User talk:Tewdar/sandbox/Cultural Marxism sources

Discussion

Don't forget to add the year of publication, so it's clear that the usage predates the contemporary anti-intellectual and anti-modernist smear. –An Adornite who doesn't care a fuck about Marx (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Will do. I thought I'd just do the doi/isbns for now, and add the details later. Love the signature, by the way. 😂 Tewdar (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

And actually, the first usage of the English phrase "cultural Marxism" I can find dates to a BUF journal of 1938. Not sure if the contemporary anti-intellectuals are aware of this, however... Tewdar (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Kellner

Well, I'm glad not to have made those inaccurate statements you've quoted. My view of Kellner is that the paper was largely the last gap of the adjective-noun, common noun, fairly naive discussion of cultural Marxism in relation to the Birmingham School and the Marxist Humanists. The irony of this is that by the time it was published in the Encyclopedia (many years after it was written, I believe), this naive formulation had been thoroughly bypassed by events... Newimpartial (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Oh, hello! For some reason I don't get notified if people comment on my sandbox talk pages. I do believe there are a few of your comments in the page history somewhere, suitably anonymized (actually, I forgot who wrote them 😁) The Encyclopedia entry is from 2005 I believe. Not sure when Kellner wrote it.

I deleted the 'inaccurate comments' before I saw that you had commented, by the way.

Perhaps there's a way to include in the lede the fact that the conspiracy theory lumps together a disparate and incompatible bunch of folks together, including the Frankfurt School, postmodernists, feminist theorists, etc. At the moment it just says (Western) Marxists/Frankfurt School. Joan Braune can be used as a source, and it's already in the body. Perhaps we can have another RfC when this one is closed... ☹️☹️☹️

I'd like to try not to edit that article any more. Luckily, the people of the Yamnaya culture are having their skin, hair, and/or eye colours changed by drive-by editors again after a period of stability, so hopefully that'll give me something to do...  Tewdar  17:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Or even Structural Marxism. That article looks improvable, for sure certain!  Tewdar  17:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I always used the terms "Structutalist Marxism" or "Marxist structuralism" for that tradition. Or "socialistic scientism". :p

And yes, it would be worth noting more explicitly the disparate nature of the materials the conspiracy theorists draw on ... but the dust never quite seems to settle. Newimpartial (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Strong support for page move to 'Structuralist Marxism' 👍👍👍 (unless there is also a 'Structuralist Marxism conspiracy theory'...)

When the dust settles, in 2080 AD or thereabouts, perhaps I'll take another look at the article...  Tewdar  18:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

So many emojis

That quote you've enshrined in emojis has stood up pretty well, I think, since it both precedes much of the scholarship making the actual argument I posted there, and also precedes the sources that have incorporated the term "Cultural Marxism" into scholarship. Newimpartial (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, a good quote. I found the surrounding discussion quite illuminating too. I'm new to using emojis so like all born-again types I probably overdo it a bit. 😂😁👍🙄  Tewdar  13:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Who's going to close the RfC, anyway? Jobrot, or Sennalen? 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣  Tewdar  16:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)