Talk:Western Marxism

comment

Western Marxism, a term defined in contrast to the official Eastern, or Soviet variety, and sometimes also referred to as Hegelian Marxism, represents the break from orthodoxy. It also, and this confuses the picture to some extent, represents the separation between theory and practice that Marxism has still to overcome. None of the thinkers usually classified as part of the Western Marxist tradition, including Gramsci even though he was General Secretary of the Italian Communist Party, certainly not Lukacs, Korsch, Bloch, Adorno or the other members of the Frankfurt School, were ever in a position to integrate their theoretical insights into the practice of the workers movement to any significant degree. This practice on the other hand, in particular that of the Communist Parties, divorced as it was from the intellectual efforts of the best Marxist minds the century has produced, soon degenerated into an extension of the Foreign Ministry of the USSR, dressing up the zigzags of Soviet diplomacy in sterile formulas drawn from the language of Marxist terminology.

Sort of agree with comment above

Perry Anderson in Considerations on Western Marxism characterises it as basically the academic marxism that grew up between the wars at some distance from classical, orthodox Marxism - obsessed by philosophy, particularly epistemology, and language - ie topics somewhat remote from politics, economics and the class struggle. Anderson specifically names Deutscher, Roman Rosdolsky and Mandel as the foremost contemporary (in 1975) practitioners of the classical school inspired by Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg. Ironically of course this Wikipedia entry puts Anderson himself in the 'western marxism' category. Why not a 'the information on this page is contested' flag? --Duncan 15:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)--[

Quietism

The political "quietism" of the frankfurt school needs to further defined.

Sidney Hook?

The case can be made that the American philosopher, Sidney Hook, in his earlier work, was a kind of Western Marxist. His 1933 book, Towards the Understanding of Karl Marx was heavily influenced by and built upon the work of both Lukacs and Korsch. And the book he wrote after that, From Hegel to Marx, explored the Hegelian roots of Marxism. That's sort of ironic considering that later on, Hook was the scourge not only of Communists but also of the New Left including its intellectual heroes like Herbert Marcuse, who was a noted Western Marxist of the Frankfurt School.

--JimFarm 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

British Marxism

Although "Western Marxism" is undoubtedly a broad church, I'm not sure if British Marxists such as Raymond Williams, Stuart Hall, Ralph Miliband, E.P. Thompson etc. can be counted among its members. "Western Marxism" does not mean non-Soviet Marxism or academic Marxism; rather, the term is mainly used for thinkers who tackle issues such as epistemology, metaphysics, etc. by way of Marxist theory. While Williams et al did share common ground with the likes of Lukács in addressing issues of culture that previous Marxists had dismissed as unimportant, their approach to these issues emphasised empirical research where Lukács, the Frankfurters, etc. tended to discuss cultural/superstructural matters by reference to abstract Hegelian theory. Hanshans23 (talk)

Fair point, but seeing as there is no 'British Marxism' article, and that the term is not particularly recognised in the same sense as 'Western Marxism', perhaps a small section on British Marxism should be added to the article, with your referenced reasons for why the differentiation is made? Miliband and Williams are huge theorists, even if they never made sexy academic myths of themselves like some French theorists! --Tomsega (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Merleau-Ponty

Merleau-Ponty was not a Marxist, as it is evident from that his article contains no mention of Marx. He was a disciple of Martin Heidegger, an opponent of Marxism, and was not known for any socialist/communist views. Wandering Courier (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not so. See Joseph Bien, "Translator's Introduction," Adventures of the Dialectic, by Maurice Merleau-Ponty (Northwestern University Press, 1973), pp. ix-xxix. On p. xii: "Until the 1950s Merleau-Ponty was the unofficial political editor of Les Temps modernes, the journal associated with Jean-Paul Sartre. Dwalls (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Rosa Luxemburg

Was not a left communist. The fact that she was critical of Lenin doesn't put her in the camp of people who rejected Leninism utterly. She considered the Russian Revolution a great advance and achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.43.115.248 (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as a Left Communist who considers the October Revolution a great advance and achievement, I'm not sure what to say. While Left Coms are generally critical of Lenin, we don't reject his contribution to Marxism out of hand. You're correct that Rosa Luxemburg is not a Left Communist though, since the term describes those who split from the Communist International in 1920, after her death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.43.103 (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Blanked the section 'British Cultural studies'

The lead line of which read Usually seen as a separate current of thought, Cultural Studies developed by British academics in the 1960s shares much common ground with Western Marxism and the rest of which was patchy at best. None of it had citations. If something is usually seen as separate from, and merely shares common ground with something else - then it probably shouldn't share a wikipedia page. That is to say, lots of areas of human endeavor could be construed in this fashion (Polo and mini golf, murder and surgery, The Renaissance and Dulux). Also, as indicated by the rest of this talk page, this topic is particularly open to questionable edits and inclusions.

Almost nothing in the article has citations. I see no special reason to remove that particular paragraph. To be consistent, you would have to blank almost the entire article, and I don't see that as being constructive. I do agree that in general uncited material should be removed, but in this case it does not seem like an appropriate way to proceed. Please understand that your changes are potentially controversial and need to be discussed. You might want to ask members of the philosophy project for advice or assistance. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes

@Claíomh Solais: Can you explain your changes here. Per WP:LEAD, the article lead should summarise the contents of the body of the article. You haven't WP:CITED anything in support of these changes. Perhaps attach references to the material you referred to in writing the new lead? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not asking you to explain the content of the lead. I'm asking why you have re-written the lead to include material not discussed in the main body. Perhaps you would like to re-write the main body, too? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we have to realistically look at this article as a stub. The main content of the introduction before (ie - mentioning Hegel) is not really described in the body either which is mostly dedicated to the British New Left and Stuart Hall (who isn't even a Western Marxist, but a Rhodes Scholar-type British liberal). I based this on what Oxford Reference says. Hopefully this will lead to some impetous for expanding the article itself, based more firmly on Continental thinkers. The non-ML articles are very confused at the moment (the Neo-Marxism article could probably be merged here). I hope to add some more myself, but dealing with such revisionist figures isn't particularly inspiring, I have to admit. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory 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. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Redundancy?

Please see Talk:Cultural_studies#Redundancy? Sennalen (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Removal of pertinent cited information

Generalrelative removed the following text from the lede.

Because of its attention to culture, Western Marxism (or elements of it) are also known as cultural Marxism.

No specific reasoning has been provided for removing this well-cited and pertinent text. Per MOS:ALTNAME it is appropriate to mention alternate names for the topic in the lede. The statement is sourced to one tertiary source and six secondary sources, all academic books or journals by authors and editors with appropriate expertise in the field. They span the years 1982 through 2019 and attest usage of the name "cultural Marxism" going back to 1973. The list includes authors with liberal, conservative, and with no obvious political affiliation. It includes sources that do not mention controversies associated with the phrase "cultural Marxism" as well as sources that discuss the controversies while still supporting the basic claim that it is an alternative name for Western Marxism. By any reasonable measure this is citation WP:OVERKILL, but was provided since there was opposition to the original one source. Nevertheless, this is not an exhaustive collection of works that could be cited to support the claim. This has been a subject of serious and sustained attention in the body of reliable sources, so it is not WP:UNDUE. Sennalen (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Cherry picking a few sources and making a WP:SYNTH case out of them doesn't make the two terms synonyms. And some of these don't actually support the change: Cultural Marxism is a term of art used to disparage the canon of Western Marxist thought as propagating a conspiracy to undermine presumably traditional Western values from Tuters is clearly defining it as about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, not the the topic this page covers. Some of these are out of date, too. If Tuters says that the usage was coined in the 90s, sources from the 80s are obviously writing about different things. MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Later in Tuters, The concept of Cultural Marxism seeks to introduce readers unfamiliar with – and presumably completely uninterested in – Western Marxist thought to its key thinkers, as well as some of their ideas, as part of an insidious story of secret operations of mind-control, making it clear that even when the conspiracy theorists are nutters, they are still talking about the same Western Marxism as everyone else. Sennalen (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Since everyone else isn't talking about an insidious story of secret operations of mind-control, no, I do not believe that is correct. MrOllie (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the key thinkers, as well as some of their ideas do not cease to be the same key thinkers and ideas. Sennalen (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

If the main objection is that "cultural Marxism" is sometimes perjorative, then it is possible to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM by mentioning "It is sometimes perjorative." However, I do not think giving the controversy even the slightest attention on this page is appropriate, per WP:ONEWAY. Nothing in the controversy invalidates the fact that "cultural Marxism" refers to Western Marxism outside the controversy. Sennalen (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The main objection is that the two terms don't mean the same thing, so we cannot equate them. MrOllie (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

We can, since RS do. The only wiggle room is whether cultural Marxism is the same as all of Western Marxism or just some subset of it. Sennalen (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

No, they really don't, as I've already mentioned above. That a few cherry picked sources happen to use two words next to each other doesn't support this change. This is the same argument that has been made (and rejected) many times, including an recently closed instance at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory#I. Antisemitism insinuations, II. Contemporary use. MrOllie (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

An overwhelming quantity and quality of sources that make exactly the claim they are cited for is not "cherry picked". It has not been rejected with valid justifications anywhere at any time, that link included. If it had been, it would be possible to say what those justifications are. Sennalen (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

That you personally disagree does not make the justifications invalid. MrOllie (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

They are invalid because they are not based in facts, policy, or sources. Sennalen (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Just popping in to state that I'm broadly in agreement with MrOllie's assessment. Sennalen's argument has been made and rejected many times. Barring some new information emerging, I don't see the point of continuing this discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It has never been rejected with substantive reasoning. Since you indicate no intention to ever provide substantive reasoning, it is time to proceed to an RfC. Would I be right summarizing the principle objection to the text as the belief, against evidence, that the sources do not say Western Marxism is also known as cultural Marxism? Or is the principal objection on some other grounds, such as weight? Sennalen (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's really not up to you to decide what counts as substantive reasoning or valid justifications when you've manifestly failed to persuade others. And shouting! doesn't help. Mr Ollie has given you (what appears to me to be) a very patient hearing and a thoughtful rationale. I see no reason to repeat it. Please note that while you are entitled to engagement, the community is not required to WP:SATISFY you. This will be my final reply. Generalrelative (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

For others to be persuaded, they have to make a good-faith effort to be persuadable. All that has happened here is that you and Mr. Ollie have asserted that one source (of 7) does not say what it says. When I pointed out that it plainly does, both of you begin to point at unspecified arguments in other vague locations. This is not productive, which is why an RfC will be necessary. Sennalen (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

That does not match my reading of the above discussion at all. MrOllie (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Rather than an RfC then, perhaps dispute resolution would be more appropriate, so we can figure out exactly what the nature of the disagreement is. Sennalen (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. RFCs are dispute resolution. MrOllie (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean WP:DRN, the dispute resolution noticeboard. I think that would be more helpful while it is unclear what question to pose to the community. Sennalen (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

DRN is ineffective in repeatedly litigated disputes such as this one. MrOllie (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree it's citation WP:OVERKILL and points towards your agenda to attack this topic. To quote WP:OVERKILL:

"One cause of "citation overkill" is edit warring, which can lead to examples like "Graphism is the study[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] of ...". Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word, as an editor desperately tries to shore up one's point or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that their opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for their edit."

...and I'd remind you that having many sources doesn't equate to those sources being good, or even to them being wide spread or well known in a discourse. It could indeed be the case that an obscure consideration is merely, often brought up by a single author, or a handful of authors.... or that those authors aren't from the discourse in question, and are criticizing it.

Western Marxism is a very large area of thought, too large to label as "cultural Marxism" in Wikivoice. Especially considering the term 'cultural Marxism' has never been well defined, or had wide usage, and has become mired in the Conspiracy Theory of the same name. On top of all this, we already have a page which concerns its self with the philosophies originating or deemed to participate in that conception. That page being Marxist cultural analysis - see that middle word there? CULTURAL. That's there because the page deals with Marxist ideas around CULTURE.

That you're working across multiple pages (including Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory) to insert and legitimize this term as much as possible, and have been doing so against consensus for months on end, appears very suspicious. Why is forcing this one term onto Wikipedia your priority? It's not a particularly recent, relevant, or important term within Marxist discourse. It's not even a pro-noun (never made it that far).

Including "cultural Marxism" in the lead here would be like including "trickle down" in the lead of Free Market (see your one source that's not an inaccessible paperback from the 80s for details). 14.202.44.246 (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Let's try something

Indicate the first step in this chain that you do not agree with:

1. The first use of "cultural Marxism" was no later than Trent Schroyer's Critique of Domination (1973)
2. ...with specific reference to the Frankfurt School
3. ...and general application to a broader historical split between economic and non-economic Marxism.
4. The half of the split that Schroyer designated "cultural Marxism" has also been called "Western Marxism".
5. Schroyer invoked this split as part of a sustained theory and analysis (rather than an offhand mention).
6. This analysis continued to be discussed and have influence through later decades
7. ...through to the present

Sennalen (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

4. It's not a wide enough usage to be notable, and plenty of so called "cultural Marxists" also sought structural changes. Marcuse for instance had specific desires attached to his viewpoint. He wanted to limit the power of: "groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc." - I'm sure there are plenty of other so called "cultural Marxists" who suggest structural changes, I mean Adorno too complained that:

In our age the objective social tendency is incarnate in the hidden subjective purposes of company directors, the foremost among whom are in the most powerful sectors of industry – steel, petroleum, electricity, and chemicals. Culture monopolies are weak and dependent in comparison. They cannot afford to neglect their appeasement of the real holders of power if their sphere of activity in mass society (a sphere producing a specific type of commodity which anyhow is still too closely bound up with easy-going liberalism and Jewish intellectuals) is not to undergo a series of purges. The dependence of the most powerful broadcasting company on the electrical industry, or of the motion picture industry on the banks, is characteristic of the whole sphere, whose individual branches are themselves economically interwoven. All are in such close contact that the extreme concentration of mental forces allows demarcation lines between different firms and technical branches to be ignored.

...and that

The idea of “fully exploiting” available technical resources and the facilities for aesthetic mass consumption is part of the economic system which refuses to exploit resources to abolish hunger.

Paul Gottfried as well as others have noted many times that 'cultural Marxism' has been used as a term to deride Western Marxism. It's intended as a dig, or a critique (which is how many of your sources are using it, yet you didn't include that in your Wikivoice text). This is how Trent Schroyer was using it, and ergo I also disagree with point 5. It's not "invoked as a split" - it's an intended part of the criticism, but not an actual solid split internal to Western Marxism. Schroyer, was not a Marxist. So he's not the pinnacle of Marxist analysis and thus shouldn't used to wedge the term in.

6. and 7. are hence also false, as Schroyer is fairly obscure. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The proper split within Marxism is between Revolutionary Marxism, and Reformist (Fabian) Marxism, both of which have cultural and structural intents. There is no school of thought that sees Marxism as merely a superficial cultural change, and editors are dupes if they think that's the case. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)