Talk:Cultural Bolshevism

Bogus Jordan Peterson References

None of the references indicate that Jordan Peterson discusses Cultural Marxism, and should be removed. He does like to talk about postmodernism, but then those references should be in the postmodernism wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiquark (talk • contribs) 22:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I've adjusted the wording of the page, but raiding a Wikipedia page because it mentions JBP unfavorably is particularly childish - even moreso that the copy wasn't adjusted and simply deleted instead of discussing. Thank you for starting this talk panel.

Mishmoo (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:FOC & WP:BLP - Ryk72 ^talk 02:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

If "Postmodern Neo-Marxism" is merely another term for "Cultural Bolshevism" you will have to find a reference that states that. Otherwise, you're doing original research. Antiquark (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

All I have to connect it to is Cultural Marxism, since that's explicitly what the paragraph JBP is in, is about. I'll add the citation.

Mishmoo (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

4 out of 5 references don't link Cultural Marxism to postmodern neo-Marxism.

• The #9 reference has no mention of Cultural Marxism/Bolshevism or postmodern neo-Marxism : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkNzYttjSHE
• The #10 reference has no mention of postmodern neo-Marxism : https://psmag.com/education/jordan-peterson-sliding-toward-fascism
• The #11 reference has no mention of Cultural Marxism/Bolshevism : https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/26/17144166/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life
• the #12 reference has no mention of postmodern neo-Marxism : https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/04/08/jordan-peterson-beating-pundits-own-game-217773

Antiquark (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be classic WP:SYNTH. I've again removed the content as poorly sourced or unsourced material about a living person. The sources simply do not mention the subject of this article, Cultural Bolshevism, in connection with Peterson. Per WP:BLPDELETE, it should not be restored without consensus. Additionally, this much material about a single person, in an article this short, seems WP:UNDUE/unbalanced. This article is also about a term used during the first half of the 20th century, so inclusion of this material reads like a classic WP:COATRACK; particularly as it appears on in the lead, with no mention in the body. - Ryk72 ^talk 02:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this is relevant for wiki's standards Ryk72, but this article has been linked to on the jordan peterson reddit and his fans are actively seeking out to edit unflattering references to him, including Antiquark: https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/kkq9yr/wiki_page_on_cultural_bolshevism_associates/

FWIW, it seems clear to me that it is correct to include references to Peterson using this theory. Getting hung up on the specifics of the name misses the point of the shared content of the theory. The review of Peterson's book in the NYRB specifically draws out this connection: https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/19/jordan-peterson-and-fascist-mysticism/

User:JCTullos, why did you revert User:Ryk72's edit? Ryk72 provided the following reasons for removing Peterson from the intro: WP:SYNTH, WP:BLPDELETE, WP:UNDUE/unbalanced, and WP:COATRACK. Please describe why these reasons are inadequate for Ryk72's edit. Antiquark (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Having read the whole of Pankaj Mishra's piece in the NY Review of Books, it does not mention either "Cultural Bolshevism" or "Cultural Marxism", far less say that the latter is frequently referenced by Peterson. In addition to the issues previously raised, the content that we have in the article fails WP:V. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That's interesting, Antiquark is also the user name of a moderator of the Jordan Peterson subreddit. 220.235.229.181 (talk)

Because JP frequently brings up Cultural Bolshevism/Marxism in his books and lectures. The source I linked showcased this and if that isn't enough here are other sources backing it up:

Other pages on Wikipedia also bring up Peterson's repeated use of the term

If it's good enough for those pages, it should be good enough for this one. JCTullos (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Are there any sources that aren't opinion columns? Are there any sources which don't trace solely back to this YouTube video - where "Cultural Marxism" appears only in the title, and which is published not by Peterson, but by the Epoch Times? Are there any sources which directly support the statement JP frequently brings up Cultural Bolshevism/Marxism in his books and lectures? Was the Google search to find these sources "Jordan Peterson cultural Marxism" or was it "cultural Marxism Jordan Peterson"? Looking for sources to fit a predetermined viewpoint is a terrible way to write a Wikipedia article; it leads to POV garbage. Other stuff exists is not a good argument - If it's not good enough for this page, maybe it's not good enough elsewhere. - Ryk72 ^talk 10:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

And are there any sources whose primary topic is Cultural Bolshevism, the term as used by the Nazis, which mention Peterson? If not, WP:UNDUE WP:COATRACK. - Ryk72 ^talk 10:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

All of those sources link to Peterson talking on the subject of Cultural Marxism, usually with direct quotes, and this very page mentions that CM is the modern form of Cultural Bolshevism. And again, other pages on this very website make it clear that Peterson likes to bring it up. If that's still not enough, here's videos of lectures and interviews where he talks about it at least briefly.

And here's more articles:

Just because its unflattering does not make it untrue, the only reason this argument over whether JP deserves to be on this page came up is because his fans raided it. If you want to clean it up that's fine but leaving out pertinent information is asinine. The man likes to bring up the Cultural Marxism/Bolshevism conspiracy theory, there's no denying it. JCTullos (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Are there any sources which are not opinion columns? Sources link to Peterson talking on the subject of Cultural Marxism appears unsupported by those sources - particularly if "Cultural Marxism" means Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. The sources link to a YouTube video which has "Cultural Marxism" as part of the title; but Peterson does not use the term, does not advocate or discuss the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, and the video is not published by Peterson. Usually with direct quotes is not supported by a review of those sources. While he rails against Marxism & post-Modernism in equal measure, there aren't any quotes in those linked sources of Peterson advocating for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Videos of lectures and interviews where he talks about it at least briefly is also false. In only one of those videos does the Frankfurt School get even a mention, and Peterson explicitly rejects the CMct. And none of this addresses the undue, coatrack issues. Sources which primarily discuss the term Cultural Bolshevism (Kulturbolschewismus) do not mention Peterson. - Ryk72 ^talk 05:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

You're going to have to take this up with the editors on the main Jordan Peterson page then, because this is all fine for them and I'm trying to keep everything uniform.

References

JCTullos (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. Even if this content were supported by reliable, non opinion, sources (and it's not); we don't include the same content in different articles - we include content which is germane to the article subject. This article is about the term "Cultural Bolshevism" (Kulturbolschewismus). Sources which primarily discuss that term do not mention Peterson. Even the sources which do mention Peterson & "Cultural Marxism" (not "Cultural Bolshevism") together, broadly speaking, do not discuss it as a conspiracy theory. This is SYNTH upon SYNTH and is wildly UNDUE. - Ryk72 ^talk 06:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• This looks like an UNDUE coatrack. The article focuses on something the Nazi's did and how they used the term/related activities. For some reason the lead has an unrelated "Cultural Marxism" which is hardly supported in the body of the article and again looks like a coatrack. To Peterson, this raises a question of reciprocity of weight. Just because subject A mentions B doesn't mean A is due for inclusion in article B. That Peterson uses this term doesn't tell us anything about this term or what the Nazi's were doing with it. The list of sources supports the view that this simply isn't due. Many are opinions or are sources that include strong opinions in their writings. Sources like Jacobian don't make clear distinctions and aren't good sources when deciding if a topic is DUE. This question of DUE is particurally important since this isn't an article about Peterson rather it's an article about something from the past and we are discussing shoehorning criticism of Peterson into this article because he is using a modernized version of an older term. Springee (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)
• Comment Isn't it about time to close this? Anyway Jobrot, I encourage you to add to the article, with your sources, that British fascists were railing against CM in the same period that the Nazis were railing against CB. I see no problem with including that context. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 00:53, 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)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wasn't this a propagandist expression?

Stating the following is nice.

Cultural Bolshevism (German: Kulturbolschewismus), sometimes referred to specifically as "art Bolshevism" or "music Bolshevism",[1] was a term widely used by critics in Nazi Germany to denounce modernist movements in the arts, particularly when seeking to discredit more nihilistic forms of expression.

However, it does not say if the criticism was justified and whether this was actually propaganda. Was it? --JamesPoulson (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that is implied. Readers can make up their own mind if this was justified.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Cultural Bolshevism was a derogatory term used by right-wing Germans to describe what is commonly known today as the Weimar culture. The term Weimar culture does not refer to all culture under the Weimar republic, but rather to the modernist cultural avant-garde that emerged in 1920s Germany. It is bit misleading to describe modernist culture as Weimar culture, but that is the term is generally used. It is true that the Nazis did use that term "cultural Bolshevism" to describe Weimar culture, but this article is being rather misleading in giving the impression that it was only the Nazis that used that term. I know the rules about the OR, but for those inclined, The Weimar Republic Sourcebook (Los Angeles, 1994) edited by Anton Kaes, Martin Jay, and Edward Dimendberg, is a very huge book that contains translations of all sorts of writings from the Weimar era. It is almost certainly the best source on that subject in English. There is a chapter about conservatism in the Weimar era, and anyone reading the selection of writings in that chapter cannot be struck by how often that term "cultural Bolshevism" gets used. That chapter has the transcript of a speech given in October 1932 by the Chancellor, Franz von Papen, an extremely right-wing Catholic politician who was not a Nazi, through he was certainly willing to work with the Nazis to achieve his goals. Papen goes on at much length in that speech about the evils of "cultural Bolshevism" and about how Germany needs to go back to the proper conservative, Christian values under his leadership. That term "cultural Bolshevism" was actually used by the German right in general to describe Weimar culture.

This is almost certainly not intentional, but there is an unfortunate tendency around here to break up German history into two boxes with the völkisch language and ideas in one box and language and ideas of everybody else in another box. This gives the misleading impression that völkisch ideas were rejected by everybody else. That is not the case at all. It is very more correct to speak of a continuum with the völkisch ideas at the extreme right of the continuum. Take one of the key Nazi concepts, namely that of the volksgemeinschaft (the people's community) as an example. The idea of creating the volksgemeinschaft was one of the core Nazi ideas, but that was not just a Nazi idea. Ironically, the concept of the volksgemeinschaft was actually coined by a Social Democrat, which the völkisch people then took over and put their own peculiar racist spin on it. In the same speech by Franz von Papen in The Weimar Republic Sourcebook that I just mentioned, he talks quite a bit about creating the volksgemeinschaft, through to be fair, Papen's idea of what the volksgemeinschaft should be like was a bit different from the Nazi version, through in both versions there was to be no place for "cultural Bolshevism".

Not just the Nazis, but German conservatives in general preferred the Russian terms Bolshevik and Bolshevism to describe Communists and Communism as a way of emphasizing the supposed "unGerman" nature of these people's ideas. And in the same way calling Weimar culture "cultural Bolshevism" was a way to say that Weimar culture was not real German culture. This article would benefit by bringing that in. This is probably not intentional, but at present this article gives the very misleading impression that it was only the Nazis who objected to Weimar culture, which was not the case at all. For many conservative middle-class Germans, the new culture that emerged in the 1920s caused much angst as it felt that Weimar culture was "disgusting" and "sick", a sign of decay and decline. The same thing happened in other nations like France, Britain and the United States at the precisely the same time, but the key differences was that those nations were the victors of World War One and did not experience a revolution. Losing World War One, which was promptly followed up by the November Revolution that toppled the monarchy were deeply traumatic events for the conservative German middle classes whom felt that everything they loved and respected was being swept away. And for people in that frame of mind, the new culture of the 1920s was an additional trauma and threat, which helps to explain the intense, visceral reaction to "cultural Bolshevism", which was more ferocious than anything experienced in France, the UK and the United States during the same period. That is no doubt the reason why the Nazis kept banging on about the evils of "cultural Bolshevism", which is something that the article would benefit from by mentioning. --A.S. Brown (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Too short article

We need to elaborate, as per some topics in the discussion above. Zezen (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Merger

The discussion above notwithstanding, there is a good case to merge this article with Art in Nazi Germany and Cultural Marxism as a WP:CFORK. At the moment, it adds nothing. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2020 (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) 20:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposing merge to Degenerate art

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No feedback. Did the merge. Sennalen (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

---

This is a short article with limited prospects for expansion. Furthermore, everything that is presently here would be useful context over there. Sennalen (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Seeing no discussion and anticipating none, I will start this in a day or two. I think most of the text can drop as a mostly intact subsection under the Weimar heading. Sennalen (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Results of merging can be seen now at [Degenerate art https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Degenerate_art&oldid=1101779727]. Discussion can still be considered open. Sennalen (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Restored page previously merged

This restoration was done due to the offending editor Sennalen having been caught performing a similar tactic on a more well known page (Culture Studies), attempting to merge Marxist cultural analysis with Culture studies. The user seems intent on vandalizing the topic area, and deleting pages via mergers. 220.235.229.181 (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

1. There was no "offending" or "tactic"
2. The procedure of WP:MERGEPROP was followed to the letter
3. All the content is present and contextualized at Degenerate art, not "vandalized"

Sennalen (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

As you've been involved with similar attempts to get rid of pages over at Marxist Cultural Analysis, the correct action would be to conduct a proper RfC. 220.235.229.181 (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, how long your change went unnoticed doesn't matter, because the page isn't heavily watched. So in this case, longevity does not equate to legitimacy. If it were a highly active/monitored talk page and a merge with people OTHER THAN YOU involved, then longevity might reflect an ongoing consensus, but it does not. 220.235.229.181 (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Besides having a vendetta against me, do you have a reason this should remain a stand-alone page rather than a section of Degenerate art? Sennalen (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Because they're different concepts, degenerate art is not necessarily Cultural Bolshevism, and vice versa, and I'm not sure why you're claiming them as synonyms (culture and art are after all, also two greatly separate concepts). By your logic degenerate art could just be merged into modern art [27] - but again, they're not the same concepts. In fact, if you read the first line of the article, it mentions Cultural Bolshevism as also consisting of: "art Bolshevism, music Bolshevism or sexual Bolshevism" - so are you now saying sex is art? I mean you may THINK I have a vendetta against you (although I don't know why, you've never done anything against me as a person), but in actual fact, you do just merge and cut away what does not fit your new conception. This is damaging vandalism, and not the building of an encyclopedia. You may not realize that you do this, or think that's what you're doing. But it is evident in moments like this.

If anything, I'd say it's you, who has a vendetta against this topic area, hence your multiple attempts to minimize it and secret it away. 220.235.229.181 (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. "Degenerate art" and "cultural Bolshevism" are closely related as Weimar perjoratives for modern art. It better serves the reader to have them together than apart. Cultural Bolshevism could indeed be merged into modern art, or Art in Nazi Germany, or be a standalone page, but merging into Degenerate art was the Goldilocks solution. If you think I cut out something important, WP:FIXIT on Degenerate art. Sennalen (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to Degenerate art having a snippet, summary or section about Cultural Bolshevism. My unmerger didn't involve removing anything from Degenerate art, that was done by another editor. At any rate, sexual Bolshevism, and music Bolsheivism, aren't readily digestible as forms of "degenerate art" - so I disagree with your opinion on what serves the reader... and we are here to WP:BUILDWP an encyclopedia that serves the reader. 220.253.3.32 (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Didn't notice this was merged until now. I'd tend to agree that I'm opposed to merging it; the term has sufficient coverage to support an independent article (something that was affirmed by stronger consensuses in both an AFD and another requested merge above), especially coverage that connects it to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory in a way that doesn't make sense as on Degenerate art. I'd also somewhat question merging it with a consensus based entirely on WP:SILENCE when there's a clear and significantly stronger consensus that this should be its own article above. Normally, in a situation like that, the thing to do would be to seek additional comments, not to proceed with the merge. While of course a consensus can change, reversing a strong consensus based on "nobody objected this time" is probably something better-off avoided. --Aquillion (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  An article can exist based on current sourcing, but that doesn't mean it should. It's short, lacking context, and the presence of this material at Degenerate art improves that page. The strong consensus you point to is from 2015 and concerns specifically merging to "Cultural Marxism" which is a contentious topic in itself. After the cultural warriors moved on, all the comments from 2019 on have a theme: too short, needs context, could be merged to Art in Nazi Germany. That's a slow-moving consensus to merge in principle. Sennalen (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Pinging all prior talk page participants in case they wish to offer a fresh opinion on the merge of Cultural Bolshevism into Degenerate art. For those who haven't been following along, I performed the merge last August. An IP has recently objected on procedural grounds. @Antiquark: @Mishmoo: @Ryk72: @JCTullos: @Springee: @Jobrot: @Maunus: @Jack Upland: @Beyond My Ken: @Raquel Baranow: @Finnusertop: @Ceosad: @Wowaconia: @Connor Machiavelli: @JamesPoulson: @A.S. Brown: @Zezen: @Brigade Piron: @Emir of Wikipedia: Sennalen (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Cultural Bolshevism is a larger concept than Degenerate Art.

  It also involves the Natsoc conspiracy theory akin to today's Cultural Marxism which claims that some kind of subtle revolution is being stirred through the cultural medium. JamesPoulson (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the ,erger and approve of the unmerger. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Any reason? Sennalen (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the merger and approve of the unmerger. Yes, "Cultural Bolshevism" and "Degenerate art" are both NAZI rhetorical tropes, and there is a zone where they overlap. But they are not in fact coterminous in scope, nor is one a subset of the other, and the nature of each rhetoric is distinct (the role antisemitism plays in each being quite different, for example). It therefore seems more encyclopaedic to treat each in its own article, and I have seen no policy-compliant reason given why they should be combined into one.

(Also, while I have edited this article before I seem not to have participated in prior discussion here on Talk; it might be worth checking the article history in case other editors are in the same situation, and could be productively notified of this discussion.) Newimpartial (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Signs point to the contrary. The first documented use of "Kulturbolschewismus" was about French expressionism undermining German voelkisch values. The later more common uses are mostly about precisely the same art, music, and architecture called "degenerate": particularly Bauhaus and Dada. One of the precursors of the famous Entartete Kunst exhibition was an exhibit simply titled "Kulturbolshewismus". The Berlin exhibition divided works into 9 categories, of which 4 had to do with Bolshevism. Degenerate art is incomplete without a section on Cultural Bolshevism. If it stands that the copied content is removed from Degenerate art, then a new section will have to be written to replace it. Meanwhile, there is nothing currently at Cultural Bolshevism that does not fit at Degenerate art. There has historically been efforts to coatrack more about Jordan Peterson. That was thankfully curtailed, but evidence of that history is still betrayed by the fact that the bulk of sourcing here is taken from sources about Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory instead of genuine scholarship on the Weimar period. There is nothing more the article could really say on the topic of Cultural Bolshevism that wouldn't fit the topic of Degenerate art. There is however potential for future abuse and coatracking, which I suspect motivates some editors to want to preserve a page by this name. Sennalen (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Couldn't your desire to merge - also be seen as a form of coatracking into degenerate art though? That claim at least has more evidence than your fear of an imagined future coatracking occurring here - and in fact, this page has been fairly stable for multiple years now (evidence opposing your fear). So I don't think your efforts here are as justified as you're perceiving them to be. 220.253.3.32 (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose merge Related but distinct topics can benefit from separate articles; I think that applies here. XOR'easter (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose merger: these are two distinct topics.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose merge Art is part of culture, culture is the larger context for art. Also, Hitler was making other accusations about culture, and other groups have had their own versions or references to degenerate art, or cultural marxism/bolshevism. Keeping the article keeps that clarity. 194.223.44.220 (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)