Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 20

"the etymology of the term Cultural Marxism"

What the article says Feldman writes: "professor Matthew Feldman argues that the etymology of the term Cultural Marxism derived from the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism)"

What Feldman actually writes: "Some fascists even pointed to the influence of Marxism, or 'cultural Bolshevism'. According to a BUF writer, it was the task of 'cultural Marxism' to plant the seed of cultural disintegration. because a climate of national and cultural decay aided the goal of revolutionary communism"

Feldman here is not arguing that the "etymology" of the term "Cultural Marxism" derives from Kulturbolschewismus, or Cultural Bolshevism. He is not saying anything about etymology. What he is doing, is using these two terms, as synonyms. Perhaps we could justify saying "Feldman uses the terms cultural Marxism and cultural Bolshevism identically/interchangeably..." or something like that.

Do we have a source explicitly saying Cultural Marxism < Kulturbolschewismus (which does look highly likely, since the first time I can find it is in a BUF journal)? If so, we should probably use that instead. Tewdar (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Without responding to the point I know you're trying to make, there's another problem with that expression: namely, this: one can *never* say, "the etymology of the term XYZ derives/is derived from <something>". Etymology is the study of word origins, and by extension, the origin of a word. So in the second sense, you could say either:
  • the etymology of the term XYZ is <something>, or
  • the term XYZ derives/is derived from <something>,
but not both. Etymology is derived from Greek etymon, "true sense, original meaning", + -logia "study of". See the "cheese" example at use–mention distinction. Mathglot (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Indeed the sentence is bollocks on every level. Tewdar (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
We could always revise the sentence so that it is based primarily on Martin Jay's reference, rather than Feldman's. Newimpartial (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Go right ahead. Tewdar (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more like "Feldman has noted the BUF use the terms interchangably", rather than "Feldman uses the term interchangably" --124.170.170.79 (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
He appears to be treating them as though they are synonymous. The crackpot BUF article that I quoted somewhere on this page does not use the term 'Cultural Bolshevism' as far as I can remember. Tewdar (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
My preference, though, would be to remove Feldman entirely from this section, and replace it with something else, properly summarized and attributed. Tewdar (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Unrelated tangent
Why, are you trying to reduce the article? I doubt Feldman is lying about his sources. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
You also seemed very happy to have removed references to Breivik on the Cultural Marxism section of another page. It seems to be there's a trend going on here. Quite WP:TEND --124.170.170.79 (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Feldman is not lying about his sources. I checked the citation he gives, and provided a quotation on this page. What Feldman does not do, is tell us anything about the etymology of "Cultural Marxism". That is why we need to improve the article, by replacing Feldman with a source that does do this. The Breivik stuff is not due on a page about "Marxist cultural analysis", where we only need a brief mention of the conspiracy theory to avoid confusion and a link to this article. My deletion was not contested by anyone, not even Newimpartial (!!!), until now. As for your accusation of bias, this is, quite frankly, bullshit. Tewdar (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I notice now that Mvbaron did in fact restore the part relating to Breivik at one point. But again, myself, Sennalen, and Newimpartial seemed to agree that it was out of place there. If anything, it looks as though people arguing for its inclusion on that page are attempting to improperly conflate the conspiracy theory with the Frankfurt School. Perhaps you are the one who is sus. Tewdar (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
What can I say, when a new editor comes at two relate political pages, and starts to remove sources, I question why they came WP:HERE. Sorry if I offended you. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I'VE BEEN HERE TWO AND A HALF FUCKING YEARS. 😡 Tewdar (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I see you're very angry. I meant new to editing this page. You should consider taking a WP:wikibreak if you're this invested in what is essentially WP:FORUM style chat. Which by the way, I'm not here for, and should stop. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
starts to remove sources Like this?[1] Sennalen (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
No, that doesn't look like a controversial removal of sources. The Frankfurt School never preached "Marxism applied to cultural goals" - and I believe that is Conspiracy Theorist William S. Lind's misinterpretation. Here is the late 'Andrew Breitbart' using almost the same words (although he says translated): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4qkvu3ACUU - The Frankfurt School is not directly related to Identity Politics. Identity Politics came from Barbara SMith at the Combahee River Collective.
The Frankfurt School's "cultural Marxism" (if we are to call it that for the purposes of this discussion) involved pointing out that the Culture Industry (one of their key concepts), was run by corporate interests specifically to indulge a capitalist ideology. The idea that they "set out to perform a Marxist take over of the west" is conspiracy BS, and should be removed. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
As I'm answering basic questions about the conspiracy theory, I'll also quickly note that The Frankfurt School aren't responsible for the phrase "Long March through the institutions". That phrase can (loosely) be attributed to Rudi Dutschke, a later thinker, whom only Marcuse expressed approval of, and was not part of The Frankfurt School. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I see that none of the WP:OWNers have managed to WP:FIXIT yet. It doesn't even make sense. Tewdar (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    And, for reasons that can easily be found by looking at recent sections on this talkpage, there is no need to ask the question, "why don't you FIXIT, Tewdar?" Tewdar (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Your link to WP:FIXIT was broken, so I fixed it for you. Please let me know if there's anything more you think we can do. --RecardedByzantian (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
If I intended it to be a link, I would have made it a link. I will be sure to let you know about other improvements that can be made, whether it be factual inaccuracies, false quotations that nobody said, or basic grammar problems. 👍 Tewdar (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1 - Feldman writes this: Some fascists even pointed to the influence of Marxism, or 'cultural Bolshevism'. According to a BUF writer, it was the task of 'cultural Marxism' to plant the seed of cultural disintegration ... 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. Which can be summarized as "professor Matthew Feldman argues that the term Cultural Marxism is derived from/is reminiscent of the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism)". Any complaints? --Mvbaron (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

May I also add that this talk page is so full of ramblings that it's very hard to make anything of it. If everyone could just stick to suggesting concrete improvements to the article, we could all move on much more quickly. (Also insinuations of WP:OWNership do not help and I would like to ask you Tewdar (now for the second time) to drop that kind of talk. Thanks --Mvbaron (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Feldman isn't arguing that, or indeed anything about the relationship between the terms 'cultural Marxism' and 'cultural Bolshevism'. He is simply using these terms synonymously. And I don't believe that I mentioned OWNership before now, but, despite heavy provocation, insinuation, and misrepresentation, mainly by ip 127, I will make an effort to remain civil from now on. Tewdar (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I genuinely find it quite worrying that you think that Some fascists even pointed to the influence of Marxism, or 'cultural Bolshevism'. According to a BUF writer, it was the task of 'cultural Marxism' to plant the seed of cultural disintegration. because a climate of national and cultural decay aided the goal of revolutionary communism can be accurately summarized as professor Matthew Feldman argues that the term Cultural Marxism is derived from/is reminiscent of the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism). If we want to make an etymological (or any other) link between Kulturbolschewismus and the modern conspiracy theory, this source is probably not the best way to do that. Why not use the Martin Jay source, as Newimpartial suggested on Jan 5th right near the start of this section?  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I had a go at it. Still rather SYNTHy, but at least not completely false and nonsensical now.  Tewdar  (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Mvbaron: please explain how Feldman is claiming that Cultural Marxism is derived from/is reminiscent of the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism).  Tewdar  (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Sure: Some fascists even pointed to the influence of Marxism, or 'cultural Bolshevism'. According to a BUF writer, it was the task of 'cultural Marxism' to plant the seed of cultural disintegration ... 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. In this quote Feldamn says (in indirect speech) that whenever the conspiracy theorists 'pander to vice' they mean (refer to) the 'hidden hand' of Bolshevik cultural subversion. We can summarize this rather flowery language with "professor Matthew Feldman argues that the term Cultural Marxism is is reminiscent of the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism)". Mvbaron (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think so. He 'argues' absolutely nothing of the sort. And why do you [...] elide the text?  Tewdar  (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Mvbaron: you wrote that Feldamn says (in indirect speech) that whenever the conspiracy theorists 'pander to vice' they mean (refer to) the 'hidden hand' of Bolshevik cultural subversion. Perhaps you have misunderstood this. Feldman is not saying here that the conspiracy theorists are pandering to vice. Feldman is saying that the BUF writer is arguing that when contemporary society 'panders to vice', it is because of Bolshevik cultural subversion. This discussion is causing me to question my sanity, and so I implore other editors to take a look at the text (which is available on Google books here and decide whether they agree that Feldman argues that the term Cultural Marxism [...] is reminiscent of the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism)"  Tewdar  (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes that's what I mean: the BUF writer is arguing that when contemporary society 'panders to vice', it is because of Bolshevik cultural subversion. <-- this is the conspiracy trope, i.e. it is because of 'cultural Marxism'. So: Feldman says that the BUF writer is, when he uses 'cultural Marxism', referring to the trope of 'cultural Bolshevism'. Feldman isn't using the terms interchangeably, but is making the connection between them. I don't see why you are so vehemently against that. Mvbaron (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Mvbaron: Because Feldman isn't "making a connection". He isn't describing a resemblance. He isn't talking about etymology. He has absolutely nothing to say about the relationship between these two terms whatsoever. He is simply using the terms as synonyms, because, in this context, they mean the same thing. Again, I implore other editors to take a look at the text and decide what they think Feldman is actually saying here.  Tewdar  (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Mvbaron: - I started a section at the OR noticeboard here, hope you don't mind.  Tewdar  (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
not at all. Mvbaron (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Or, even better, how he argues that the etymology of the term Cultural Marxism derived from the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism).  Tewdar  (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Which is completely nonsensical, by the way.  Tewdar  (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Full quote: Some fascists even pointed to the influence of Marxism, or 'cultural Bolshevism'. According to a BUF writer, it was the task of 'cultural Marxism' to plant the seed 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.
  • My summary: Feldman reports that some fascists blamed Marxism, or cultural Bolshevism, for increasing sexual promiscuity. Feldman also reports that, according to a BUF writer, "cultural Marxism" [which Feldman apparently considers to be synonymous with Cultural Bolshevism] aims to initiate cultural disintegration in order to achieve the goal of revolutionary communism. Feldman thus suggests that the BUF writer blames cultural Marxism / Bolshevism for societal vices and immorality.  Tewdar  (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    I just elided the text because I found it too long and not important enough. Thanks for providing the full quote. And with the full quote, even more so, I read that Feldman sees a continuity of the notion of Kulturbolschewismus and cultural marxism. Maybe not so far as to talk of etymology, but certainly a continuity. The key sentence is 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. This is not just Feldman using the terms synonymously, but him arguing (yes) that the terms are related. In my opinion anyways, but maybe we need an RFC? (This talk page isn't confusing enough :D ) Mvbaron (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    Your interpretation is absolutely bizarre, requiring us to put a lot of words in Feldman's mouth with copious synth. I have no idea how anybody could come up with such a summary. It is as though we are reading two different things. RfC is not necessary, but other input would be... well, I'd say "helpful", but it depends who shows up, really...  Tewdar  (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    I mean, it's generous to say he uses the terms synonymously (which is still probably original research, imo). He actually is a terrible source for what we are trying to force him to say. And we have another source we could use, which was pointed out a week or so ago...  Tewdar  (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    It would be interesting to know exactly what the source said, particularly to what extent it used "Marxism" or "Bolshevism", or what other sources it cited in turn. Unfortunately, the particular footnote is on a page that Google doesn't preview. On a side note, I do not see where Feldman connects "cultural Bolshevism" to nazis. I'm sure there are sources that do, but we can't attribute it to Feldman if he doesn't say it. Sennalen (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    Hang on, I'll copy n paste it in a bit...  Tewdar  (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    Oh yeah, I already did... here it is again...
    Marxism, the Doctrine of Decay by Francis Mcevoy - "Needless to say, the utopian equalitarianism of the denationalised intellectual has never existed anywhere, but it is not political so-called communism which threatens immediate danger to this country. That would be the final consummation, but before the oriental commissars can come into their own, the minds of the prospective victims must be prepared for the event, that is to say, perverted and poisoned to the necessary degree of receptivity. Herein lies the task of cultural Marxism, the preliminary bolshevisation of the mind, facilitated by the indiscriminate toleration-psychosis of liberalism, inherent in Social-Democracy, and leading to its final inevitable collapse."  Tewdar  (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    I found a pdf of Mcevoy, which is absolute claptrap. It cites only one person, Theodore Mommsen. You wouldn't know it from Mcevoy's framing, but Mommsen was not talking about Marxism at all but rather Jews in the Roman empire. The same quote also appears in Mein Kampf, so I think that shows with some certainty where Mcevoy's thinking was. Mommsen, who died in 1905, at least seems innocent in this. He was known in his own time for anti-anti-Semitism and wrote about how the passage in question had been misinterpreted. Sennalen (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Sennalen: It is funnier than Father Ted, that random IP addresses here and others apparently think that you are a far-right conspirator. 😂  Tewdar  (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Looks like the OR Noticeboard is being even less generous than I was trying to be.  Tewdar  (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Mvbaron: fine, start another interminable RfC then. I'd rather you just remove the offending passage though, myself.  Tewdar  (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    Why was I pinged? But I do actually have a discussion (RFC) drafted (I hope I didn’t delete it). I’m happy for you to draft it too ofc. But I had 3 options in mind: 1 keep, 2 remove, 3 reword. (and then some proposals for reword) should be pretty straightforward. Mvbaron (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    The wording in the article is challenging because the sources we have so far treat the matter ellitptically. I hope that that with the right sources, the genealogy of the idea can be addressed more directly and comprehensively, making this Dafaure problem a temporary one. Sennalen (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    Do you have a link to your draft, or is it not in Wikispace?  Tewdar  (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    It was on my PC… but I can’t seem to find it anymore Mvbaron (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh well. I have no idea why you want to keep that summary. None whatsoever. It is fiction. It is a grotesque distortion. It isn't even necessary! Why waste everyone's time with an RfC, when you could just remove the offending passage? Surely you don't really believe any of those proposed summaries are acceptable? Even the one I wrote (that you rejected) was synth!  Tewdar  (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
hmm? I didn't even revert when it was removed. I just said that pseudo-rfc was probably the best way to solve this, instead of this drawn-out discussion. I'm fine with whatever comes out of any close here or over yonder at the OR noticeboard Mvbaron (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Fine, fine... perhaps NorthBySouthBaranof can explain why they disagreed with the removal, then. Seriously, an RfC? For this?  Tewdar  (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure there has been RFCs for even less important matters. :D Mvbaron (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I started one once, for something trivial, but I wouldn't do that now, because they are usually just total bullshit, imo.  Tewdar  (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC) - edit: anyway, let's wait a while until the OR noticeboard overwhelmingly declares it to be synth, which it quite obviously is. 😁  Tewdar  (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this expressing the conspiracy theory?

I happened to come across this while searching on Marcuse, Campus Intolerace Then and Now: The influence of Marcusian ideology by Guenter Lewy https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED581884.pdf It's from a think tank, but a respected one, and written by a qualified expert, but an unorthodox one. I'd say RS but certainly not a best source. What I'm curious about is editors' impressions on whether or not this article is an expression of the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Sennalen (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Without answering the specific question you ask, the source definitely seems WP:FRINGE. Newimpartial (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
How would you say it departs from mainstream views? Sennalen (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
For example, the interpretation of "Antifa" that begins in the section, "Marcusan undertones of today's activism", represents a far from mainstream view of its subject. Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
It points to the existence of https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07393148.2016.1228580 , some objective facts, and maybe a little centrist opinion cited to Associated Press, The Atlantic, and NYT. It seems pretty consistent with the mainstream conception of antifa as a group devoted to disorganized violence against people who they call fascists and in many cases are fascists. Sennalen (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Presenting "antifa" as a Marcuse-inspired sectarian movement is not mainstream, nor is it baed on some objective facts. On the other hand, many FRINGE sources have indeed held Marcuse responsible for "political correctness" and anything else they don't like about contemporary progressive movements. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
It's well accepted that Marcuse inspired revolutionary praxis in the New Left and Weather Underground. Is there a mainstream consensus for an expiration date on that influence? Sennalen (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
That's funny, considering he wasn't involved in the founding of the New Left Review, and he's not mentioned in our Weather Underground article. Hmmmn... --115.64.191.199 (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I believe the consensus would put that date around 1980, give or take. Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Note that Lewy does not say that antifa were influenced by Marcuse, just that they are "echoing" him. But he implies they were, which is advocating a conspiracy theory. Experts on antifa don't attribute Marcuse as an influence.

Sennalen, left-wing violence didn't begin with Marcuse. There is evidence that antifa was influenced by Communism, Trotskyism, Maoism, anarchism and the original antifa. And sure Marcuse said that political violence was sometimes justified, but American children are taught that in school. The U.S. was founded on political violence.

TFD (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course violence preceeded Marcuse by centuries. His apologia for it is still very current. Sennalen (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
His apologia for it is still very current - once again, stating the thing to be demonstrated as though it were an established fact. Newimpartial (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Likewise for asserting it's fringe. Sennalen (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
So why connect antifa violence with Marcuse, instead of Marx, Kropotkin, Trotsky or Mao? For that matter, how are they different from the Boston Tea Party? TFD (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Kropotkin? Surely Bakunin would be a better fit amongst the individuals you mention, if we need a token anarchist? 🤔  Tewdar  (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The suggestion that a 1960s Frankfurt School academic and paperback author has offered an apologia for political violence that is relevant to 21st-cenrury antifascism has a burden of proof operating against it, I feel. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Like Tostoy's pacifism, such things have a timeless universal quality to them. Sennalen (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
You need to prove the publisher, the right-wing American Council of Trustees and Alumni, isn't fringe. TFD (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Another problem with the source is that it implies antifa is bigger than it really is. The article begins, "Freedom of expression is threatened on today’s college campuses. Speakers who challenge what a vocal group considers right and just are too often disinvited or shouted down, creating an atmosphere of harassment and intimidation." Whether or not that is true, antifa has no influence over academic institutions and little support among students. Even if antifa is inspired by antifa, that does not prove that the administrators of universities are. TFD (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it means to imply that. Antifa and campus climate are treated separately. Sennalen (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Lewy cites a source from 2016 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07393148.2016.1228580 that applies Marcuse to campus political correctness and also protests against Trump.

None of these appear to say that the students or protesters directly cite Marcuse, but all of these authors consider Marcuse timely and applicable to analyzing the situation across a span of time. By saying that Marcuse is relevant to political correctness controversies 1992-2016, are these sources,

  1. Fringe?
  2. Advancing the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory?

Sennalen (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, yeah; this exemplifies the FRINGE perspective. What we have here is three sources (1992-2016) that want to recuperate Marcuse for social change, which you and Levy are cherry-picking as though they represent a significant thread in scholarship on campus "political correctness" or on "antifa". They do not.
Also, by asking whether (fairly naïve) scholars appropriating Marcuse are advancing the conspiracy theory, you appear to be intentionally creating [FUD]] about what is the conspiracy theory and what is scholarship about the Frankfurt school - that is itself a move from the playbook of the conspiracy theory (and reminds me of what one finds in the archive of this Talk page if one searches for "Swood100"). Please don't do that. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
This is what I found from searching Google Scholar for +"political correctness" +"marcuse". You could argue that conducting such a search at all begs the question, but it's a question that the topic of the conspiracy does raise.
To see what I'd find without priming on Marcuse, I tried a search for +"political correctness" +"antifa". The first result was an empirical study[2] which for background cites this[3] which says current controversies resemble 1990s campus controversies described by this[4] which cites Marcuse in a footnote. It's a tenuous chain, which has bearing on due weight. What it is not, in any way, is a rejection of the idea that Marcuse is applicable to campus climate in 2022. I know of no source that considers whether Marcuse has something to do with political correctness and explicitly rejects the idea. Even Kellner, who is not naive and who rejects the conservative reading of Marcuse, affirms Marcuse's pertinence.
While I certainly don't want to foment any fear, you're right that I aim to generate some uncertainty and doubt. I believe certain editors have ossified in a strong point of view that might be shaken up by earnestly reflecting on these sources, several of which wear their leftward orientation openly, along with Lewy who is arguably conservative but also a Jewish émigré of the holocaust. Hopefully what follows is some warranted epistemic humility and some kind of Aufhebung, which would be ironically topical. Sennalen (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
So, your express intention in opening this section is to create uncertainty and doubt about what the conspiracy theory says and what reliable scholarship says? Noted. Newimpartial (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
To reduce certainty in editors' views imported from outside the reliable scholarship. Sennalen (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't have any of that, though, and I'm not sure anyone (in this discussion) does. Newimpartial (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I would generally classify Lewy as a WP:FRINGE source for other reasons (eg. his denial of the Armenian genocide), but even beyond that that source is from a think tank, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, not a peer-reviewed paper - it's not particularly usable for anything in the first place. And we especially could not use it to say that someone endorsed a conspiracy theory, that's the sort of WP:BLP-sensitive thing that we want WP:SECONDARY sources for. --Aquillion (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Move "Terrorism" subsection (and Breivik) to "Aspects of the conspiracy theory" section

Anyone think this is a good idea? So that "Terrorism", starting with Breivik, comes just after the antisemitic canards section? I'd do it myself, but I don't understand the horrible "ref name=" system (I usually use sfn), which gives me loads of "ref name undefined in this section" errors or something when I try to move stuff.  Tewdar  (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I tried it. I don't think I broke anything. Feel free to register your displeasure if you don't like it by reverting.  Tewdar  (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and if anyone wants to revert *all* of my structural changes today, (because onus, or consensuzzz, etc.) the 11:13, 15 January 2022 revision is the one to restore I believe.  Tewdar  (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I have followed up with an additional structural change. The "Origins" subsection should be first, not second. Newimpartial (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't disagree to the point that I would want to change it back again.  Tewdar  (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Consensus based on votes and group discussion

I think it's fair to say this discussion resulted in a consensus vote against major structural/content/sourcing changes. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus, but plenty of new insight into what people prioritize. Sennalen (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Honestly I think the main takeaway is just to go a bit more slowly when dealing with highly controversial articles. Focus on one specific change at a time, with one specific explanation of why. Dropping a huge wall of policies and then suggesting a massive rewrite is usually going to be a hard sell - especially if you come out swinging by accusing the entire article of NPOV issues. You're gonna have to be laser-specific about those, because the problem is that, especially when it comes to a conspiracy theory, many people are going to disagree on what a neutral treatment looks like and therefore might think that your changes are introducing POV rather than making it more neutral. The only way to negotiate those disputes is to be extremely specific about what you think the problem is, the exact change you want to make, and how, so people can weigh it according to the available sources and how the topic is discussed in them. "This entire article has POV issues and needs to be more / less sympathetic to the subject" is something that sets off red alarms in my head because it is an assertion that comes to the table with a presumption of what a neutral article should look like - but that's going to be the center of any dispute, so you're better off drilling down as thoroughly as possible into the nitty-gritty of eg. what important things you think the article leaves out. Sweeping assertions like that also don't leave room for compromise - there's certainly parts of the article that can be improved in various ways, but if your premise is that the entire article is being unfair to the conspiracy theory or something, or not elaborating on it enough overall to the point where it's a serious article-wide problem, then my answer is going to be no, I'm not seeing that at all and I don't think you've presented any serious arguments that could justify it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
This discussion resulted in sweet FA, like almost every discussion on Wikipedia.  Tewdar  (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Three opposes, literally no one voted for the changes, and no good argument was found for them. How is this not a consensus? --115.64.191.199 (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
There's consensus that the article shouldn't start with its current first paragraph, it should have a hat note to an article on more accepted ideas, and we should look to precedents in other conspiracy theory articles. Sennalen (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
AFAIK there is consensus that the article start with the same hatnote it carries at present, and then a lede much like the present one. Newimpartial (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
You're straight up lying now. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Those are thoughts that you brought to the table, and I don't disagree with them. Sennalen (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
That's twice you've been caught claiming a consensus that didn't exist. Once about the removal of Breivik on Marxist cultural analysis, and now with this, about changes to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
In the first case, there was consensus for a moment before you and Aquillion got involved. Consensus can change. On the latter, you yourself have said:
  1. Wikivoice cannot be used to endorse conspiracy theories. Starting the page with a background of The Frankfurt School does just that.
  2. As with the Norway shootings section, I think we should have a 'see also' hat note (or 'from main article') for The Frankfurt School section and Cultural Bolshevism section
  3. We need to look at other conspiracy related articles vs their real counterparts.
Can you point to anyone who has expressed disagreement on those three matters? Sennalen (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I certainly have for (1). Mvbaron (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, perhaps you and the IP should negotiate on whether or not the article should begin with the background of the Frankfurt School. Sennalen (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The current lede doesn't start with a background. So how is it relevant? How is that a consensus for change is that problem is in the current page? --115.64.191.199 (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Don’t play games. I opposed your reorganisation of the article based on the way you, well, organised it: with the two headings “background” (which isn’t a background) and “the conspiracy theory” (which created a false balance looking like the co spirally somehow has the Frankfurt school as historical background).

At this point all this is getting tendentious and into bludgeoning territory. If you have reasonable changes in mind, propose them properly and don’t bog down this mess of a talk page even further please. Mvbaron (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggested reasonable change: the "Aspects of the conspiracy theory" and "History" sections are very confused. I suggest that we reserve the "Aspects of the conspiracy theory" section for, er, aspects of the conspiracy theory, and, if we really must have an all-encompassing history section, keep the chronological development of the conspiracy theory in here.  Tewdar  (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The current article structure is a grotesque parody of how an article should be organized, defying common sense, logic, ease of adding new material, and attempts at improvement.  Tewdar  (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Yet you abstained from voting in support of Sennalen's changes. Why was that? --115.64.191.199 (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I proposed a modified structure instead, based on Sennalen's proposed structure. Perhaps you should take a closer look.  Tewdar  (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • We had a discussion on the structure. IP closes discussion, announcing that there is a "consensus". Then, Mvbaron attempts to make structural changes to the article without discussion, let alone consensus. Is this some sort of private joke?  Tewdar  (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • apologies for not coming back to this article sooner, as it seems to have fallen victim to violations of WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:LAWYER by some seemingly self-righteous WP:STEWARDs that are hell-bent on ensuring that this topic is portrayed in the most flattering light. Despite the title of the article being "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" they have reverted multiple edits that change the lead sentence to indicate that the article refers to a conspiracy theory, rather than a conspiracy theory based on "cultural Marxism", the very commonly used synonym of "Marxist cultural analysis" which sources have been provided to prove that the terms are used interchangeably. Looking at the edits they've made, it's plainly clear that they have a WP:POV bias in many articles that are politically contentious, and only work to ensure that views which dissent from their own, despite the provided sources, are removed as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.52.47.222 (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Fringey edits in the Jewish Bolshevism‎ article

Someone is editing the article to promote Jewish Bolshevism by inserting the claim that there were "between a plurality and majority of Jews among the Bolsheviks" which is contradicted by what the article states in the "Jewish involvement in Russian Communism" section. Perhaps some editors who watch this page could take a look? (t · c) buidhe 08:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

But what about Bertrand Russell?

An excellent case can be made for citing Bertrand Russell, who was not Jewish, as the "founding father" of what is now referred to as Cultural Marxism. Russell's essay "Why I am Not a Christian" can be plausibly cited as the "bible" of the movement — and not for nothing, but Russell was born 26 years earlier than Herbert Marcuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TOttenville8 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Russel really never was seen as a critical theorist... in any case, we need reliable sources connecting Russell to any of this, otherwise this is original research --Mvbaron (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
How is that their bible? Marx had already rejected religion and so did a number of non-socialist philosophers in the nineteenth century. The theories of Ayn Rand shows that opposition to Christianity is not unique to the Left. TFD (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Actually, there's more evidence to the contrary. He was a socialist himself for one. An article called "We are all still children of the Frankfurt School - Nation Thailand" accuses him of being a part of the conspiracy which it also sounds like you are doing and judging by you calling Marcuse a potential founder that's what the conspiracy propagates. P.S. the comment above about 'Ayn Rand on the left' is comical! FifthAcaciaColumn (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Nope, but perhaps one day the article will include a list of people accused of being in (or founding) the Frankfurt School - who weren't (or didn't). --60.240.148.170 (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Original research issue?

CLOSED
Obvious consensus that this is inappropriate synthesis and original research. Orange Mike | Talk 14:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

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.


Is this paragraph

In Fascism and Culture (2003), historian of fascism Matthew Feldman argues that the term Cultural Marxism is derived from the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism), with which the Nazis claimed that Jewish cultural influence caused German social degeneration under the liberal régime of the Weimar Republic (1918–1933) and was the cause of social degeneration in the West.

supported by the source given? --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The source given is this passage from page 343 of Fascism and Culture:

Some fascists even pointed to the influence of Marxism, or 'cultural Bolshevism'. According to a BUF writer, it was the task of 'cultural Marxism' to plant the seed 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.

Pinging previous participants @Tewdar, MvBaron, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Austronesier, BobFromBrockley, Newimpartial, and NorthBySouthBaranof: --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@RaiderAspect: - I believe your pings didn't work for MvBaron (Mvbaron) and BobFromBrockley (Bobfrombrockley) due to capitalization issues.  Tewdar  (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

  • No This article is about a far-right conspiracy theory created in the 1990s by Lind et all, that was derived from earlier fascist conspiracy theories. However Feldman is only writing about the earlier conspiracies - specifically their use by British fascists during the inter-war period. He does not discuss the connection with the "contemporary" far right concept of Cultural Marxism. Compare with Samuel Moyn, Maxime Dafue, and Samuel Wood, all of whom are also mentioned in that section of the article and who are writing about the modern conspiracy theory and its origins.
The first issue is fundamental, but the existing passage has other OR problems. Feldman doesn't mention Kulturbolschewismus, the Nazis, or the Weimar Republic. He also deals with antisemitic conspiracy theories separately from anti-Marxist ones (read on to page 344 if you can). --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No - Feldman is not making any 'argument' about the relationship between the term 'Cultural Marxism' and the term 'Cultural Bolshevism' (or Kulturbolschewismus, as they say in German). And, even if he was, he still would not be making any argument about the modern 'Cultural Marxism' conspiracy theory which this article is about (which dates from the early 1990s, as the article itself states), because he is talking about a BUF journal from 1938 and Feldman makes no connection with the modern usage. This is an obvious case of synthesis, which is an alarmingly common feature of this article.  Tewdar  (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC) - also, I vehemently reject any kind of rewording to imply that Feldman is making some sort of 'argument' that the term 'Cultural Marxism' is in any way 'reminiscent' of the term 'Cultural Bolshevism' in the above passage.  Tewdar (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC) - furthermore, propose SNOW close: this source has no relevance to this article, which is about a conspiracy theory from the 1990s... perhaps it could be used in some way at Cultural Bolshevism instead.  Tewdar (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No I can't go thru the effort of making an eloquent argument. There is no reason for this RFC. WP:CIR explains this. This sources is in very clear English and doesn't support that version of the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No - The paragraph makes quite a leap from the information actually offered by the cited text to the the direct link it tries to establish. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No - whilst the quote does sound like it's talking about the current era (because the concepts are just that similar) the whole page from Feldman is discussing WW1, and the interwar period. --60.240.112.135 (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No - to this RFC question. I support rewording to: "professor Matthew Feldman argues that the term Cultural Marxism is reminiscent of the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism)" --Mvbaron (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Mvbaron: I am unable to identify any arguments in this passage that suggest that Feldman is arguing that the term Cultural Marxism is reminiscent of the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism). Any conclusions that we make about Feldman's use of these terms would be original research.  Tewdar (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Move to Close

This is getting into SNOW territory. I propose to move to close this RFC as No, not supported passage. This RFC doesn't really specify any remedies tho, so anyone is free to propose a better summary of Feldman's passage ofc.

Support close - as nom --Mvbaron (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Support close and vehemently oppose any kind of summary that makes any suggestion whatsoever that Feldman is making an 'argument' about the relationship between the terms 'Cultural Marxism' and 'Cultural Bolshevism' (in any language)  Tewdar (talk) 14:20, 22 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory/Archive_13&oldid=1081722158"