Talk:Frankfurt School/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Older comments

Moved Frankfurt-School-related material from critical theory page to this one, expanded that material, and added photographs. Jeremy J. Shapiro 05:10, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Moved stuff specifically having to do with the Institute for Social Research as an institution, as opposed to with the Frankfurt School as an body of intellectual work, to a new article on the Institute for Social Research, which is also linked to already by some other articles. Jeremy J. Shapiro 05:36, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sorry Hershell but no one in the real world of academe considers LaRouche to be a serious critic of the Frankfurt school. If you disagree please point to one academic text or journal that says otherwise. (books etc put out by the LaRouche movement do not count)AndyL 01:12, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

While many people blame the Frankfurt school for all sorts of things, including probably emergence of what you call counterculture, I am hard pressed to see the founder of dianetics to be the leading representant of such a view. I agree with AndyL Refdoc 22:05, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Refdoc, you are entirely correct in presuming that L. Ron Hubbard is not widely known as a critic of the Frankfurt School. --Herschelkrustofsky 02:49, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately Refdoc got his cult leaders confused. Hershel, I'm still waiting for a reference to any academic writing the refers to LaRouche as a serious critic of the Frankfurt School. AndyL 04:49, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, You are both right. There should be rule against editing past bed time... Anyway, that man is indeed even less known as someone to be taken seriously...Refdoc 07:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Andy, you are not a serious participant in this discussion. The only reason that you wish to edit this page, is that you are carrying out an obsessive vendetta against my work at Wikipedia, which has been amply documented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence. In your feverish pursuit of this vendetta, you recently violated procedure by reverting this page while it was protected.

But for the benefit of anyone who does wish to seriously discuss the Frankfurt School, I would make the following points: the reason that we need critics of the Frankfurt School, is precisely because its Weltanschauung has become so insidiously hegemonic in Andy's beloved academia. Some of the assumptions associated with people like Arendt (the lover of unrepentant Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger) and Adorno are downright horrifying, but they commonly go unchallenged. It were difficult to quantify it, but I would suspect that the majority of laymen who know about the Frankfurt School do so because of the very wide circulation of LaRouche publications on that topic. Likewise, I would defy you to find an "academic" benediction of the sort you are demanding, for the other listed criticisms of the Frankfurt School:

• The first is that the intellectual perspective of the Frankfurt School is really a romantic, elitist critique of mass culture dressed-up in neo-Marxist clothing: what really bothers the critical theorists in this view is not social oppression, but that the masses like Ian Fleming and The Beatles instead of Samuel Beckett and Webern.

• The second, originating on the Left, is that critical theory is a form of bourgeois idealism that has no inherent relation to political practice and is totally isolated from any ongoing revolutionary movement.

I don't wish to defend these criticisms; I think they're incompetent. But my point is, your professed interest in this topic is insincere and hypocritical. Your professed desire to dispute this article should be settled within the larger context of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:47, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hershell, it is regrettable that you are failing in your responsibilities as an editor by refusing to defend your position or provide any evidence justifying it. Instead you deride your critics as "incompetent" and "insincere" and make false assumptions about their political knowledge. You falsely assumed elsewhere that I was a neo-conservative. In fact, if you check my edit history , it will become obvious to you that I have spent a lot of my editing time working on articles related to Marxism and socialism and particularly Trotskyism. You are wrong in your anti-intellectual assumption that I am a supporter of the Frankfurt School because I insist you provide reference to academic sources. In fact I reject the Frankfurt School because of its Stalinism and negativity of the potential of the working class in industrialised nations. I think it had a very dilatory effect, for instance, on France 1968 as those influenced by its teachings basically assumed that the rebellion that was happening could not spread to the working class and therefore worked to suppress or undermine it. Now please either provide some sort of reference to any serious scholars who regard LaRouche as a serious critic of the Frankfurt School or stand down. AndyL 16:07, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Despite my gaffe wrt Ron Hubbard and Lyndon LaRouche, I still agree with AndyL. the man is not taken seriosuly by anyone. He is certainly not as widely read as you Herschell suggest "very wide circulation of LaRouche publications". "Frieden schaffen mit Strahlenwaffen", his slogan in the late 80s in Germany at the height of our Peace movement and CND easter marches, was a laughing stock, I remember it well. So I do think some backing up of your theory is required - unless of course you would like to have a separate section "criticism by cranks" and we can then include anyone from the KuKluxKlan to German neonazis - who all did not like the school and produced material with "very wide circulation". I somehow doubt that this would satisfy you. Refdoc 14:30, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I actually happened upon LaRouche's most recent tirade against the Frankfurt school, with the very professional and scholarly title of "Children of Satan III: The Sexual Congress for Cultural Fascism", and the articles within make one wonder if he or his cronies have actually even read Adorno, et al (Adorno is criticized as promoting, rather than lamenting, the decline of culture into Top 40 kitsch). No scholars take LaRouche's criticism seriously -- I doubt they even know he criticizes the Frankfurt school. --Fastfission 19:53, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche's views on everything seem to be ignored by everybody except his small but fanatical group of followers, none of whom are inside academia. --Robert Merkel 00:16, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps not in your little corner of the globe, but LaRouche seems to be very warmly received by the Russian scientific community. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:35, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And the Russian scientific community is so very relevent to a bunch of philosophers... Snowspinner 01:40, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Not to mention that the Schiller Institute, the site that article is on, is run by LaRouche's wife... --Robert Merkel 03:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Instead of carping about the source being the Schiller Institute, I wonder why you don't ask the more obvious question: why would such a thing go unreported in the more "mainstream" media? Suppose that, say, Howard Dean were invited to address the Central Mathematical Economics Institute (CEMI) of the Russian Academy of Sciences-- is it at all possible, that you might see a bit of press coverage? This is, of course, a highly hypothetical proposition.

I also wonder why some of you youngsters are so preoccupied with the question of whether LaRouche's views are "popular," when the far more interesting question were whether they are correct. But nowadays, with the nearly-hegemonic influence of the Frankfurt School in your revered academia, the search for truth is not an option; in fact, it is regarded with great suspicion. This stuff (the Frankfurter ideology) is just Friedrich Nietzsche cross-dressing as a leftist, just as Leo Strauss is Nietzsche with a ridiculous fig-leaf of fake Platonism.

Has it occurred to you that "the Beatles vs Webern" is a false dichotomy, because both are trivial and banal? Likewise Ian Fleming and Samuel Beckett. Brahms and Cervantes are ruled out of the debate -- and if Leo Strauss invokes them, it is for deceptive and perverse reasons.

I had hoped that Wikipedia were a more honest institution than the commercial print and web-based media, but it seems to be more of the same -- the difference being that some of the editors I have encountered are merely asskisser-trainees, who have yet to get paid for it. When AndyL writes of "the real world of academe," I have to chuckle at a first-class oxymoron.

Bertrand Russell wrote that "The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will be arrived at. First, that the influence of the home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity." The writings of Lyndon LaRouche must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. --Herschelkrustofsky 07:33, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well that's all very nice, but Wikipedia isn't the place to try to start a revolution in academia. If LaRouche starts being taken seriously, he'll be worth discussing at any length. Until then, at best, he deserves one or two sentences, and definitely not in major criticism. Because it's our job to report how things are - not how we want them to be. Snowspinner 12:28, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

What the hell is that?

What are you doing, reverting a protected page? Sam [Spade] 01:26, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:AndyL

Sam [Spade] 02:06, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why are you complaining about something a full half hour after it's been settled? AndyL 02:16, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche movement's criticism of the Frankfurt school

If you, who took down the LaRouche's criticism points, were at least a bit genuine and not relying on authority (isn't this a bit risky in this case when Frankfurt school's philosophy has become a norm of most modern societies?), but instead considered the point made by LaRouche and his collaborators, you could see that it is a perfectly valid (and event insightful) criticism.

I think it is a lie to say that nobody knows that the LaRouche-affilated organizations are opponents to the Frankfurt school. From my own experience I say that I have seen know other criticism (or even public mention) of the school except the LaRouche-initated publications. The very reason I read the Wikepedia article was because of the LaRouche Youth Movement briefing me.

Also, based on the amount of historical and philosophical research that the world-wide LaRouche intelligence does, I am inclined to consider its publications scientific sources.

Fastfisson: Could you, please, inform me of how you came to the conclusion that Theodor Adorno laments the decline of culture?

I imagine he came to it by actually reading Adorno. Snowspinner 02:25, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry anonymous user but in the real world few people have heard of LaRouche and no one outside of the LaRouche movement who is familiar with the Frankfurt School would be familiar with LaRouchian criticism. It is simply outside of the intellectual debate and not part of serious dialogue. That you only know of the Franfurt School *through* LaRouche and never heard of it outside of the LaRouche movement only suggests the level of your immersion within the LaRouche movement rather than anything that a member of the general public or a member of academe or the intellectual community would be familiar with.AndyL 02:28, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is way after the real discussion. But I stumbled across it, and figured I'd chime in (here in discussion, not in the actual article). I happen to have written a Ph.D. in philosophy, a good chunk of which was about the Frankfurt school. And I read about a half dozen of my friends/colleague's dissertations that were even more in this area. Naturally, I read a good number of those later books one tends to cite about Critical Theory.

Despite that course of work, this discussion is the first time I ever even heard of LaRouche's "critique" of the Frankfurt School. Not that I ever had much reason to think about LaRouche as anything other than a nutsy fringe candidate for US President, one way or the other. But it would certainly never have occurred to me that he would be a source of commentary on Adorno and friends. All of that does not even mean per se that LaRouche is wrong, just that he is so far from a recognized authority in this that you can easily spend many years reading commntary on Critical Theory without his name ever coming up. --Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Or, to put the whole matter another way, there are basically two contexts in which the Frankfurt school ever comes up. The first is academic debates. The second is LaRouche's writings. Academic debates never mention LaRouche. He does not play into the academic world at all.

Now, let's be honest here. LaRouche is, shall we say, a bit cultish. He does not have a great deal of what could be called mainstream respect. Academia, on the other hand, while criticized and questioned a fair amount, is still fairly respected on the whole. I mean, we still generally send our kids to college.

At best, LaRouche merits a sentence mention. He's simply not an important critic of the Frankfurt school outside of his own context. (Whereas the academic context of the Frankfurt school connects with a whole lot of current research in the humanities.) It would be reasonable to discuss LaRouche's criticism of the Frankfurt School on a page related to LaRouche. But it's just not relevent to the Frankfurt School beyond an off-handed mention somewhere buried in the article. It's certainly not a major objection in any comparable way to Lukacs. The two exist in such different spheres that they should virtually never end up on the same list. Snowspinner 02:39, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

> :I imagine he came to it by actually reading Adorno. Snowspinner 02:25, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Not to be sarcastic, but I could figure that much myself.

> I'm sorry anonymous user but in the real world few people have heard of LaRouche and no one outside of the LaRouche movement who is familiar with the Frankfurt School would be familiar with LaRouchian criticism. It is simply outside of the intellectual debate and not part of serious dialogue. That you only know of the Franfurt School *through* LaRouche and never heard of it outside of the LaRouche movement only suggests the level of your immersion within the LaRouche movement rather than anything that a member of the general public or a member of academe or the intellectual community would be familiar with.AndyL 02:28, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I still don't see what you base your claims about nobody's familiarity with LaRouche's criticism on. Indeed the fact that we are discussing it right now seems to corroborate the opposite.

I am afraid that saying LaRouche's collaborators are not part of a serious debate has even less ground. If you only tried acting not upon prejudices, but on knowable reality, and read Children of Satan III or an EIR article on subject, you might find that even thought you seem to claim some authority in the area, you yourself did not know some of the historico-philosophical background. And if you don't believe what LaRouche's researchers say, you can try looking at the sources they have used yourself. There also phone numbers, e-mail addresses and probably other means by which you could discuss why those people claim what they do. But that, of course, supposes that you indeed seek to know the truth, instead of relying upon popular opinion and “authorities”.

> Or, to put the whole matter another way, there are basically two contexts in which the Frankfurt school ever comes up. The first is academic debates. The second is LaRouche's writings. Academic debates never mention LaRouche. He does not play into the academic world at all.

Unfortunately, I don't see how your statement corroborates anything about the validity of LaRouche organization's criticism on the Frankfurt school. You may try basing your arguments on demonstrable truths instead of on authority.

> Now, let's be honest here. LaRouche is, shall we say, a bit cultish. He does not have a great deal of what could be called mainstream respect. Academia, on the other hand, while criticized and questioned a fair amount, is still fairly respected on the whole. I mean, we still generally send our kids to college.

It seems that you have a very limited knowledge about LaRouche apart from the black literature that has been promoted. If you want to find some of LaRouche's intentions why don't you read his views on economics (which entail physical economy), his political platform, or anything else you think might give you insight and then question why would this man posit what he has. It seems ridiculous that a millonare would spend decades on philosophical fight with sophistry (some of which he finds coming from the Frankfurt school), create in international youth movement in which the youth is reading the thinkers of all time, an international intelligence agency, would have all these projects for the development of the society (like Eurasian landbridge, Mars mission, certian water systems, development of fusion energy, etc.) if all that the man is trying to do is become a president (as popular black literature claims). Would it not have been easier to be a meek populist (as we could see in presidency)? He is also not the youngest person. Do you maybe think he just wants to ensure himself a comfortable grave or what?

I wold also note that I don't see how you could use the fact the common opinion today is that one should send one's children to college in the present discussion.

> At best, LaRouche merits a sentence mention. He's simply not an important critic of the Frankfurt school outside of his own context. (Whereas the academic context of the Frankfurt school connects with a whole lot of current research in the humanities.) It would be reasonable to discuss LaRouche's criticism of the Frankfurt School on a page related to LaRouche. But it's just not relevent to the Frankfurt School beyond an off-handed mention somewhere buried in the article. It's certainly not a major objection in any comparable way to Lukacs. The two exist in such different spheres that they should virtually never end up on the same list. Snowspinner 02:39, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I don't like rehashing. I think if we resolve the questions raised earlier we would have little trouble with agreeing on what you address in this paragraph.

This has already been resolved by the Arbitration Committee. AndyL 16:59, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kevin MacDonald

Well, I see you already had LaRouche here. Now comes Kevin MacDonald. Sheesh... Just see [1] (MacDonald testified in favour of the convicted holocaust denier David Irving), and also [2]. Or just search Google for +"Kevin MacDonald" +"neo-nazi"... I just hate it when people misuse Wikipedia for their own propaganda. Lupo 10:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're probably addressing someone else's addition of a paragraph on the main sorts of critics. I'm the one who simply added MacDonald's name to the list of "notable critics." I don't know how "notable" he is, but he seems to be one of the leading living critics. I know of MacDonald because of other work of his, and was improving his biography here. His inclusion here passes the 'Google test', as his name + frankfurt generates many meaningful mentions. I'm not sure what his alleged neo-nazi connections have to do with his criticism of the frankfurt school. He is noted for his anti-semitic views, though he denies that his scholarship is anti-semitic. Either way, it seems besides the point. MacDonald at least merits inclusion on the list of frankfurt school critics in some manner. (we could drop the word "notable" from the list and then it could include critics of questionable notability).Will McW 13:51, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking about this edit, which has since been reverted. Lupo 15:39, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Frankfurt_School#Critics of the Frankfurt School has flopped several times between having either two or three camps of criticism. Could editors please settle the question of whether MacDonald and his followers constitute a third camp or, alternatively, re-write the section into a less contentious form? -Willmcw 23:40, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since K.B. MacDonald makes a criticsm not otherwise mentioned in the article, it is worth including in some form, so I added User:Jacquerie27's text as an annotation to KBMacD's existing entry. I also made some other edits to put sections in a logical order and move away from the two/three camp focus. -Willmcw 08:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think this merits more discussion. I've removed the following:

• Kevin B. MacDonald, who has written that the Frankfurt School has at least partly contributed to a Jewish "strategy" of demoralization and manipulation aimed at the white majority population of Europe and America. This theory has failed to gain acceptance in academia because of its self-deception and self-censoring (according to MacDonald,2002).

What evidence is there that MacDonald is considered a "notable critic"? Is he cited at all in scholarly articles or books on the Frankfurt School? Is there any evidence that his criticisms have been taken seriously or addressed at all by anyone or that indeed, there are scholars of the Frankfurt School that accept his criticisms? MacDonald is not a scholar of political theory or philosophy but of pscyhology. AndyL 16:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What test are you using? The simple Google test, as I mentioned in a November 1 post above, shows that MacDonald's crticism of the Frankfurt School is frequently referenced. Maybe not by scholars, maybe by yahoos. The bottom line is that MacDonald is a critic, he is notable, and his criticism is often referenced. We have agreed that he not influenced other scholars enough to form a 'camp', but if you set the threshold too high, we'll have to delete the other 'notable critics' as well. Grossman gets only 330 hits [3], while MacDonald gets 976 [4]. -Willmcw 21:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What does notability mean? I don't think its determined by google but by references in the literature. AndyL 22:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Back to my original question, why isn't MacDonald notable, while Grossman is? Maybe we ought to drop the notable descriptor. Gosh, Fritz Belleville is apparently so non-notable that no one has even written an article about him. It is worth noting that MacDonald is a critic, one way or another, and that his criticism is based on theories of Jewish ethnocentrism, in my opinion. -Willmcw 22:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Grossman. Perhaps he isnt' notable. My impression of MacDonald is that no one in political theory takes his criticisms seriously (if they are aware of him at all). That's why I say he isn't notable - he's not on the radar as far as debate on the Frankfurt School is concerned. AndyL 22:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Remember, we removed Lyndon LaRouche as well since the only people who took him seriously were his followers. The only people who seem to take MacDonald seriously are white supremacists. AndyL 22:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and the unfortunate fact is that there are a lot of white supremacists/anti-semites. A thousand references by yahoos becomes as notable one or two mentions by scholars. The right way to mention MacDonald in this context may be in a graf on modern views of Frankfurt, with a sentence on how it has become a touchstone of intellecutal anti-semitism due to MacDonald's writing. Something like that may make sense than just tacking him on a list of contemporary critics, or stuffing him down in 'see also'. -Willmcw 00:36, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Grossman, at least, was a contemporary of the Frankfurt School actually teaching with them at the ISR in Frankfurt and seems to have been in a similar milieu. Of course, one doesn't have to have been at the Frankfurt School to be a critic of them but this does, at least, make him "of note" even if he isn't widely followed outside of Trotskyist circles. If we use google hits as a determinant of notability perhaps we should list some porn sites ;)AndyL 22:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now that's the best idea I've seen all day. -Willmcw 00:36, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfC

I found this on RfC, and was rather suprised there could be any question as to Kevin B. MacDonald being an important critic of the Frankfurt School. "Notable" is a worthess POV term, and should be completely discounted. Rather Kevin B. MacDonald is a well known expert critic of the Frankfurt School.[5] Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 07:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Isn't "expert" pov? Particularly as he doesn't have any expertise in political theory? Also, if "notable" is POV then why do we use "notability" and "non-notability" as standards in Wikipedia?AndyL 11:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We shouldn't. Is the term sanctioned by policy anywhere? Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 12:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I haven't checked but if you look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion you'll see "non-notable" as a frequent justification given for deletion.AndyL 14:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know. That particularly irks me since I am a extremist inclusionist. Anyhow, can we agree that Kevin B. MacDonald is signifigantly well known enough as a critic of the Frankfurt School to deserve at least passing mention? He is refered to as such in that link I cited, from MSN news no less! Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 16:52, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article you link to does not mention the Frankfurt School. MacDonald is well known enough to merit an article on him in wikipedia (as is LaRouche) but that does not make him an acknowledged "expert" or "notable critic" of the Frankfurt School. For all I know he might also say something in his books about Picasso but that wouldn't make him an art expert or a notable Picasso critic AndyL 17:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In his third book, MacDonald takes on what he calls the "Jewish" intellectual movements of the 20th century, from psychoanalysis to Marxism to "Boasian anthropology" and "the Frankfurt School of social research."

Sixth paragraph from the top.

MacDonald is an expert on evolutionary psychology. He feels the Frankfurt School is evidence of Jewish attempts to diminish the abilities of non-jews to thrive, and defend themselves against Judaism. He feels this is the result of Jewish Evolutionary psychology. MacDonald is an expert critc of the Frankfurt School. Picasso is a false analogy. Cheers, Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 19:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Being an expert on evolutionary psychology doesn't make him an expert in the Frankfurt School. Picasso is not a false analogy (though it would be better if I picked a Jewish painter, couldn't think of any) because he uses the Frankfurt School as an example just like he might use degenerative art as an example of Jewish efforts to undermine western civilization. If he did this wouldn't make him an art expert just as using the Frankfurt School as an example doesn't make him an expert on political theory. AndyL 22:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I voted to keep Jewish ethnocentrism on vfd. And to be honest, I don't really like Jews all that much. But I don't think MacDonald deserves a mention. His field is ev.bio., not political theory. He says that Frankfurt School is part of a Jewish evolutionary strategy. Maybe it is. But he's not engaging them on the field of political theory; nor is he qualified to. Sociobiological explanation is not criticism in any academically meaningful sense. Therefore, by all means say, "K. MacDonald has argued that the Frankfurt School is part of a Jewish evolutionary strategy", but listing him as an "expert critic" does not make sense. Remember kids, Judaism is an objection to people, not to ideas. — Bacchiad 09:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MacDonald's ideas aren't even accepted in the evolutionary psychology field, let alone in the field of literary criticism. And his argument is generic - everything from Relativity to Psychoanalysis. Maybe it is better to leave him in - since having an anti-semite like MacDonald might even add to the credibility of the topic. With enemies like MacDonald, who needs friends? Stirling Newberry 02:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 17:27, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comments on former article "Critical theory (Frankfurt School)"

I'm new to Wikipedia and not sure how it works, but I believe this is the forum to voice my opinion of this article. In my opinion, this article is extrememely poorly written, displaying a very simplistic understanding of the subject at hand and using a number of oversimplifacations accordingly. For example, the purpose of critical theory is not simply "to critique capitalism and to expose how every aspect of our social world has been commodified," but could be said to be a more general approach to using Marxist dialectics to explore truth, mostly by applying this method to human history. That is at least one alternative statement of the purpose of critical theory. The discrepancy between what the article says and this simple statement (which comes from a place of just as LITTLE authority) exposes the ignorance of the original author and calls into question the value of having this page posted. Furthermore, there are some factual mistakes. For example, post-constructionism is probably just a mispronunciation of deconstructivism, which does, in fact, find itself in the vein of critical theory, rather than being "an uncritical theory of our times, [sic]" and I fail to see how "post-modern social theories" is anything but a slightly more general term for critical theory.

Please see Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers for a quick introduction! A recent series of anonymous edits introduced much of the language this comment is responding to, along with a polemical tone. I've reverted these changes, as they appeared idiosyncratic and non-encyclopedic to me, and not in keeping with neutral point of view, but changes are welcome if others believe some of this content can be salvaged. (For what it's worth, I think the emphasis on commodification does deserve a more prominent place in this article as opposed to the article on the more general sense of critical theory.) -- Rbellin|Talk 16:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent reversion

I went in and put in a reversion because "cultural marxism" is a term that is currently hot button in many online polemics and social justice debates, not mentioned directly in the primary sources, and part of an SEO manipulation attempt. I hereby request that mods lock this page with reversions until the issue can be investigated.

Countercritic (talk)

Chart of interrelationships

Whilst the huge graphic is very interesting, it is also very un-Wiki, as it cannot be edited using the Wikipedia interface. Can this be fixed? -- Anon.

It's also got a little vanity tag on it... Our texts and pictures don't usually have copyright or authorship tags on them, at least not on the image/text itself (i.e. of course that's fine in the history, or the picture page)... Pteron 23:33, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

At some point soon I will make a version of this graphic that does not have my name on it. I don't know how to make an editable version of it. I supposed it could be redone as a table, although that would lose the graphic structure. Does anyone have any suggestions or preferences? Is there a way to make an editable graphic? Should I just copy into a table? In that case I might need some help with the formatting. Jeremy J. Shapiro 07:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited to remove the authorship blurb. I think it's a worthwhile picture, and obviously took considerable work. I don't know how it was originally created, but an SVG or PDF version might be worthwhile, if that's an option. Some of the text is a bit small, and a vector format would be better. But the article itself would only contain a link to the vector version, since most browsers wouldn't inline it. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:31, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

Copyright-related question

I can't figure out any other place to ask this question, so I'm putting it here. In my contribution to this article, I used some material from an article I published in The Times Literary Supplement in 1974. I am the copyright owner, so there's not problem about that. But the Times Literay Supplement would ideally like it to say someplace that it was originally published there. Is there any way to do that that is compatible with Wikipedia? Jeremy J. Shapiro 07:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I just thought of a possible solution, but I don't know if it's in keeping with Wikipedia norms. In the References section I could add a reference to that article, called "The Critical Theory of Frankfurt", from a 1974 TLS and then say something like "portions of that article have been used or adapted in this Wikipedia article." Would that work? Jeremy J. Shapiro

I don't see a problem with that as long as it is clearly, but unobtrusively, labelled. One small point- we try to avoid self reference so it might be better if you omitted "wikipedia" from your citation. Thanks for contributing. -Willmcw 20:15, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

This article

Mike Godwin has no standing as a critic of the Frankfurt school because he's not, in all probability, read primary sources.

Adorno's esthetic is caricatured as a "polemic" against "beauty". His "polemic" against "beauty" is a DISTINCTION between aesthetic superiority (where the language has been so ruined by the conflation of even such a relatively neutral terms with unjust class relations that any such word has to emerge in a dialectical net) and the culinary, or "Me and Barney and Wilma are here in Paris to see fine art and drink fine wine".

It is the autodidact who learns words one at a time in a dictionary and in so doing absorbs Platonism, believing that those words have a referent beyond use in a network of domination and of subordination.

"Beauty", like justice in Adorno's History and Freedom, cannot strictly speaking be said to exist as long as suffering exists for the same reason Adorno said, tentatively enough, no poetry after Auschwitz. But this didn't prevent Adorno from turning aside, with a shudder, from Stravinsky or Dali.

This article is absurd 218.102.79.140 (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Edward G. Nilges

Merge with Critical theory (Frankfurt School)?

What do people think about merging the two pages? As an interesting side note, this page is affiliated with WikiProject Critical Theory and that one is affiliated with the Sociology WikiProject. Interestingly enough, the Sociology WikiProject notes that Critical theory (Frankfurt School) is a stub... Voyager640 17:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree: I've never understood why there were two articles on the Frankfurt School. I've placed merge tags on both, suggesting that the merge be from the Critical theory (Frankfurt School) to this one, since, as Voyager640 notes, the former is stubbier. Sunray 19:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.174.141 (talk • contribs)

Agree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Critical theory is referred to frequently in connection with Political correctness and Sensitivity training. Critical theory is not 'the Frankfurt school'. The fact that it came out of that school of thought does not make it the same thing, and for that reason alone it deserves its own page. --Memestream (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but this is covered in the article on Critical theory. Sunray (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose although it is only a stub right now, I believe that their is enough out there for a serious theorist to really expand the Critical theory article, and believe that keeping it seperate from the frankfurt school article will allow for this expansion.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

ps. it looks like an inactive discussion but that is my 2cents...and I am not equiped to be that serious theorist.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me be sure I understand you. Are you saying that we need the article Critical theory (Frankfurt School in addition to Critical theory and Frankfurt School? I note that the section Critical theory (social theory) in the "Critical theory" article is only 100 words less than the whole article on "Critical theory (Frankfurt School)."

The reason I ask, is that we had a rough consensus to merge the articles until your "oppose" vote, and I would have done the merge long since, but for lack of time. Now we have a hung jury. Would you be willing to reconsider? Sunray (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the arguments for a merge are stong and valid, so go ahead with the merge. I was just projecting into the relm of possiblilities with my statement, and I didn't look at the date stamps when I typed that.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes it rough consensus for the merge, So I have gone ahead. Sunray (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed vote to agree. (adding signature to give endorcement to change) Coffeepusher (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Susan Buck-Morss

Buck-Morss wrote an important book about Adorno and Benjamin in 1977, and on Benjamin's "Paris Arcades" project in 1989. However, she is not a member of the Institute (which actually excluded her from the Benjamin archives) and belongs to a younger generation. Perhaps there is a need for discussion about the criteria for inclusion in the list of members and scholars. She certainly draws attention to the lack of women in the history of the Frankfurt School. I am a huge fan of her books but for example, if she is included then Rolf Wiggerhaus should also be for his definitive history The Frankfurt School, published in 1986. (7 Sept 2007)

Founding date

The year given in this article (1930) for when the Frankfurt School was founded doesn't match up with information from the Philosophy Dictionary:

The critical Marxist school emerging in Frankfurt in the 1920s and 1930s, and centred upon the Institute for Social Research, founded in 1923. Its principal philosophical members were Max Horkheimer (director, 1931-58), Adorno, Marcuse and Benjamin. (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=frankfurt+school&gwp=13)

Merger with Frankfurt School

[discussion moved from Talk: Critical theory (Frankfurt School)]

I think that this article should be merged with the article Frankfurt School. Do you agree? (Zdravko mk 08:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC))

i agree capi 14:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. Perhaps someone should Wikipedia:Be bold and merge them? Voyager640 17:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd weakly oppose' a merge. The current split seems useful: the Frankfurt School article can give a more historical-institutional overview of the various thinkers, and this one can remain more idea-focused. At any rate, not everything the Frankfurt School did fell under "critical theory" and it might be useful to address this topic separately from, say, their contributions to sociology. I'd like to see some more justification (what will the merge help, specifically?) before merging the articles. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the merge. The meaning of Critical theory is contentious, and it is considered to be linked to political correctness and sensitivity training by many people. It therefore deserves a page of its own where such matters can be debated without cluttering up the broader topic of the Frankfurt School. --Memestream (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. There already is an article on Critical theory. The proposal is to merge this article (Critical theory (Frankfurt School) into the one on Frankfurt School. Sunray (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this article is about Critical Theory|Frankfurt School, which, according to the claims of its authors sought to change society, not just analyse it. It is this critical theory that influenced Kurt Lewin, who founded Sensitivity training specifically as a technique for changing society, and the National Training Laboratories as an organisation to spread such change. Carl Rogers emphasised the importance of Lewin's sensitivity training in his own work, and he is associated with the counter-culture revolution of the sixties. Thus, while the Frankfurt School may have started 'innocently' and had 'innocent' activities as described in its article, one development that came out of that school, critical theory, is widely accused of being a technique designed to eliminate adherance to Western values and hence destroy the culture of the West. This makes critical theory (Frankfurt School) hugely important and controversial, warranting it's own page here. --Memestream (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Result of merge discussion

Agree = 8 Oppose = 2

Decision: MERGE Sunray (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Several critics of the Frankfurt School strike me as being somewhat antisemitic. For instance, Pat Buchanan has repeatedly claimed that the 1960s cultural revolution was due to a small clique of Jewish cultural marxists. ADM (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

to avoid origonal research do you have a source that makes that conclusion?Coffeepusher (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

How to organize content?

I've noticed that the German article of the Frankfurt School has its content organized in a neat and specific manner:

1. History
2. Theory
   1. Critical theory as a foundation for social sciences
      1. Intellectual basis
      2. Criticism of ideology
      3. The dialectic as a methodology
   2. Critical theory of Western Civilization
      1. Dialectic of the Enlightenment and Minima Moralia
      2. Philosophy of new music
   3. Critical theory and Authority
      1. Negative dialectics
      2. Communication and action
      3. Critical theory and the New Left

Perhaps this could serve as a temporary model to follow when further editing article. It's been a while since I've read Frankfurt School authors, perhaps someone could help properly dividing and expanding the content? --m3taphysical (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Four phases?

The article is currently organized in a chronological manner; the school's theories and ideas are categorized according to "four" phases (initially, there were three). I'm just worried that this categorizing may actually be some form of OR. Can someone please quote a source to justify it? --m3taphysical (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Marxism template

The first template to show up next to the lead section is the "Marxism" template. This seems particularly odd, considering that the Frankfurt School has sharply criticized what it sees as "traditional" and "orthodox" Marxism. I believe the Frankfurt School deserves its own template. Unless there are any objections, I'll start making one. --m3taphysical (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Location, Re-locations

Is there an actual pyshical school? It is stated in the Historical section that the Insitiute relocated to the USA in 1934. It is implied that the school is still a current force in Germany, certainly most of the names of recent thinkers look German. There is a metion of relocating, but can someone say when this happened, and make it a touch more obvious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the term "Frankfurt School" arose informally to describe the thinkers affiliated or merely associated with the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research; it is not the title of any specific position or institution per se, and few of these theorists used the term themselves

It was only in 1951 that the Institute re-opened in Frankfurt under the direction of Friedrich Pollock.

--m3taphysical (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Reality?

In the beginning of the article, mention is made of: "Hegel's philosophy, with its emphasis on dialectic and contradiction as inherent properties of reality." Surely it must be obvious that "dialectic" and "contradiction" are properties of human language, not reality.Lestrade (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Good observation you've made there. I'm not sure to what extent Hegel identified dialectic with changes in material reality. His conception of dialectic referred to the transformation of ideas, which for idealists like him formed the basis for all human knowledge. However it is clear that Marx, along with Frankfurt School theorists, linked it to material reality. As Marx wrote himself,

My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e. the process of thinking, which, under the name of 'the Idea,' he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea.' With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought." (Capital, Volume 1, Moscow, 1970, p. 29).

Marx was a materialist. Unlike Hegel, he argued that all our "ideas" are the direct result of the material conditions of our time, the two are inextricably linked. Whatever conceptions of the world you may have, they wouldn't have existed if it weren't for the social conditions and relations that you have been part of (a form of determinism, if you wish). Note that philosophy of language as a branch of analytical philosophy did not exist during Marx's time; but I guess you could say that concepts of language, just like "ideas", would according to Marx have been dependent of material reality.

Marx insisted that contradictions were part of the reality in which we lived. Quoting former Marxist G.A. Cohen, such a contradiction can be found, for example, in the fact that (a) enormous wealth and productive powers coexist alongside (b) extreme poverty and misery, the existence of (a) being contrary to the existence of (b). Hegelian and Marxist theory stipulates that the dialectic nature of history will lead to the sublation, or synthesis, of its contradictions. Marx therefore postulated that history would "logically" make capitalism evolve into a socialist society where the means of production would equally serve the exploited and suffering class of society, thus resolving the prior contradiction between (a) and (b).

However, Marx's philosophy isn't devoid of contradictions of its own, something Frankfurt School theorists were well aware of. --m3taphysical (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Your response mentions three separate topics: (1) the difference between mental ideas and the real, external world; (2) linguistic contradictions; and (3) contrary economic conditions. Care must be taken to avoid mixing these topics together. Marx admittedly appropriated the word "dialectic" for mere effect. He was unconcerned with its etymological correctness. Hegel appropriated the word "dialectic" as part of his program to grotesquely imitate and exaggerate Kant's use of technical terms. My main point is that the Frankfurt School thinkers might have been following the example of their predecessors by confusing language with the world of experience. Academics are prone to ignore the distinction between perceived experience and mere verbal conceptions.Lestrade (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Agreed. I don't know if there's any criticism of the Frankfurt School that's been made on the basis of their use of language. If there is, it certainly ought to be included in the article. I know that Habermas was more sensible to issues of language, however I haven't studied him enough to make any straightforward assertions.--m3taphysical (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you have agreed with me more than once. As a result, I must remind you how le jeu est joué. According to the rigid three–step progression that has traditionally been associated with that grand intellect, Georg Hegel, the movement must proceed as follows. My assertion is called the thesis. Your following assertion must never be in agreement. You must contradict me. We call that the antithesis. Then, either of us, or possibly someone else, must find common elements among our mutual declarations and blend them together into a synthesis. This waltz continues with each synthesis, in turn, being considered as another thesis. It all goes on unto eternity, or some final, unthinkable apocalyptic Armageddon. In Wikipedia Talk Pages, it ends when one of us grows weary of le jeu.Lestrade (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Whatever. Let's just not steer this conversation away from the issues related to the article (See Wikipedia:NOT#FORUM). Suggestion: the article should address issues of language (i.e. What did Frankfurt School theorists think about it? Were they criticized for it?). Consensus reached? --m3taphysical (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for rejecting my latest post. I would normally try to synthesize or sublate our two antithetical contributions but I'm tired.Lestrade (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

I will not bother continuing this conversation unless we make sure the conversation remains constructive. There's a reason why I agreed to everything you said. The purpose of talk pages is not to contradict each other "unto eternity" or until "one of us grows weary", but rather to discuss about the article and reach consensus on what ought to be changed. I thought you wanted to include something about the issue of language, however it seems your only goal is to keep the debate going. No thanks. --m3taphysical (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being dialectical. I wanted to point out that properties of language are not inherent properties of reality (experience).Lestrade (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Post-structuralism and the Frankfurt School?

I certainly think that it is legitimate to consider Judith Butler a critical theorist. But I've never heard her associated explicitly with the Frankfurt School. Any comments? Jeremy J. Shapiro 02:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Butler has nothing to do with the Frankfurt School. Neither, for that matter, does Zizek.12.179.47.39 (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In the text of interviews (Remarks on Marx) between Italian Marxist Duccio Trombadori and Michel Foucault, who is another post-structuralist like Butler and Zizek, Foucault says that the Frankfurt School covered much of the same territory as his work, which however, he did not realize until reading the Frankfurt School authors later in his life. However, for the critique section, he finds problems with their: a) traditional conception of subjectivity (Horkheimer and Adorno), b) Marxist-inspired Humanism (Marcuse). Foucault approaches this from the point of view of his "death of man" thesis, drawing on Nietzsche (human becoming, rather than human being or essence) and Heidegger (who rejected anthropological "worldviews" of human Being). The Frankfurt School, he argues, tries to return humanity to an unalienated state rather than push the limits of human subjectivity, which he sees as infinitely variable depending on the objects it engages with. Finally, he claims that: c) they provide little historical evidence and analysis to support their work, creating an artificial separation between theoretical/philosophical work and history, and that they d) they take for granted prior economic explanations in terms of causal necessity for phenomena such as the internal structures of discourses, which should be studied by means of correlations. Is this critique worth including in the "Critique" section?--Michael 08:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Neo marxism

I have nominated Neo-marxism for deletion, Please see: [6] Slrubenstein | Talk 09:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

MacDonald or not MacDonald

Gee, just two months ago I asked if we could find a consensus on the repeated addition/deletion of MacDonald, and here we are again. I do not want to assert that MacDonald is a major critic of the Frankfurt School but, as a practical matter, he is one of the best known living criticizers. We've tried placing him in various places in the article. (I think he was a "See also" for a while). Can't we find some pigeon-hole to put him in so that this back and forth stops? It's strange that virtually the only part of this article which is edited anymore is the list of critics. Even if we have to add him only to say that he is not a major critic and is not taken seriously, that might settle the back and forth. -Willmcw 21:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MacDonald is a notable critic, tenured at a University, author of many books and published in peer reviewed journals. He really has to be included in the discussion. The fact that he isn't featured just shows that wiki is patrolled by groups determined to impose their views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SleepyWeisel (talk • contribs) 01:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Easier for Adorno to follow?

I have just stumbled by out of curiosity. I know almost nothing about the FS. And it seems to me that that reference near the top to making something "easier for Adorno to follow" is weird, or out of place. At the very least, the "first reference" to Adorno should say who he is? And beyond that, it seems like whoever wrote it is making a crack about him. Like it flies off into left field for a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.184.66 (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

That was added in a fairly recent edit. I reverted those changes. Thanks for pointing this out.--Bkwillwm (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The new article Frankfurt School conspiracy theory is essentially a paraphrase of an essay by Martin Jay, which is cited as the source throughout the article. I don't think this particular point of view merits its own article, but there is a place for it (a small one) in this article. 99.122.155.57 (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a "paraphrase" of Martin Jay's essay, that's a ridiculous assertion. It relies heavily on it, yes, but then it's an excellent source (Jay being the leading historian of the Frankfurt School). Second, the previous place for it was Cultural Marxism; I removed it from there because it's too obviously nutty. User:coffeepusher said on Talk:Frankfurt_School_conspiracy_theory that it qualifies under Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Third, it's already mentioned in the article. Finally, why is someone who can't even be bothered to create an account allowed to make merge proposals? Fuzzy mongoose (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

FM, anyone is allowed to edit the encyclopedia regardless of account status, its one of our principles. I understand you are frustrated but perhaps you should consider striking that last statement out of good faith. Just a friendly suggestion. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well yes I know you don't need an account to edit, but not even being able to have a pseudonym for someone in a discussion is really irritating. And given how easy it is to create and use one, I think it borders on rude not to bother! But, whatever, I'm not questioning the person's good faith. Fuzzy mongoose (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not of great interest in the context of the Frankfurt School. It is only a footnote and won't affect mainstream discussion of the history of the school. It may be of interest to those who study conspiracy theories. Martin Jay is indeed a good source, but we would have to be sure that this conspiracy theory has gained notability. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Itsmejudith. This theory isn't notable enough in the context of the Frankfurt School just because it hasn't really been picked up by the mainstream research regarding the Frankfurt school. However it is notable in its own right under Fringe theory guidelines because it has been picked up by at least one WP:RS (as stated in the guidelines) and does have traction within white supremacist groups. Therefore I believe that we should keep it as a stand alone article with just a mention on the main page. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Cultural marxism is no longer an accepted term. The term should be reframed to "social studies". All social studied should be based on marxist premises. Cultural marxism is a term used by critics to marxism, so it should be only used to mock them as conspiranoids. Signed: Wikipedia politruk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.155.244.175 (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirect from Cultural Marxism

Good call editing crew. This makes more sense and is far more informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:3081:370:1DC3:3ECA:A016:C08 (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Was the purpose of the delete and redirect to hide the pejorative or neologistic of the term? Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I imagine it was probably to focus on "thing that have actually happened" rather than anti-essentialist idiocy. Sorry: perjorative or neologistic uses. But given that three admins closed the AfD, you can go ask them if you care that much. If, of course, you're just trying to stir things up and aren't actually interested in finding out, please do continue your current behavioural patterns. Ironholds (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and don't bite noobs Loganmac (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

So if someone comes to Wikipedia to find out the contemporary meaning of the term, they're NOT supposed to find it because it's "anti-essentialist idiocy"? Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, i see the link to the conspiracy theory at the top of the page Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism and Cultural Marxist

I find it confusing that Cultural Marxism redirects to Frankfurt School while Cultural Marxist redirects to Western Marxism. I'm not sure if that's right. GamerPro64 07:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Problematic Merge with Cultural Marxism

Hey everyone. I know admins did a lot of work sorting through the merge of cultural marxism (I looked through the log, and it seemed like a lot), so I don't want to rain on their parade or make it seem like I'm not grateful their work to find consensus. But...

Frankfurt School (Critical Theory) and Cultural Marxism are not simply not the same thing, but they're actually pretty well opposed to each other theoretically and politically. Adorno et al wrote essays like "The Impotence of the German Working Class" that decried the stupidity of workers and their predisposition to capitalist enslavement/dazzlement. Adorno writes in Toward a New Manifesto that "“People like advertisements. They do what the ads tell them and they know that they are doing so” (54). Raymond Williams, Dorothy & E.P. Thompson, Queenie & F.R. Levis, etc. argued instead that the revolution would/could only occur through culture and symbols of the working class -- symbols which they could not create because of the labor requirements of survival (not bedazzlement of the entertainment industry). The geographic divide, with cultural marxism being historically grounded in the UK according to Kellner, Williams, Thompson, Jameson, and a myriad of other reliable sources, suggests that it cannot be subsumed under the GERMAN Frankfurt School. Where, for example, Frankfurt eventually gives rise to figures like Habermas (and arguably Axel Honneth and Nancy Fraser in the 3rd/4th generation), British Cultural Marxism (which is not the same as cultural studies! See Hoggart as an example of non-Marxist Cultural Studies) really makes possible the past & present historical school that sets the stage for work that HISTORICIZES cultural practices (think history of the present without the french predilection to overdetermination).

Sorry for the giant dump of information, but I wanted to talk this out before I did anything to try and write an NPOV cultural marxism article. But one needs to be written, because the merger is just factually inaccurate.FarahPanda (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

British Cultural Marxism (eg. the Birmingham School et. al) isn't what's being referred to by the (American engineered [see William S. Lind]) conspiracy usage of the term. Hence the redirect not stemming from an article titled British Cultural Marxism. --Jobrot (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the merge is a complete load of shit. It's pretty obvious that these admins don't care about neutrality anymore and just want whatever POV they represent to be shoved down everybody's throats. Copulative (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I second the motion on unmerging these articles. It's quite confusing, now talking about conspiracy theories and other randomness on this page rather than the two different subjects. Added "POV-statement" tag to encourage discussion until this matter is actually resolved. Gaming4JC (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the merge with cultural marism strikes me a bit odd and it seems to create irritations outside of Wikipedia as well:

• http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.single.html

--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I undid the template removal as independent whether it was a merger or not, without such link to those AfD and merger discussions it becomes completely intransparent to other users, what happened in the past and where the following related page went:

• http://www.archive.today/YzkIS

--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The page wasn't "merged". It was deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 04:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it was apparently deleted recently after lengthy controversial(?) discussions in connection with this article. Moreover a second different (re)creation of the cultural marxism was redirected to this page, without this article actually explaining/mentioning the use of the term other than in the conspiracy theory context. Aside of this being imho a rather unfortunate constellation, without the link to the past discussion/AfDs it is complete intransparent to new editors and makes it impossible to understand how we ended up here. As I said I don't care whether the template calls it merger or not, what matters, is that the link to the earlier discussion is essential to understand what's whas going on and hence should be provided. If you don't like "the merger"-description of the template, feel free to replace it by a different description providing the links to past discussion/decisions, but do not effectively remove those links and block other editors from understanding the background of the current state.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@FarahPanda, Copulative: Your powers of observation and reading comprehension are astute. In fact, they are more astute than any of our reliable sources on the subject of cultural Marxism, as determined not by me and other admins, but by an extensive debate over the subject, open to everyone. Yes, it is obvious that the Frankfurt School has little relation to British-style cultural studies. Yes, it is obvious that cultural Marxism does exist and is not a conspiracy theory. But where is the evidence for this other than an unpublished personal reflection by Douglas Kellner? Your complaint is not with Wikipedia but with society at large. Shii (tock) 12:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

When i'm reading this, i'm a bit flabbergasted. First of all if you know and agree that "cultural marxism" exists (beyond the conspiracy theory and conservative or rightwing sloganeering), why you are asking for evidence/sources other than Douglas Keller, you should know some. But that aside Google-Books alone yields 4600 hits on "cultural marxism" among them:

• Dennis Dworkin: Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies. Duke University Press

on JSTOR you can find:

• Ioan Davis: British Cultural Marxism .International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Spring, 1991), pp. 323-344
• John Brenkman: Theses on Cultural Marxism.Social Text, No. 7 (Spring - Summer, 1983), pp. 19-33

--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

All of this was discussed at AFD. You are judging the works by their titles; you will not be able to find a definition of "cultural Marxism", or a discussion of its scope, in any of those articles. Shii (tock) 15:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

A description of phenomenon doesn't necessarily require a formal definition in the literary sense. I'm aware of the AfD (actually ever since RGloucester attempted to remove the link to it), but that doesn't mean I agree with its outcome or find it convincing. Also if all of that was discussed in the AfD, why are you asking for it here? On that note after rebrowsing the AfD it seems Ioan Davis isn't mentioned anywhere, so apparently not all was discussed in the AfD. In fact most sources discussed seem to be (non-academic) right wing sources. I can see that people pushing that stuff might be a constant problem for the article, nevertheless we know have the problem that the term "cultural marxism" exists in article name space and yet its academic use is nowhere properly explained, which is rather bad constellation and sort of the opposite of what WP should deliver.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Copulative and everyone else: actually, there is a wealth of resources on Cultural Marxism. The problem is that they're not in google books for historical verification - you'd have to go to your local library (or "find" ;D) a copy of original texts. For example, the multiple references in EP Thompson's history of the working class and "Poverty of Theory" has multiple references to why British marxists were protesting the inhumane Marxism that lead to the invasion of Hungary. Similarly, F.R. Leavis has a long section on "A Marxism of Culture" (i.e. cultural marxism) in his book For Continuity. I'm willing to agree that the last article seemed not-so-great, but that doesn't mean that Cultural Marxism and Frankfurt School are the same thing.

I guess what I'm asking is for a chance to write a good Cultural Marxism article, and to get a fair shake at review -- rather than some ideological bs battle about challenging admin's "feelings" about what is cultural marxism. FarahPanda (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The action wasn't taken based on "some ideological bs battle about challenging admin's "feelings" about what is cultural marxism" - and I suggest you practice WP:good faith when talking about your fellow wikipedia participants. It was a controversial deletion (with multiple extensive discussions around it) and so it was performed based on an WP:uninvolved 3 admin panel. If you have any problems with the protocol used or the outcome, you should perform a deletion review request WP:Deletion_review. --Jobrot (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism is a widely used term and the rise of the Islam critic and immigration critic movements around the world can hardly be understood without the use of this term. Well lets put it this way. If You believe in Islam or Christianity you will practice Islam or Christianity. But to study this two religions from an academic point of view you will be working with "Islamic studies" or perhaps "Islamicistsm" or in the field of "Christology".

It is the same with the work that originated within the Frankfurt School. If You are a believer You will teach Critical theory. If You study the subject you are studying Cultural Marxism, and if not, then what are You studying? Kaffeburk (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kaffeburk, if we're arguing on the grounds of theory/experience - and not necessarily citations -- my response would be that if, in my Frankfurt School philosophy class, I answered a question with "we are doing cultural marxism," I would fail, because Cultural Marxism is widely understood to be an English historical movement as per the countless sources I've cited above. TBH, I don't really like either of them. But I do believe that they are historically important, and that should be reflected in separate articles on each.FarahPanda (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I can't parse what you're saying. When you write: the rise of the Islam critic and immigration critic movements around the world can hardly be understood without the use of [Cultural Marxism] do you mean to discuss the idea that Multiculturalism and Political Correctness are products of Cultural Marxists? If so you're sorely mistaken, as many parties of the left were against Multiculturalism and it's a product of the natural movements of people's across cultural borders (this has been happening since humans have been able to walk upright, and wasn't something initiated by Marxists). As for Political Correctness, the progenitor of that term, has denied having any knowledge of the Frankfurt School when he came up with it. [7] --Jobrot (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)