and I would ask you to please stop. Patrick (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, providing sources is not arbitrary... and no, tables of contents, aren't a good measure of anything. 117.102.150.254 (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't content looking at inclusion in anthologies, I have already suggested which monograph authors you ought to read, to understand the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you've mistakenly assumed the authority to give out reading assignments as if that's the issue. The issue is that the title isn't appropriate for the content (for the specific and current list of authors), and there are better options (and I've presented sources to that end). You'll have dream of being a lecturer or running your own book club elsewhere using some other WP:FORUM. 117.102.150.254 (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They kinda' are, actually—although of course it would be much better to actually go on and read the books (or at least the relevant sections).

Kołakowski, for instance, is great, but it's also over a thousand pages...

Also, I think at this point you may want to review WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY. Patrick (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the above discussion was about whether the Frankfurt School can be described as Marxist, issues were also raised about the article's topic and scope.

In my understanding, members of the Frankfurt School said that while Marx had study economics under capitalism, they would study culture under capitalism. This became known as cultural analysis or critical theory.

How does this article differ in scope from cultural analysis?

Part of the reason for this article was to explain the reality that was misrepresented in the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. But the conspiracy theorists have a much larger group, including unrelated topics for example Rudy Dutschke, political correctness and identity politics. I wonder how much this article appears as a rebuttal.

We should identify reliable sources for the scope of this article. TFD (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second this motion.

For my part, I have been understanding "Marxist" to include anyone standardly covered under that heading in introductory overview sources or academic histories. To me, this seems unimpeachable, and I don't understand why we're arguing about it.

The scope of "cultural analysis", however, is less clear.

I was introduced to much of the material covered in this article in undergrad courses in cultural studies, literary theory, and art criticism, and I have been orienting myself against this background. But we should be able to do better than this. I have no specific vision for the article and would welcome anything more precise. In particular, it would be nice to open the body of the article with a "Definition" section establishing scope explicitly on the basis of high-quality sources. Right now, it feels like editors (including myself) are somewhat adrift and too much just associating on the article title.

One thing I suggest we eliminate at the onset is any reference to the supposed "original intention" motivating the creation of the article vis-à-vis that idiot conspiracy theory. This has no basis in Wikipedia policy or, to the best of my knowledge, any of the relevant scholarly literature. Absent support from high-quality overview sources, I would support removing that material from the article entirely. It's an entirely separate topic that already has its own article.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article's current lead section offers six citations for this sentence, The tradition of Marxist cultural analysis has also been referred to as "cultural Marxism", and "Marxist cultural theory", in reference to Marxist ideas about culture. While that may represent an OVERCITE situation, I have no doubt that the sentence is accurate (as an "also referred to", though not as an "ever primarily referred to"). Some of these sources are of high quality. As a result, I believe the sentence in question meets the test of WP:DUE.

As far as the scope of this article in general is concerned, one convenient (albeit partial) account of the relevant thinkers and themes appears in this article (with which I have no affiliation or conflict of interest). Newimpartial (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could those citations in the lead be distributed more discursively and, ideally, be attached to individual sentences or short paragraphs to produce a "Definition" section? I hope I'm not being too persnickety, but the lead is supposed to summarize the contents of the article, not stipulate them.

We could also use this section to define Marxism as it is related to this topic. It wouldn't have occurred to me that this would be necessary, but it's a fair demand that could be easily accommodated with the support of any of a great variety of sources.

Could you email me the article you link? I don't seem to be able to access it through the Wikipedia Library. It shows up in my search, but still appears as locked.

In any case, adopting a little more of a general "cultural studies" frame seems like a promising strategy, especially since we already have more specialized articles on Marxist aesthetics and Marxist literary theory (however lame they currently are). Patrick (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending the article. I fully support its use as a base for the framing of this article. Although not familiar with the author, his CV is plenty impressive. What quibbles I have are not relevant in this context. The views expressed are, to the best of my knowledge, largely uncontroversial among experts in the field.

Is what you sent me what is freely available here[15]? If so, I think we can probably just cite to that. It has a few grammatical and typographical errors, but nothing that interferes with meaning. Patrick (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question: yes, that's the version I sent. Newimpartial (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, agreed we certainly don't want to be setting up articles to be debating with each other, although I don't think anyone is really trying to do that. Also, we have a ton of, let's say, "adjacent" articles to this one, like Western Marxism. I have no idea or opinion about whether or how they should be merged or reorganized.

I'm sure we can find a bajillion sources that at least sorta link FS to "Marxism". e.g. our article on Herbert Marcuse talks about his Marxist scholarship, etc.

Maybe we should clarify that "Marxist" doesn't mean "stuff Marx said"? It's weird, but if the sources call it "Marxist" maybe that's the best we can do. We do have "sociological analysis and interpretation of the areas of social-relation that Marx did not discuss" (emph. mine), but maybe we could be more clear? Would that address the complaint? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have at least one editor, operating under constantly shifting Australian IP addresses, who does argue with reference to the alleged intent of the article's creation (including somewhere above). Even in the event they go away, however, removing treatment of the conspiracy theory in this article might help to prevent others from raising this bogus issue.

Absent objections, I will do this myself on the grounds that it is a separate topic not covered by RS on the topic of this article.

Oh, and the massive amount of overlapping content on Wikipedia (or at least philosophy Wikipedia) drives me crazy as well. I've given up on any sort of general solution, however, just because of the vast amounts of time it would take to fix it—even assuming agreement among the editors involved. Patrick (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The references to the four sources for the existence of "Marxist cultural analysis" are unspecific. The fourth source for example merely says, "there are neo-Marxian models of cultural studies ranging from the Frankfurt School to Althusserian paradigms." (Douglas Kellner, "Cultural Studies and Social Theory: A Critical Intervention." That could be the scope of the article, but we should show that there are sources about it, rather than just sources referring to it.

Some editors, if I am correct, think the scope of the article should be anything that Marxists said about culture. That would be broader than the scope in Kellner. But to do that, we would need to show there was a body of literature about the topic, not just isolated articles about what different Marxists wrote about culture.

Also, we might consider treating the article as a "History of." TFD (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: the reason I pointed to the sentence with the six cites is because they document the use of "cultural Marxism" as a lesser synonym for the tradition of Marxist cultural analysis, not as the best evidence that the tradition exists or how it is defined.

For the latter, I would go with the many anthologies of Marxist writings about culture over the years, as well as such articles as the 2018 piece by Artz, which I linked above. Newimpartial (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that reorienting the topic of the article as an area of specialization in the interdisciplinary the field of Cultural Studies would be a good idea. Cultural Studies is something in which you can pursue a PhD—and actually attain a professorship when you're done with the degree. It's not clear to me that this is true of "Cultural Analysis".

Further, Marxism is a recognized AOS in the field (for non-academics, Area Of Specialization: the top line of your CV – you only get one area — and what appears on the department website). Patrick (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the full article that Newimpartial mentioned: Lee Artz, Traditions in Cultural Studies (2018). Can we use that as a source for guide for the scope of the article, per WP:TERTIARY?

We can also consider renaming the article, since the current title may be misleading. TFD (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I support this. I would also support changing the title of the article to "Marxist cultural studies" if others also think that would be a minor improvement. Seriously do not want to argue about it though. Patrick (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Marxism and cultural studies?" The scope could then be the relationship between Marxism/Marxists and the creation and development of cultural studies as described by writers such as Artz. TFD (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like the correct scope. What would be the advantage of that title? Most of our other articles follow the convention of "Marxist [whatever]". Patrick (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently more variety than this in article titles: Marxist sociology and Marxian economics, but also Political Marxism and Marxism and religion. Newimpartial (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. "Marxist cultural studies" sounds more natural to me, but I don't have any principled objection to "Marxism and cultural studies" if others prefer it. Patrick (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to crop up again, but:

>"Dennis Dworkin writes that "a critical moment" in the beginning of cultural studies as a field was when Richard Hoggart used the term in 1964 in founding the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) at the University of Birmingham." Cultural studies#British cultural studies.

I don't know, but perhaps that's why "Marxism and cultural studies" was being suggested, because whilst the two relate that doesn't mean Marxism has a solid claim to having done cultural studies before it was a field. Making that claim by synthesizing a "Marxist cultural studies" that includes The Frankfurt School, would be WP:OR.

Some Marxist scholars may have been involved in pre-cursors to cultural studies, such as Critical Theory, but that does not mean there was a Marxist cultural studies going on (because the field didn't exist yet). Saying that would be traveling back in time (to before it was a field) and creating it before Hoggart et al. You're all running into the exact problem we had with cultural Marxism as a term to begin with. It was never defined because of what you're all facing now. It's at best "a bunch of Freudo-Marxists that cropped up just before The New Left and cultural studies". Which is a pretty loose idea for an article.

Cultural studies is critical of the social and economic frameworks culture is created within. But it is not innately Marxist as a field. 117.102.138.201 (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the title were "Marxism and cultural studies" that would clearly and naturally include pre-Birmingham work on clulture by Gramsci, Benjamin and the Frankfurt School, because (1) cultural studies is in the first instance the study of culture, not the name of a discipline; and (2) the historiography produced about Marxist approaches within the eventual discipline also typically begins with the generation of Gramsci and Lukacs, if not earlier. This field of discourse is neither limited to Freudo-Marxism (though I still prefer Frodo-Marxism as a term) nor does it involve WP:OR (or time travel) to define its boundaries. So regardless of the title chosen, the scope of the article will be following what the RS literature in the field actually says. Newimpartial (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would push back against point (1) a bit because I think the existence of Marxism as a major tradition within the institutionally recognized discipline of cultural studies is part of what legitimizes this article as more than just a conjunction of terms.

Point (2), however, is correct, and I would have thought it uncontroversial. But since it apparently is not, I have added material to the article directly supporting the Frankfurt School and Gramsci as part of cultural studies. Patrick (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you're incorrect @Newimpartial, as is the Cultural Studies page, and Cultural Studies was actually started by one Karl "Satan" Marx (because he's behind everything)... and it started in 1859. Which I couldn't confirm was in the Lee Artz article.

.....and apparently that section of the sighted source reads:

Marxism — The Collected Works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels comprises some 50 volumes. Arguably, however, the most influential texts for cultural study have been the shortest: the three-page Theses on Feuerbach and the five-page 1859 Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (see BASE AND SUPERSTRUCTURE). Further important texts include

Particularly if the article is to be about Marxism and cultural studies - a field of academic discourse. Not just any application of Marxism to culture. But also; if we're saying Marxism doesn't have a definition - then doesn't that justify the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory? Because Marxism could be anything! Which is now something we're saying in Wikivoice, because of one single source? Seriously. This doesn't seem odd to anyone else? 101.115.134.142 (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this contain a proposal to improve the article? If so, what are your proposing? Newimpartial (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the removal of the erroneous text from the page:

The most influential texts for cultural studies are (arguably) the "Thesis on Feuerbach" and the 1859 Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.

... as it's making a false claim about cultural studies, and using an obvious weasel word "arguably" to make this claim. 101.115.134.142 (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expert scholars and self-identified Marxists disagree about the definition of "Marxism". In no way, however, does it follow that anything goes. Please just edit the article to add whatever additional nuance you deem appropriate and we'll WP:CYCLE if necessary. Patrick (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if experts disagree on the definition of Marxism. TFD (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It matters in that it means that we Wikipedia editors should be not wasting one another's time trying to decide what is or is not authentically Marxist. According to HQRSs, the experts disagree. Were it not for the debate here, it would not have occurred to me to say this explicitly. For it is hardly unusual, especially for a political term. But if you think mention of the existence of internal divisions within Marxism does not belong in the article, please just take it out. Patrick (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said elsewhere,"we could use Artz's article or similar ones to determine what exactly should be mentioned in the article and what should not...Making it about anything Marxist that remotely touches on culture is a violation of synthesis and weight." There is no reason whatsoever for us as editors to define Marxism,to know what it is or to determine who is or is not Marxist if we rely on sources about the influence of Marxism on cultural studies. TFD (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure where we disagree then. Please by all means edit the article directly if my contributions appear misguided. Patrick (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think that defining Marxism presents a problem for this article. I disagree. TFD (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret the IP editor as disputing the content (and title) of this article based on an a priori definition of "Marxist" that they happen to hold, which is external to the sources on this article's topic. I believe that you (TFD), Patrick and I all disagree with the various criticisms and proposals the IP editor has made based on their assumptions about "Marxism". I feel that our three positions are broadly in ageeement with each other, though we would doubtless each formulate our specific position using our own preferred language. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.

Also, TFD, to clarify: I do not think the article should define Marxism except in the most general way. You can see my effort, sourced to HQRSs on the topic of the article, in the short section I added. I welcome improvements.

It would also be appropriate in some cases to more narrowly classify some figures as particular types of Marxists (e.g., Hegelian, humanist, structuralist) in sections on those figures, but I do not think this article is the right place to go into such classificatory schemes in detail.

Oh, and does anyone remember the markup to shift this thread back to the left with a little line and arrow? It has to be almost impossible to read on some screens. Or possibly (I hope!) we've exhausted the topic and at least provisionally arrived at an acceptable consensus? In that case, it wouldn't matter.

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone reading from the U.S.!

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you mind answering the question I posed at one of your past talk pages? That is, "Have you ever edited Wikipedia with a user account? If so, would you mind sharing the username—or at least the reason(s) you no longer sign in to edit?" Patrick (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, the local stasi wants to see my papers. Sorry, you'll have to get a bigger Barnstar. 101.115.149.250 (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On this page, a little over a month ago, you counseled another IP editor to get an account, and you did this from your IP address.

It's clear you know what you're doing, and to me it appears to be a violation of WP:SCRUTINY and WP:RUNAWAY. If there is a reason for your practice other than to skirt the basic norms of accountability, civility, and collaboration, however, I want to be sure that you have the opportunity to share it.

If you acknowledged the existence of a stable usertalk page, I would be posting this there. Feel free to respond on my talk page if that seems more appropriate. Patrick (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to try to nip this in the bud for the 1000s time. @The Four Deuces, @Newimpartial, @Patrick Welsh. Are you saying this page is about anything Marxist that remotely touches on culture (as Patrick currently has it). So any "study of culture" that mentions or includes, or touches on an element of Marxism, or anything that can be said about those two things together....

...or is it about the academic field that started in the 1960s, as per the Cultural Studies article? 101.115.134.142 (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that the page is about what the RS secondary literature says the topic is about: namely, the Marxist tradition of studies of culture (which antedates Birmingham by two generations or so). That isn't as inclusive as "any cultural study that mentions Marx", but it also isn't as restrictive as "only the tradition emerging from Birmingham".

More importantly, the article's scope should follow how the HQRS define the topic. And I don't see anything from Patrick supporting the "all mentions of Marxism and culture" version of the scope - that seems to be a misreading on your part. Newimpartial (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making it about anything Marxist that remotely touches on culture is a violation of synthesis and weight. Policy however allows articles about where experts have pointed out connections. Per WP:TERTIARY, we could use Artz's article or similar ones to determine what exactly should be mentioned in the article and what should not.

So our story begins with Communists who say that while historically Marxists studied capitalist economics, they would study culture under capitalism. Then we would explain what elements of Marxist theory continued to significantly influence cultural studies and which elements were abandoned. TFD (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Newimpartial said.

The reason I supported the addition of Trotsky, for instance, was that he is included in an anthology on Marxist literary theory and was assigned reading in a semniar I took on that topic. These are the sort of terms upon which the article should be edited.

While I do not follow this article as closely as you, I have not observed a problem of editors just tacking on people or ideas not that do not receive significant coverage in relevant secondary literature.

If you can improve the article, please just do. I'm generally very pro-talk page, but whatever's going on here is out-of-control.

Also, for the fourth time, why to you refuse to edit under your username? Patrick (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources used says, "This article highlights several specific concepts in Trotsky’s Literature and Revolution (1923) which exerted decisive formative influence on critical theory." The claim is questionable and I would only include Trotsky if the claim was routinely made and also explain what that influence was. TFD (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comment here @The Four Deuces, we're also currently saying that Marxism "has no official definition" - because someone said it didn't (which isn't WP:DUE, plenty of sources offer definitions of Marxism regardless of this non-sense idea that those definitions aren't valid because they're not "official" enough). At the same time we're using weasel words to say that "cultural study" - in the amorphous WP:SYNTH sense, can "arguably" be said to have started in 1859 with one specific Marxist text. All this WP:OR has been added by Patrick.

It's part of this desire some have for the page to force a focus on Marxism, rather than what more reliable or high quality sources say about The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, or cultural studies. It's quite ridiculous (although slightly better than when it had a section for Leon Trotsky and a stub-section for Marxism–Leninism).

Really I need someone other than just myself to aid in pointing out when the consensus of high quality sources is being violated, there needs to be a community to actually care about defining the scope of the article so it's a little more constrained by reality. Right now it still feels like certain people want to secure the page as to be a WP:Soapbox for a certain kind of severely undue praise of Marxism, as if we're not talking about Neo-Marxists and Post-Marxists who historically, are recognized as having made the New Left's turn away from traditional Marxist rhetoric. Of course, despite being offered ample sourcing, this is something that the adversarial editors (who trade in Barn-stars) have denied ever happened.

To those editors I'd just like to ask: What happened to Truth. We can't all be stuck in the 1950s viewpoint that people like Billy Bragg might represent. That's just Marxist phantasmagoria at this point. 101.115.149.250 (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The definition section is distracting. If readers want to know about Marxism, they should just click on the link. "Cultural studies" is a term referring to a specific tradition and is not about studying culture in general. So Trotsky who was a Marxist and wrote about culture is outside the scope of the article and currently not included. TFD (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I regret using Trotsky as an example. To the best of my non-expert knowledge, he's a borderline case, who, if included, would probably be best categorized as a precursor of some kind. I personally do not care at all if we treat him here. If I did, I would have restored the sourced content added by another editor.

I disagree, however, that a "Definition" section is a distraction, and if that's how the current version reads, that means it needs improvement, not removal. Readers should not have to rely on Wikilinks to grasp the basic topic of the article. There are other ways to do this, however, and I would not object if someone reframed the first section as a more historically organized "Overview" or something else along those lines. Patrick (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be about the Marxist influence on cultural studies. Cultural studies refers to an academic field pioneered by the Frankfurt School and continuing today. We should take the word of people writing about the connection who is or was a Marxist and what the influence was.

Terms should only be explained if they are Technical language. Isn't it obvious that anyone reading an article about Marxism and cultural studies would have an idea about what Marxism is? Even if you wanted to explain it, it would be complex because of the breadth of his writing and different traditions that have followed it. Besides, when we explain what cultural studies owe to Marxism, we are explaining those ascpects of Marxism that are relevant to the article.

You say that, "The term "Marxism" encompasses multiple "overlapping and antagonistic traditions"...and it does not have any authoritative definition." That's true for any ideological or belief system and in fact most concepts in social sciences. But Wikipedia articles don't routinely explain terminology used in articles. TFD (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If any of the sources used are not representative of this field of study and research, please either remove them (together with any claims that depend upon them) or else add appropriate qualification(s) to the article according to your own best judgment. Do also remove any information about Marxism not relevant to the topic. Readers, though, should be assumed to be broadly ignorant of what this topic is. That's why most of them are here.

Describing the topic of an article in a general way is a good thing to do for even non-technical articles. "Marxism", however, is a technical term. Unless one has read the scholarship, one probably does not know what it means—even if one thinks one does. Furthermore, some people who have read some of the scholarship, such as our IP editor, define the term differently than the figures covered in this article, who also differ among themselves. Such differences merit explicit acknowledgement and explanation.

The current version leaves plenty of room for improvement. But we do need a definition section—whatever we might call it in the header. Edit boldly.

I apologize for the tone, but I find much of the discussion here to be extremely frustrating. It feels like some of the folks here are mostly engaged in a separate argument unrelated to improving this article. (This is not at all specific to you, and I understand that I am implicated as well.)

Regards, Patrick (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gramsci btw was the leader of the Italian Communist Party. I don't see why there would be any need for qualification to call him a Marxist. TFD (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP, I think you ought to read WP:NOTTRUTH. We don't deal in Truth on Wikipedia; we rely on what good sources say. And when good sources talk about Marxist analysis and culture, they count Western Marxism and Neo-Marxism as Marxist, rather than defining Marxism as traditional Marxist rhetoric and wanting to label "Gramscian" everything in the Western Marxism and Critical Theory traditions - a proposed change to this article's title that I believe you endorsed. That just ain't what the literature do.

You have never pointed out a consensus of high-quality sources endorsing your view, either. Instead, you have offered tendentious readings of arbitrarily selected sources; and even those sources don't support your view unless the reader carries the prior assumption that later Marxisms aren't "really" Marxist and then reads the sources with that in mind. To the mainstream scholarly tradition (represented e.g. by Kolakowski), these 20th century traditions are Marxisms. You don't get to create your own alternative facts just because you dispute the scholarly consensus on this. Newimpartial (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a page about the history of Marxism in general—neither in the intellectual realm, nor in the political. It's also not the place for us editors to pass judgment on the tradition. If you spot any WP:PEACOCK terms or inappropriate WP:EDITORIALIZING, please simply remove the offending adjectives or rewrite or remove the sentence as appropriate.

If you can improve the article by more carefully defining the relationships of the figures covered to Marx's own ideas (or to the USSR or other states, as sources determine appropriate), please do. Patrick (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There earlier appeared to be some consensus for changing the title of this article to either "Marxist cultural studies" or "Marxism and cultural studies". My preference is for the former, but I would also be fine with the latter.

Shall we proceed with this? I think either would be a small improvement, but I don't want to cause a ruckus if there is not, actually, a general consensus.

Also, in keeping with my issues with the current title, I have nominated cultural analysis for deletion. Please do weigh in if you feel this is a mistake.

Thanks, Patrick (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]