Talk:Cultural Bolshevism

Merger Proposal

I've created this section to get other editors opinions on changing the merge/redirect for Cultural Marxism to target the Cultural Bolshevism page as the destination (merging the current "Cultural Marxism" section to a new section of the Cultural Bolshevism page). This target page was suggested by a lone editor during the AfD for Cultural Marxism but went mostly unnoticed due to the editor's lack of experience and limited argumentation. I believe this merger fits into the type 1 merge stream; mergers that are appropriate and not likely to meet objections - this is due to the fact that both sides of politics confirm the relevance of the two concepts.

On the right side of politics english Metapedia redirects "Cultural Bolshevism" straight to "Cultural Marxism" [1] likewise the German Metapedia page on "Cultural Bolshevism" discusses "Cultural Marxism" as a modern day form of the "Cultural Bolshevism" concept: [2]. Closer to home (on the current section on our Frankfurt School page) William S. Lind is quoted as discussing Cultural Marxism as originating from the same time period that Cultural Bolshevism came to prominence, and it's likely that these are two alternative translations for the same concept.

On the centre/left side of politics there is (again already in the current "Cultural Marxism" section) Oxford Fellow Matthew Feldman explicitly linking the two in "Fascism: Fascism and culture vol. 1" [3]. Likewise the RationalWiki page notes the connection between the two, citing the German Wikipedia which links the two using the early works of Paul Renner [4]. Jay Martin [5] and John E. Richardson [6] are another two of the current sources who place the concepts side by side.

On a more conceptual level; these two concepts bare no difference - both claim 1930s Marxists have popularized degenerate art and culture leading to a cultural decline in traditional morality. Both cite the same group as leading this charge, and the politics of those who would argue for and against these concepts seem to all line up.

If there are any objections to this merge/redirect, please raise them here within the next few days. --Jobrot (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have afd'ed the article. WHoever created this seems to have been trying to game the process and bypass the deletion of Cultural Marxism.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Maunus, as someone who voted to delete that article, you're mistaken; check the history on this article, which goes back to 2009, or some of the sources for this page. This article is on a real and widely-recognized term that the Nazis used to attack their opponents. That doesn't necessarily mean that the term needs its own page, but it wasn't created to get around the deletion of Cultural Marxism; and it's old enough (and has enough coverage from reliable sources in the context of Nazi propaganda) that doesn't really qualify as a neologism. --Aquillion (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you note the similarity it's an important point in arguing for the merger. "Cultural Marxism" is closer to "Cultural Bolshevism" than anything The Frankfurt School ever wrote. --Jobrot (talk) 05:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Merger Merging "cultural marxism" to "cultural bolshevism" is SYNTH as long as there arent some extremely good sources proposing that there is a direct continuity between the Nazi propaganda term and the current right wing use.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

From Matthew Feldman's Fascism: Fascism and culture vol. 1: "Some fascists even point to the influence of Marxism, or 'cultural Bolshevism'. According to a BUF writer, it was the task of 'cultural Marxism' to plant the seeds of cultural disintegration because a climate of national and cultural decay aided the goal of revolutionary communism. Thus when vice is pandered to and 'unhealthy tastes and tendencies are excited by suggestion', it was certain that the 'hidden hand' of Bolshevik cultural subversion was actively at work."[7] --Jobrot (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: The two concepts are similar, but they aren't the same. "Cultural Bolshevism" was used in Nazi Germany and targeted culture in general; "Cultural Marxism" is used in contemporary America, and relies on a conspiracy theory about cultural theorists associated with the Frankfurt School.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you'll find there are American Nazis who base themselves on the German Nazis and use much the same concepts, and read much the same histories and texts.

In many ways William S. Lind (as well as the above linked work by Feldman) acts as the fulcrum between the two concepts. Lind states of Cultural Marxism that; "It [Cultural Marxism] is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I." [8]. NOTABLY an era when the term "Cultural Marxism" didn't yet exist.

SO you have a member of the right originating one concept from the era of the other, and an academic of the left explicitly linking the two, and you have the fact that the concepts show no notable differences in construct or application. Unless you can name such a difference other than the Nazis being in a different location? --Jobrot (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

From the google translation of the German Wikipedia page for Kulturbolschewismus "Until 1933 belonged to the slogan of the vocabulary of all bourgeois parties and designated cultural decline in the broadest sense (see also: cultural pessimism). After that it got the meaning of "struggle against destructive alien culture ...". [2]"

One of the first people to openly write a criticism of the concept of Kulturbolschewismus was Paul Renner of The Frankfurt School of art [9]. The exact university which the Frankfurt School who were later accused of Cultural Marxism came from. The similarities are overwhelming in my opinion. --Jobrot (talk)

Here is another example where the American Nazi website StormFront pushes all the criticisms of Cultural Marxism under the name Cultural Bolshevism "Suppose he undertakes courses of action which damage us in ways somewhat less directly than shooting and bombing--ways such as bringing hordes of non-Whites across our borders, breaking down the barriers to racial mixing in our society, encouraging permissiveness, undermining our institutions, promoting cultural bolshevism--all the while claiming that he does not regard these things as harmful."[10] - so there is definitely room for an Overlap argument as per WP:merge if not a direct Duplicate argument.

Here is another American Nazi using the "Cultural Bolshevism" label in the "Cultural Marxism" era (hence they are in this sense contiguous) [11]: "The First Post-Federal Republic (1954-2001). This period was characterized by sub-national governments with moderate and declining autonomy and centralization of power consistent with typical late 20th century liberalism. America was for most of this period defined in Cultural Bolshevik terms of racial nihilism, globalism and Chesterton’s Servile State. America’s ruling elite by this time was characterized by a mixture of racialist Asian, Mestizo and Negro factions as well as deracinated Occidentals subservient to Jewish power. This order principally represented Transience with Regenerative forces in steep decline." --Jobrot (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose merger per Jack Upland. BMK (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

See above arguments and evidence. --Jobrot (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Lind ties these terms to the same time period. Feldman ties them to being interchangeably the same concept. Renner even ties them to being criticisms of the same university. So I'm not sure what the case for these being two separate and distinct concepts is? Anyone care to explain it to me? I believe some intellectual honesty is required here. --Jobrot (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this is almost becoming a conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory. The "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" section currently says: 'the modern iteration of the theory originated within Michael Minnicino's 1992 essay "New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'" '. I can see that connection. If Lind said he got his ideas from Adolf Hitler that would be different.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No, but Lind is saying that he got his ideas from the same era that "Cultural Bolshevism" was the preferred term for the same thing (hence the Minnicino article being a "modern iteration" of something, the thing "Cultural Marxism" is a modern iteration of - IS "Cultural Bolshevism"). If you read my proposal even the German metapedia site (a right wing site associated with white supremacy) is saying on their own pages that "Cultural Marxism" is a modern name for "Cultural Bolshevism" (not that I'm advocating metapedia as a credible source - but it is evidence of how proponents use these terms)... so why are you opposed to this merge? Putting "Cultural Marxism" in a 'modern day' section of the "Cultural Bolshevism" page would seem the reasonable choice to me at this point. I mean, if the guy who came up with "Cultural Marxism" is referring to that period, and those who are using the term such as Stormfront and Metapedia are describing these two concepts as being the same thing - and if an Oxford Fellow is saying it... then doesn't it follow that we too should place "Cultural Marxism" in the (correct) context of "Cultural Bolshevism"... I mean, the current "Cultural Marxism" section says as much anyways! So I'm still not getting it. --Jobrot (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact I can't find any sources that claim Cultural Bolshevism is NOT the same as Cultural Marxism. I just don't see the case for them being separated (as concepts or here on Wikipedia). The Nazi movement continued through WW2, the ideology didn't change, the arguments aren't any different (other than appearing in other languages) so I don't see the reason in separating the two here. Yes, the Americans have focused more on The Frankfurt School; but so did the original German Nazis. --Jobrot (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment

German Nazis: "Cultural Degeneracy comes from Cultural Bolshevism aka kulturbolschewismus, and can be found stemming from places such as The Frankfurt School of Art."

American Nazis: "Cultural Degeneracy comes from Cultural Bolshevism aka Cultural Marxism, and can be found stemming from places such as The Frankfurt School of Sociology".

Are we really going to keep these ideas isolated from each other? Even though the proponents themselves [12] [13] [14] [15] are saying they're the same thing and there is academic Overlap as per WP:MERGE? --Jobrot (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The German newspaper Der Spiegel are saying it too: "The term "cultural Marxism" is a reference to "cultural Bolshevism," a concept from the 1920s, when lamentations about a general cultural decline were part of the standard repertoire of conservative political parties."[16] --Jobrot (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Even if you don't believe they're the exact same thing, they are at least related enough to be housed on the same page. When a criticism (such as Cultural Marxism is of The Frankfurt School) becomes an ideology of it's own accord, or highly relates to one. Surely the only honest thing to do is to group them together. --Jobrot (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The Frankfurt School page was even categorized at the very bottom of the page by an uninvolved editor as belonging in the category Weimar culture. --Jobrot (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a study guide that notes the similarities actually saying that they have both taken on a political context (almost as if Cultural Marxism is the political form of Cultural Bolshevism as an accusation in the arts) [17] --Jobrot (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a review of conservative Paul Gottfried's The Strange Death of Marxism in which he claims The Frankfurt School's strategy was "Cultural Bolshevism" [18] (here's [[19] the actual book] if you want to check this as being his published opinion).

Books, study guides, academics, journalists, the proponents themselves; as I said earlier - the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of this merger of the concepts as related. As far as I can see there is no evidence presented for these concepts being separate or different. No you're probably not going to find an expert on etymology meticulously tracing one from the other (although Feldman's writings are along those lines), nor will you find a translation expert saying "Here! Here is where it went from German to English"; but the evidence is there within reason. All the sources I've cited are combining them for a good reason: Because they are the same concept, with the same ultimate origins regardless of one being a modern day version of the other. But that is the fact: That one IS the modern version of the other - and so should be presented as such by Wikipedia, in line with the sources and evidence I've presented here are saying. --Jobrot (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Merger, it's a good idea to group similar concepts. I think people who search CM would rather read about CB than read about the Frankfort school conspiracy. I never thought of CM as a conspiracy theory, I think of it as a contemporary concept. It might be a better idea to make a CM page and merge redirect CB to it. ;) Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose merger as this would conflict with the outcome of the AfD and essentially create a fork for Cultural Marxism here by diluting the scope of this article (Cultural Bolshevism). The scope of this article is 1920s-1940s and deals with a Nazi German sociological term for so-called Degenerate art. Cultural Marxism as it is defined in its section in the Frankfurt school is topically and temporally distinct. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 04:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I refute your claim that Cultural Bolshevism and Cultural marxism are unrelated, or as you have it "topically and temporally distinct" and I shall refute this claim using actual quotes from the Cultural Marxism section, which states;

"Professor and Oxford Fellow Matthew Feldman has traced the terminology back to the pre-war German concept of Cultural Bolshevism locating it as part of the degeneration discourse that aided in Hitler's rise to power. William S. Lind confirms this as his period of interest, claiming that "It [Cultural Marxism] is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I.""

So there you have one of the key proponents; the person who essentially popularized the modern version of the "Cultural Marxism" accusation SPECIFICALLY stating that this concept originated in the exact time period and during the exact same events that you claim it is distinct from... On top of that you have an academic saying the exact same thing. So I find your claim of temporal discreteness to be completely without merit.

So onto your second claim; that these concepts are topically different. Yet you yourself agree that Cultural Bolshevism also concerns the accusation of Degenerate art - again to quote the Cultural Marxism section:

"The Minnicino article charges that the Frankfurt School promoted Modernism in the arts as a form of Cultural pessimism"

This is a clear indication that "Cultural Marxism" is a claim of Artistic and Cultural "Degeneracy" with the previous Feldman citation also locating Cultural Marxism "as part of the degeneration discourse that aided in Hitler's rise to power" as well as this we have the opening line of the Cultural Marxism section which describes it is as claiming the existence of "a contemporary movement in the political left to destroy western culture," - ie. a degeneration or Cultural Degeneracy.

These terms are most definitely topically and temporally related. Anyone who has looked into these two subjects can very easily with even the most cursory googling find out that both are accusations of "Cultural Degeneracy" made by the far right, and that one originated the other and hence they are often used together (often only separated with "aka"). They are directly associated, both "topically and temporally as I have shown - and so far I'm not seeing anyone addressing my actual points (merely repeating the antithetical claim based on opinion alone).

As far as I can tell, I hold WP:CONSENSUS by virtue of having factually refuted other people's claims - and there being no one to have refuted the evidence based points that I've raise. That is how consensus works here on Wikipedia, and this is what makes Wikipedia an encyclopedia based on fact, rather than opinion. --Jobrot (talk) 07:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, this in no way violates the outcome of the AfD. In fact one of the closing admins specifically stated: "a discussion should be held if others aren't happy with that [The Frankfurt School] as the target". I contend that the claims made by proponents of Cultural Marxism are more closely related to Cultural Bolshevism than to anything The Frankfurt School ever wrote about, making this the better redirect/merge. WP:CCC. --Jobrot (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose merger per Jack Upland. I think some hatnotes could be added for these concepts so that their (con)temporary relation would be understood better by readers. Bolshevism is a common derogatory synonym for Marxism anyway. Ceosad (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

As I've shown, both concepts target culture, severely overlapped in time periods (with the concepts of Cultural Bolshevism and Cultural Marxism still being used on Nazi and far-right websites today [20] [21] [22]) and are referenced together on at least one WP:NEWSBLOG [23] as well as having been associated by at least one academic [24] and at least one of the key modern proponents of the "Cultural Marxism" theory [25]. I'm not saying they're the same thing exactly - I'm saying that one provides vital and documented context for the other (and most probably came from the other). See the quoted section of WP:MERGE below. Consensus has to be based on a combination of policy and the facts of the matter/sources. These are the facts of the matter, and I see no one here able to refute them. --Jobrot (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: lumping American conservatives with the Nazis also violates NPOV.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

First off - the association isn't to "American conservatives" - it's to American Paleoconservatives. Regardless of this, and as I stated earlier; belief in this theory is not limited to any one particular political grouping or ideology. It also has some following with Libertarians - but more importantly with American Nazis and White Supremacists. This is undeniable. This is not a bold statement, nor is it surprising considering that William S. Lind gave speeches on the subject to a holocaust denial conference in the early 2000s [26]. So you can hardly claim that this is our doing. No one here is aiming to lump "conservatives in with the Nazis". That's not something Wikipedia is doing - people choose the ideas that make up their ideological affiliations. This idea has not been forced on anyone, but the facts remain; the modern iteration of this theory was popularized by a paleoconservative and descends from Cultural Bolshevism. This is simply what the sources say, it is not our doing, we are merely reporting on the facts of the matter, as displeasing as they may be to you personally. It's up to conservatives whose ideas they adopt, we mere report what the sources say about these ideas. --Jobrot (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Jobrot The "respond to all 'Oppose' comments with a wall of text" tactic is generally not very effective, as it either pisses people off or produces the MEGO effect. Mostly, people just start ignoring the replies. I suggest that you have made sufficient arguments and should stop and allow other editors to express their opinions without fear of provoking another TL;DNR response. BMK (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll attempt to shortened my responses to arguments already covered, but reserve the right to respond to new arguments (which seem to be few and far between). Thank you for your advice. --Jobrot (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose the background to the claim of Cultural Bolshevism centers on Nazi Germany while the claims of those who use the phrase Cultural Marxism is that it somehow stems from the Frankfurt School which is not even an accepted claim. The history and usage of the terms are different enough to merit separation.--Wowaconia (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Cultural Marxism "conspiracy theory" didn't originate from Cultural Bolshevism. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. It would be fine to mention in this article, using the sources that Jobrot provides, that British fascists used CM as a contemporary synonym for CB. It is fine that the "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory" section mentions the Nazi influence and links here. But whatever anti-CM discourse existed before WW2, it was not the discourse we see today that revolves around the supposed sinister machinations of the Frankfurt School. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Quoting WP:MERGE

Main page:WP:MERGE

"There are several good reasons to merge pages"...

"4. Context: If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it..." --Jobrot (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and that's a good reason why it was appropriate to merge CM into the Frankfurt School article, but not for the merger that you propose. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)