Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

RfC: Cultural Marxism as a valid construct

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.

---

The 2014 AfD on "Cultural Marxism"[1] was justified with a lack of reliable sources that something called "cultural Marxism" existed apart from a conspiracy theory. More sources have been identified since then.

This RfC is not directly about any page deletion or redirect. Nor is it to rehabilitate a wild conspiracy theory about satanic mind control. The RfC is to assess the reliable sources that are known today.

Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the following:

• The phrase "cultural Marxism" has been used legitimately and academically from at least 1973 through the present, in works that have nothing to do with a conspiracy theory.

Sennalen (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Responses

• Agree, as proposer.

Much thanks to Tewdar who collected more than thirty examples of "cultural Marxism" as a phrase in scholarly literature. Participants in 2014 simply did not find that evidence, probably because not so many sources had been digitized and indexed. Nonetheless the 2014 RfC continues to be cited as a precedent, so a new RfC is needed to re-examine the facts.

In the prior RfC an argument swayed many editors with the theory that the phrase "cultural Marxism" in academic literature does not denote a particular school of thought. Scholars just happen to produce the phrase "cultural Marxism" in an Infinite monkey theorem kind of way. Sidestepping the special pleading, the theory doesn't match the evidence. Sources exhibit a clear pattern of using "cultural Marxism" to mean something specific, which is the work of the Frankfurt School.

One of the most influential uses of the phrase was in Trent Schroyer's 1973 Critique of Domination, which names a chapter "Cultural Marxism". Schroyer doesn't define the term, but the chapter is a summary of the Frankfurt School. Although there are some sentences in this work that lend credence to the infinite monkey theory, there is a certain specificity in that this is about the Frankfurt School, not a random application of an adjective to a noun.

There are also many cases where "cultural Marxism" refers more particularly to "British cultural Marxism". That is somewhat of a different animal. Drawing minimally on the Frankfurt School but instead coming more from Gramsci and Althusser, it's nonetheless a branch of the same tree. The British and Frankfurt strands were also co-mingled in the works of Michael Apple and Henry Giroux, who played a large part in a rennaissance of both strands in U.S. universities in the 1980s.

Since many of the principal players in this drama were German, there is naturally also a long precedent for the equivalent German Kulturmarxismus. For example, in 1988 it was attested as referring to the work of Herbert Marcuse,[2] In the earliest example I've seen, it was used in 1924 to mock devotees of György Lukács.[3]

The advent of conspiracy theories in the 1990s did not erase the record of scholarship. Several reliable sources confirm that the conspiracy cultural Marxism is a garbled account of a real cultural Marxism.

• One of the issues associated with the Cultural Marxist conspiracy is that Cultural Marxism is a distinct philosophical approach associated with some strands of the Frankfurt School, as well as ideas and influences emanating from the British New Left. However, proponents of the conspiracy do not regard Cultural Marxism as a form of left-wing cultural criticism, but instead as a calculated plan orchestrated by leftist intellectuals to destroy Western values, traditions and civilisation, carried out since at least the 1930s
• In an ironical sense this literature can perhaps be understood as popularizing simplified or otherwise distorted versions of certain concepts initially developed by the Frankfurt School, as well as those of Western Marxism more generally.
• Cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt School have been studied in multiple ways by academics for decades. This paper suggests that a specific interpretation of Cultural Marxism opens today a new area of research for those who study conspiracy theories. In concrete terms, next to the history of Cultural Marxism as a well‐documented theory, developed by Marxist scholars and thinkers within cultural studies from the 1930s, another theory has emerged during the 1990s, and is particularly influential on radical forms of right wing politics.

Scholars also did not cease to use the phrase once conspiracy theories burst upon the scene. It continues to appear in new works.

2002 In the first part of the article I begin to account for this absence by illustrating how early research on youth and music rejected the need for empirical research, relying instead on theories and concepts drawn from cultural Marxism.[4]

2006 By the 1960s and 1970s Western cultural Marxism was engaged in a dialogue with structuralism, post-structuralism, and semiotics.[5]

2010 Our concern from the very outset had focused on the "historical avant-garde" of the 1920s and 1930s, seeing in the political and cultural implications of the Brecht-Lukács debate - as well as in the theoretical critiques of orthodox cultural Marxism in the writings of such thinkers as Karl Korsch (Marxism and Philosophy), the young Georg Lukács (History and Class Consciousness), Walter Benjamin, and Ernst Bloch[6]

2011 There has been a persistent line of cultural Marxism influenced by psychoanalytic theory which has always acknowledged the crucial significance of the irrational shaping class relations[7]

2011 One important strand of the Frankfurt School is thus the birth of what today is called "cultural Marxism".[8]

2016 The Frankfurt School is an important tradition in cultural Marxism.[9]

2019 From a more orthodox position the turn to cultural Marxism was difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with Marx himself.[10]

The conspiracy theories are wrong. However, it's not a choice of terminology that makes them wrong. The original iteration of the conspiracy theory, Michael Minnicino's 'New Dark Age',[11] does not even contain the phrase "cultural Marxism". Minnicino explicitly says there is a conspiracy, but he just calls it the Frankfurt School. He wasn't wrong because of the phrase "cultural Marxism"; he was wrong because the Frankfurt School never infiltrated a government or sent satanic mind control over the radio. Sennalen (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• 1. Maybe, but that has nothing to do with the topic of this article. Furthermore, that usage seems to have fallen by the wayside now that it primarily refers to the conspiracy theory.
  2. Disagree. While some may mean that by the phrase others may not. The meaning is not stable or coherent.
  3. Shrug. I am not aware of any specifically British connotations here. I assume that this is a minor matter.
  4 I'm not completely clear on what this means but I think I mostly agree. We should try to disambiguate terminology to make it clear what a source is actually saying. If we quote a source saying "cultural Marxism" we should be aware that this is likley to be ambiguous to readers so we should provide contextual information so they can be sure what the source means by it. When not quoting it is better to swap the phrase out for its actual meaning in that particular instance whenever possible. I think this is similar to how we handle the phrase "national socialism" where we point out the occasions where it does not mean Nazism to avoid confusing readers or unfairly tainting anybody with an implication of Nazism. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RFC. Not brief, not neutral, per WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Andre🚐 20:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose As per all the previous discussions. Also agree the RFC fails WP:RFCNEUTRAL. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I see a great deal of handwaving in Sennalen's proposed support for her own four theses. She states that Sources exhibit a clear pattern of using "cultural Marxism" to mean something specific, which is the work of the Frankfurt School, and then produces a large number of sources that don't actually do what is advertised - they either concern only part of what the Frankfurt School did, or they include activity that was not by any account part of the Frakfurt School. Even most of the recent sources provided do not agree on the something specific, apart from the conspiracy theory, to which the term would supposedly apply. We already have a separate article, Marxist cultural analysis, in which to discuss these various strands, so why would we want to incorporate them in the article that, following WP:COMMONNAME, is concerned with the conspiracy theory? Newimpartial (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC) Also, Sennalen states that Several reliable sources confirm that the conspiracy cultural Marxism is a garbled account of a real cultural Marxism and then offers in support of this her ref_4 which uses the term Cultural Marxism exclusively for the conspiracy theory, as far as I can see. And what is more, in what seems to have been a citation strategy based on a phrase search, neither the 2002 nor the 2006 reference appear to use "cultural Marxism" to refer to the Frankfurt School. This is special pleading, to A the most possible GF.Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Something about the way you say it makes it sound like you're not really Aing a great deal of GF... Tewdar  20:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no proposal here to add particular content to a particular page. What needs to be said is adequately said at Frankfurt School. The reason for the RfC is to prevent future content discussions from being derailed by the obsolete findings of an old RfC. Sennalen (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Concerning this edit, Schroyer does not use "cultural Marxism" as a phrase, to mean something specific, so your whole RfC is prima facie unmoored from evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

He uses it to mean the Frankfurt School. Sennalen (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Really? That chapter is the only part of the work where he discusses the Frankfurt School? Newimpartial (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. There needs to be a constructive question at hand. Andre🚐 21:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This is an invalid RfC: see WP:RFCNEUTRAL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: @Andrevan: I belive guidance was followed, but in the interest of compromise I have trimmed it to the maximum that seems possible. Sennalen (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Also pinging DanielRigal since he answered all of the original four questions Sennalen (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it's still a leading question. It contains the answer and it's a false dichotomy. An RFC is supposed to be a question. Not "agree or disagree with my framing." Andre🚐 21:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

There's really not much better I can do than, "do you ackowledge the sources or not?" If you think it's absurd to be asking the question, I agree. Sennalen (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Nope. That's not how this works. Andre🚐 21:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you suggest a wording? Sennalen (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You stated There is no proposal here to add particular content to a particular page., therefore, there is no need for an RFC as there is not a dispute. Andre🚐 21:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the best venue for what Sennalen actually wants to do would be a proposal, to be made at "Redirects for discussion", to change the redirect for Cultural Marxism that points here to a disambiguation pointing either here or to Marxist cultural analysis and specifying the context for each.

(See Tewdar? Sometimes I can provide iron-skinned versions of proposals with which I disagree.) Newimpartial (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I can see the wisdom in temporarily withdrawing the RfC and rewording it in a way that also includes a content proposal. Does anyone object to this? Sennalen (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

If you want to propose a change to the existing redirect, please follow the instructions here. Newimpartial (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't. Sennalen (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Reflist

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.

Discussion to merge Marxist cultural analysis and Cultural studies

There is a discussion to merge these two articles that may be of interest to those here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Rich Higgins and things that have been removed from the page.

Rich Higgin's is once again pushing the conspiracy, specifically that the existence of The Frankfurt School is proof that the progressive left is in cahoots with International Islam, as both disapprove of racism. Here is the source [12]. This is part of a new 501c3 conservative intelligence think tank Richard Higgins has launched.

Also, I noticed that all mention of Ron Paul's "Cultural Marxism" tweet fiasco, and all references to the alt-right's attempted boycott of Star Wars Rogue One as Cultural Marxist propaganda [13], [14], [15] have been removed from the page. Anyone know the reason? What else of this page has been watered down? This page is meant to be about the conspiracy theory remember. 203.220.137.141 (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess this is what's important to the culture warriors right now? Richard Higgins is in the "United States" section. I'd wait for more than a SPS to notice any new shenanigans. Sennalen (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it's just part of documenting the conspiracy theory (the topic of the page, as you've been told many many many times). Your standards aren't the same as Wikipedia's. 203.220.137.141 (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Whatever fight you're looking for, no one's showing up for it. Sennalen (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. But please stop with the harassment. 203.220.137.141 (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It means you're casting aspersions and editing with a battleground mentality. Sennalen (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I added your requests to the article, apart from the new Higgins stuff. Looks like it's been reworked a bit by others, and someone else removed the white genocide conspiracy theory link. If you want anything else added, I'm not doing it.  Tewdar  05:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This page is meant to be about the conspiracy theory remember

This does not mean we document every last bit of nonsense that pops up related to the topic. WP:DUE still applies. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I think a boycott movement against a major motion picture, and that Rich Higgins was fired by H.R. McMaster is WP:DUE. 203.220.137.141 (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Any rando can start a boycott hashtag on Twitter. That doesn't mean there's an actual, notable boycott, or that it's relevant to this page. Only the account name mentions Cultural Marxism, making it a passing mention that I don't feel suits this page.

The source for Higgins being fired is Higgins himself, so not an independent source. I don't see why we need this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources for both stories, which of course, is part of what makes them notable; multiple articles from major outlets which are reliable sources and commenting on a current event. [16], [17], [18], [19].

...and the name of the account which originated the boycott, was "end cultural marxism" - an account which focused on spreading the conspiracy theory. You know, the topic of this page.

Notability is after all the factor of importance here, it's WP:DUE for the academic stuff, and NFRINGE for the conspiracy theory stuff (because technically no conspiracy theory is WP:DUE, and that's not the reason Wikipedia has pages on them, notability is).

So much push back on fairly simple events that are directly relevant to the topic. Anyways, the star wars boycott does get a mention in the article as is. You'll have to remove it if you still think it's irrelevant to the topic. 220.235.231.146 (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

...and the name of the account which originated the boycott, was "end cultural marxism" - an account which focused on spreading the conspiracy theory. You know, the topic of this page.

That's my point: it's the name of the account. That's it. The boycott itself never once mentions the subject of this page. Trying to force it into here just because of the Twitter account's name is over the top.

I disagree that these events are directly relevant to the topic. I'm all for removing that mention of the boycott as undue weight. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good idea.  Tewdar  13:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Concur. I wouldn't mind it as a briefest possible sentence next to Ghostbusters in the alt-right section. Sennalen (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The artnet source I first cited (an article titled "How a Right-Wing Obsession With Art Theory Became a Racist ‘Star Wars’ Boycott") discusses how it relates to the conspiracy theory at length. It reads:

The most oft-quoted of all the Twitter warriors goes by the handle @genophilia, with the tagline “End Cultural Marxism;” he has been furiously promoting a variety of links holding forth on the question, “What Is Cultural Marxism?” That points to the deeper worldview that explains the otherwise curiously apocalyptic over-investment in the signifiers of multiculturalism (not just in this particular dust-up, but elsewhere, as in some of the more surreal moments of #GamerGate).

As I explained earlier the account's focus is spreading the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. As all the articles on the topic explain this was the origin of the boycott, and is a fine example of the conspiracy theory having real world effects that make it into the mainstream media (ie propagation by controversy). This is relevant to a conspiracy theory in the digital age.

Here's a document from The Heritage Foundation, titled "How Cultural Marxism Threatens the United States—and How Americans Can Fight It" [20]

"Hollywood is starting to pay the commercial price for the near-absolute wokification of its output. From the disastrous results of making massive moneymaking franchises like Star Wars and Star Trek woke,120 to the stock market losses incurred as a result by the likes of Netflix and Disney,121 it is plain that a significant portion of the American people have had enough with being politically preached to through their TV and movie screens."

Keep in mind, I'm not suggesting this as a source for the page, I'm showing it on the talk page so that you can be aware that organizations spreading misinformation do in fact see this as relevant to the conspiracy theory.

But I guess you'd argue that the topic is in the title, and this does nothing to comment on how conspiracy theories are pushed in the age of digital and social media. Where as I'd say, that this is a phenomena that is PART of the conspiracy theory, and that this page should be capturing the progression of that attempted spread, not dismissing it as irrelevant.

Even a Forbes notes the relevance:

Indeed, there is almost no political commentary in modern Star Wars, other than “The First Order are like Nazis, and Nazis are bad.” There’s certainly nothing to compare with George Lucas’ boldly political themes. But the presence of unhinged misogynists, obsessed with “Mary Sues” and “cultural Marxism,” turned almost every comment section into a cesspit. [21]

Why here's a YouTuber by the user name "The SJW Slayer" with a video titled "Has Cultural Marxism Killed Star Wars? Rogue One Review (No Spoilers) - The SJW Slayer" [22] (again, a talk page only source. It's satire, but shows the commonality) - and here's a small town news paper in Ohio noting it as part of the discourse around complaints of "anti-whiteness" its self a feature OF THE CONSPIRACY THEORY [23].

Oh here's one you'll appreciate because you think WP:DUE is always in play (a fact only true to the academic side of the discussion) - Tanner Mirrlees (Associate Professor in the Communication and Digital Media Studies program at The University of Ontario Institute of Technology [24]) writes in a paper published by the journal "Critical Studies in Gender, Culture and Justice":

As a radically simplistic explanatory mode, the cultural Marxist conspiracy theory might provide the alt-right subjects that digitally prosume it with a way of feeling “in the know,” of having special insight into the truth of society, and of being perceptive about the elite. Like all conspiracy theories, the alt-right’s cultural Marxist conspiracy theory enables its alt-right prosumers to gaze behind appearances and reveal what they hide or distort. For example, for the alt-right, Star Wars: The Force Awakens (201 5) has a multi-gendered and multi-cultural cast, not because Hollywood seeks to turn a profit by producing globally popular films that target a diverse American and trans-national audience, but because cultural Marxists are pulling Hollywood’s strings!

Now can we stop having these stupid discussions where the ghoulish protectors of the conspiracy theory roam the page defending and down playing it's idiotic ideas. There's just absolute no need to wander Wikipedia trying to protect misinformation, and a conspiracist world view. This is NOT what Wikipedia is meant to be for. You should all be ashamed. If you can't get on board with a rational and realistic view of the world, you should not be here. Please leave. Why are you spending your time here, coddling a whack job far right conspiracy theory? Don't you have something better to do with your time???

There's really no need to create a bunch of artificial obstacles to including the nutty claims of various conspiracy theories. For instance, I'm still not sure why Michael Walsh's claims that Cultural Marxism is an example of the "The Left" being "small s satanic" aren't cited [25]. those claims were after all published in The National Review, the largest and most well known conservative magazine in the world, and he is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page Michael_Walsh_(author)... but that's a different threat to be had I suppose. Anyways, enough lecturing you lot for one day - what an uphill battle this page can be. 220.235.231.146 (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that the above comments (ghoulish protectors of the conspiracy theory, trying to protect misinformation, and a conspiracist world view, You should all be ashamed, Please leave. Why are you spending your time here, coddling a whack job far right conspiracy theory?) provide enough ammunition to get this individual and their ever-changing IP addresses and possible sock accounts indef blocked at ANI. Any takers?  Tewdar  09:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Take your own damn advice and leave. This rant full of personal attacks is asinine and unfit for Wikipedia.

Look kid, I've been fighting conspiracy theorists for decades. I am not one of the ghoulish protectors of the conspiracy theory you're claiming, so you're way off base here. Wikipedia has standards, and we don't just turn these articles into a catch-all for every random bit of nonsense these conspiracists dream up. If you don't like that, go elsewhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

There are no genuine reliable sources when it comes to how mainstream a belief is in a conspiracy theorist discourse. It's entirely minority opinion. To quote WP:DUE

In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still appropriately reference the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the minority view's perspective. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position and then discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require a much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ.

Emphasis added. This is the freehand that gives notability the upper hand... and it's why I'm saying academic reliable sources aren't necessarily required for Wikipedia to describe the progress, mechanisms, events and effects of the conspiracy theory - as long as we're DESCRIBING the conspiracy theory belief as a conspiracy theorist belief, and not lending it any reality. Seeing as you've been doing this so long, it might be time to learn the protocols around editing FRINGE topics. No, we don't need an academic to be commenting on a belief of the conspiracy theorists in order to include it. News websites (as per the sources I originally gave) are fine for this. 59.102.5.166 (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

This source gives a more sober view of what actually unfolded.[26] Sennalen (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

See above reply, WP:DUE is not the policy at play. It doesn't matter if the boycott was successful, it matters if it was notable in the fringe discourse. See NFRINGE. 220.235.231.146 (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:DUE is always in play. The boycott may be relevant in a page about the movie, but it has no actual discussion of the conspiracy theory, making it irrelevant to this page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

It's about the conspiracy theory. See my previous comment above. 59.102.5.166 (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Source needs updating.

This linked source: http://www.marylandthursdaymeeting.com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments/Cultural.Marxism.htm now appears blank. Here is a web archive of the contents: https://web.archive.org/web/20220401094709/http://www.marylandthursdaymeeting.com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments/Cultural.Marxism.htm 220.235.243.104 (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Sennalen (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Sennalen, diligent as always. 220.240.181.176 (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The article is flat-out lying regarding cultural Marxism as a “far-right conspiracy theory”

Let's not indulge this kind of fact-free ranting. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Joan Braune, the woman who wrote the article “Who’s Afraid of the Frankfurt School”, is basically gaslighting the readers here. She’s saying, “Three anti-Semites believe in cultural Marxism, meaning that cultural Marxism is also anti-Semitic for some odd reason,” which is basically code for: “These three evil people are talking about this one thing, meaning that this one thing is evil too, and if you believe in this one thing you’re also evil.” Just slap a label on this one thing and prevent the masses from looking too deep into it and figuring out the truth for themselves. We must be saved from the wrongthink cuz critical thinking skills are evil! Another thing to note is that Joan is a Gramscian socialist who works as a professor in the Frankfurt School, and if you’ve read through the featured paper she’s eager to hide the smoke through her extreme bias, looking for any way to paint anybody she doesn’t like as “Nazis” - not because she’s Jewish but (again) she’s biased. Trying to cover this up as a far-right, anti-Semitic conspiracy theory is just icing on the cake as it is just a “we have investigated ourselves and cleared ourselves of any wrongdoing” situation, from what I’ve noticed. I thought Wikipedia’s job was adding in unbiased articles in their research, and from what I’ve seen: the edits seem to be for ideological and biased purposes to cover up the truth instead of doing any actual research. Here’s the archived 2014 link for cultural Marxism, in case anybody wants to actually read through it: https://web.archive.org/web/20140519194937/https://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism 93.55.138.199 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC) That's an awful lot of words to say "I disagree". I don't see anything actionable here. You disagree, and that's fine, but its not an issue for us to deal with. We have to go by what the reliable sources say. DanielRigal (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC) The claim is that members of the Frankfurt School conspired to undermine Western civilization by introducing degenerate art and political correctness, which is now being secretly carried out by powerful people who deny any connection with the School. Every major civil rights movement for African-Americans, women, lgbtqa+ etc. is seen as part of this conspiracy. So is this a conspiracy theory or a legitimate alternative theoretical formulation by historians and social scientists? If it's the latter, then you should be able to find peer reviewed articles promoting this view. Don't you find the theory pretty far-fetched? TFD (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The aetiology of Cultural Marxism

“The Role of Consciousness and the Evolution of the Gospel of Marxism”

https://newdiscourses.com/2023/04/role-consciousness-evolution-gospel-of-marxism/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.77.32 (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That seems to be a YouTube video by James A. Lindsay. I'm not sure if it is serious or another example of him hoaxing. It sounds very much like it might be a buzzword heavy hoax. Even if it isn't, I don't think there is anything we can do with it here. DanielRigal (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2023

In the "Entering the Mainstream" subheading, below the paragraph referencing Ross Douthat and above the "Concerns for false balance" subheading, I would request an additional paragraph that would read and cite roughly as follows:

On April 19, 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) decried critical race theory and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts as “a form of cultural Marxism” in a speech at the North Charleston Coliseum in Charleston, South Carolina.(Citation: Post and Courier at https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/in-first-sc-swing-ron-desantis-slams-woke-culture-gender-identity-as-cultural-marxism/article_552b09ce-deac-11ed-b9e1-ff6cfb7cbe21.html) 115dream (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a passing mention to me. But I'll let others weigh in. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

He also said it in passing while signing a law in 2022, with a quotation later mentioned in passing by PBS and the Washington Post. Llll5032 (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

He's a major political figure, it seems to be something he says regularly (eg. part of his regular platform); there's a reference from December 23, 2021, on thehill.com, December 5, 2022 (already established in previous comment), via The Washington Post, and April 14, 2023, via The Christian Post. They appear to be different instances. There's also a video of him which corroborates his usage of the term via YouTube. I think it's fine to include it. 203.214.86.63 (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's quite relevant to the section, especially because there is a lot of speculation that DeSantis might enter the 2024 presidential election as a candidate. A mainstream politician using the term so regularly looks relevant in my eyes. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

It is a bit more than a passing mention as it appears in the headline but there isn't much depth to the article. I think that it's arguable either way but a second good reference would definitely swing it in favour of inclusion. DanielRigal (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to WP:GNG. If this actual article's topic isn't discussed in the news article, merely a "trivial mention," then it doesn't count for the purposes of citing in a Wikipedia article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

In order to have weight for inclusion, you would need to show that it is significant to the topic. The fact that it was mentioned in a statement he made is insufficient. For example, an article about the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory that identifies DeSantis as a proponent might be acceptable.

Also, there is a BLP issue here. The wording implies that DeSantis is a conspiracy theorist, while policy requires that articles can only report opinions, not present them. TFD (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds and TFD make good points. It should be included only if a third-party RS notes whether or how his words relate to the conspiracy theory. Llll5032 (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

This article fails the test of having a neutral point of view. The entire introduction is hardly more than a screed. "Cultural Marxism" is a descriptive term long in use, not a "conspiracy theory." (https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2019/01/cultural-marxism-is-real/) MurMiles (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

"This article fails the test of having a neutral point of view." But it meets Wikipedia's definition of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

• • "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view. It means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia"
  • As long as the article reflects the view of the reliable sources, it will remain perfectly neutral and acceptable. And the reliable sources are not conspiracy theorists and crackpots like the alt-right. And I doubt that the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal is a reliable source, since it is a mouthpiece for "conservative or libertarian organizations". Dimadick (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Nope, OP, nope. Take it somewhere else, like Conservapedia. Andre🚐 07:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The article you've linked starts by referencing Tablet Magazine (and an article by Alexander Zubatov). Tablet Magazine is run by Mem Bernstein, and receives its funding from the Tikvah Fund - a conservative "educational center" set up by the late investment banker, conservative philanthropist, and husband to Mem Bernstein; Zalman Bernstein. [27] So you're using a libertarian source, that's referencing a conservative source, to talk about leftwing theories, intellectuals and groups. But your sources are merely opinion pieces from non-experts (and they're somewhat inaccurate as well).

The conspiracy theory is about left wing groups and movements, and the history and writings of those leftwing groups and movements are how we determine whether a statement about them is factual or not. We rely on academic sources to determine what is factual (factual information contributing to our Marxist cultural analysis page), and what is the stuff of conspiracy theories (which comes here). This is the page for the conspiracy theory usage of the term Cultural Marxism.

What's more, most of the article you've linked to spends its time jumping from structural Marxism, to Foucault, Zizek, and Derrida - whilst not labeling any of them cultural Marxism, and actually spends quite a small amount of time on the actual subject. Labeling all of leftism, including "Feminism, gender studies, critical race theory, post-colonialism, disability studies" as universally "spin offs of Marxism" is not academically or historically correct. Feminism for example, predates The Frankfurt School, and has roots dating back before Karl Marx himself (See: Olympia De Gouges'; Declaration of the Rights of Woman, 1791).

So not only are your sources unreliable, but the article you're citing doesn't provide any solid or substantial evidence. 14.201.15.203 (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This article is definitely not balanced.It is written from one point of view and you wonder if the author sees this one point of view as objective. 2A00:23C8:B9D:8601:3058:A983:DAA9:FDE6 (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Already discussed above. Incidentally, there are no credible estimates that the Communists killed over 100 million people either. That number is a warning bell that we're headed down the rabbit hole into fringe theory territory. TFD (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This article is definitely not balanced.It is written from one point of view - yes, the point of view of academics, historians and reliable sources on the topic of The Frankfurt School, the history of Sociology and cultural studies. It's true, Wikipedia will always privileged reliable sources over opinion pieces. That's just what an encyclopedia does.

and you wonder if the author sees this one point of view as objective - you are mistaken in assuming Wikipedia has just one author. Wikipedia is a collaborative, community project that anyone (including yourself) can contribute to, AS LONG AS your contributions fit within Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. Those guidelines require all contributions to use reliable sources, especially for contentious topics. You can visit the Reliable Sources policy guidelines by clicking here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.

Wikipedia's policies are available for anyone to read, and argue from. Welcome to Wikipedia. 59.102.7.77 (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses opinion pieces written by scholars; their status as a scholar doesn't change the fact that it is opinion. Also, this fraudulent page states that this "conspiracy theory" started on the far right and has now been embraced by everyone on the moderate right, meaning that they are the same

"theory" not two different ones. As long as contributions are far left, they won't be undone by the gang of leftist punks that control the political content on Wikipedia. 2600:1007:B053:5023:1116:7F4D:E12D:1F4B (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Stop making personal attacks on other editors or you may be blocked. TFD (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with how things currently are.

Indeed, the matter is closed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The opening sentence of the article claims the conspiracy theory is about Western Marxism, however, there's a consensus formed in the lower half of this above dicussion which disagrees with making Western Marxism equivocable to The Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School, is the usual group targeted as to blame for the claims of the conspiracy theory, and that's the page the first line should link to, not to Western Marxism. Thank you. 59.102.7.77 (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC) 118.210.212.127 (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC) Specifically, most of the intellectuals mentioned on the Western Marxism page aren't generally mentioned in conspiracy theory narratives (making it an inappropriate statement to claim the conspiracy theory is about them). None of the following theorists mentioned on Western Marxism are targets of the conspiracy theory; Louis Althusser, Nicos Poulantzas, Galvano Della Volpe, Antonie Pannekoek, Herman Gorter, Hegel, Lucien Goldmann, Henri Lefebvre, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Jean-Paul Sartre, yet all of them are considered Western Marxists. 59.102.7.77 (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC) While it is fair to say that not all Western Marxists are targets of the CM conspiracy theory, it is also worth pointing out that it is not only Frankfurt School figures that are so targeted. Newimpartial (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC) The opening sentence needs to be fixed so that some of the many other targets of the conspiracy theory get a mention.  Tewdar  07:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC) Proposed wording: "The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims that proponents of Marxist cultural analysis are the basis of a continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture." 59.102.7.77 (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC) This change is terrible. Why has it been made in article space with no discussion, let alone agreement?  Tewdar  07:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC) Agreed, let's change it back to the original (Western Marxism) - and leave it there. I was mistaken. Once this is done, I'll blank this section (as I was the one who raised the "issue"). 118.210.212.127 (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC) What's wrong with the new version I did? I thought you said you liked it in your deleted comment? You could always replace Frankfurt School with Western Marxism if you think that's better...and don't blank the section please...  Tewdar  09:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC) Changed... let me know if you don't like it or have any suggestions...  Tewdar  09:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC) So... all good then?  Tewdar  10:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Recurring misstatement

The article begins with the following sentence:

"The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory..."

There is no way that "Cultural Marxism" denotes a conspiracy theory. That is the same as saying "Cultural Marxism is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory..."

A sentence that would express the intended meaning here would be:

"The term "Cultural Marxism" is used within a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory..."

or better

"The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory..."

The latter is better because the title of the article indicates that its topic is a conspiracy theory, not a term.

2A02:1210:2642:4A00:34A9:D87F:FB6E:A03E (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

If you go to the Marxist cultural analysis page, you can read the explanation of this:

"The tradition of Marxist cultural analysis has occasionally also been referred to as "cultural Marxism", and "Marxist Cultural theory", in reference to Marxist ideas about culture. However, since the 1990s, the term "Cultural Marxism" has largely referred to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, an influential discourse on the far right without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis."

Note, that one example uses the phrase "cultural Marxism" (not a pronoun or defined ideology, but two words put together to indicate something about culture and Marxism), where as the other term "Cultural Marxism" uses capital letters, because it's a pronoun - it refers to the idea that "cultural Marxism" is a set viewpoint, plan or ideology (usually something about The Frankfurt School destroying western civilization). So first you'll have to find an academic reference for what "Cultural Marxism" is exactly - and then we can add that reference to the Marxist cultural analysis page. But until then, there is a conspiracy theory that uses the pronoun "Cultural Marxism" to refer to a set of incorrect, and sometimes unhinged beliefs about The Frankfurt School having a plan to take over and destroy western civilization and/or Christianity. This claim has no evidence that could be found in their writings, so is in terms of content appropriate for an encyclopedia, classed as a conspiracy theory.

Particularly so, because various conservative and right wing authors who have made bizarre claims about the group. There's the claim that they're "Sabbatean Satanists practicing black Jewish Kabbalah magic", that "Adorno was trained by The Tavistock Institute in order to write the songs of The Beatles with the aim of producing 'environmental social turbulences'", or as right wing website Breitbart put it in 2015 "Theodor Adorno promoted degenerate atonal music to induce mental illness, including necrophilia, on a large scale." - even slightly less surreal claims like Michael Walsh's 2017 idea that they were "doing the work of Satanists" or Lind's false claims that they "spent the war years in Hollywood, and are the reason gays are on TV"... all these claims are false, and conspiratorial in nature.

The long and short of it is, we have evidence that conservatives have constructed a conspiracy theory about The Frankfurt School, denoted by the term "Cultural Marxism" but we don't have as much, or as convincing evidence, that The Frankfurt School defined a set ideology, called "cultural Marxism" or "Cultural Marxism". So being an encyclopedia, we're limited to what high quality, factual, and academic sources say... and we've found some saying that it's a conspiracy theory.

So just like our page on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy can exist along side our page on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, or the page on the Moon landing exists along side the page about Moon landing conspiracy theories - so we have our page on Marxist cultural analysis existing along side our page on the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.

If you want to read about The Frankfurt School you could also go to our Frankfurt School page. If you want to prove the term "cultural Marxism" has seen usage on the left in "reference to Marxist ideas about culture" - that's stated at Marxist cultural analysis... however, if you want to define the views of The Frankfurt School in terms of right wing political opinions about them.... well, I don't think Wikipedia would consider that legitimate, not without those individuals having academic credentials relevant to The Frankfurt School (eg. credentials in Sociology, The History of Sociology, Critical Theory, or cultural Studies). So that's the general state of play. Hope that synopsis helps you. 59.102.7.77 (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean "proper noun" rather than pronoun.

I don't dispute that there is a conspiracy theory. My point is purely a formal one about the phrasing of the lede. It is confusing.

The term "cultural Marxism" (ignoring case) has multiple usages, not all of them coming from rabid right-wingers. It would be helpful to have a disambiguation page rather than a redirect. I found the Wiktionary entry for "cultural Marxism" to be much more straightforward and less polemical than this article.

2A02:1210:2642:4A00:34A9:D87F:FB6E:A03E (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

See the FAQ 😂  Tewdar  09:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Shinjuku station with all exits blocked. 2A02:1210:2642:4A00:49F6:E075:1CA:5697 (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Much easier to lockdown this article than Shinjuku.  Tewdar  16:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I did indeed mean proper noun, thank you. 59.102.7.77 (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Some authors actually do use the unadorned term 'Cultural Marxism' to refer to the conspiracy theory itself. See for example Busbridge et al. 2020, As a conspiracy promoted by the far-right, Cultural Marxism has gained ground over the past quarter century etc. etc. So Cultural Marxism can refer to a conspiracy theory, and also the object of that conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory is also less commonly called the Frankfurt School conspiracy. Unfortunately the current lead does not do a good job explaining this. We had an RfC recently about whether something very similar to your suggestion "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory..." should start the article. It was rejected, with at least one editor arguing that including the words "conspiracy theory" implied that Cultural Marxism, (in the sense of the object of the conspiracy), was real, and another offering the opinion that it reminded them of a Monty Python song or something.  Tewdar  07:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I knew of cultural Marxism (so named) as a thread within the left, long before hearing of any hard-core right-wing conspiracy theories. In other words, I saw it used as a neutral term, or perhaps mildly negatively by some critics. That is why it's disturbing to see it defined here purely as an "anti-Semitic conspiracy theory".

Here's a recent usage in The Nation: https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/lauren-berlant-obituary. Is it perhaps also an obituary for the neutral use of this term?

2A02:1210:2642:4A00:34A9:D87F:FB6E:A03E (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I empathise with your disturbance. Unfortunately, editors here are unable or unwilling to see much use for the term cultural Marxism, with or without an upper case 'C', outside of the conspiracy theory. Maybe one day there will be different editors with different opinions here.  Tewdar  09:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The expectation of Wikipedia is that when people go to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page, the first thing they'll read is: "Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For "cultural Marxism" in the context of social theory and cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis.

The phrase cultural Marxism in reference to sociology and cultural studies (as stated earlier), is difficult to pin down. For example, the article you link to mentions Raymond Williams, indicating that it's talking about British cultural studies, specifically, The Birmingham School which Williams was an important part of. So here we have to consider that The Frankfurt School, held different views to The Birmingham School, and can be said to have a different version of cultural Marxism. However, both groups influenced cultural studies. So, as has been suggested by others (Terry Eagleton I believe), cultural Marxism is a sort of interim term for the time between the start of The Frankfurt School and Birmingham School, and the start of cultural studies. But cultural Marxism can also refer to things outside of those parameters. Basically, that's why the consensus is that it's poorly defined, a problem made worse when the conspiracy theory came along.

What I'm trying to say is that, I don't think the current set up of the pages is due to obstinate editors, or a political bias of the people here, I think it's just a difficult topic. Very few people have tried to write a draft that clearly defines cultural Marxism in a concise way, using reliable sources. Part of the problem with any encyclopedia, is that it wants set topics which are unified and can be categorized. How much does an intellectual have to write on Marxism and culture to be a cultural Marxist? Are all 20th century Western Marxists by default cultural Marxists for having to consider culture? Can any modern Marxist not be a cultural Marxist?

It's unfortunate, but I'm not sure there's a strong resolution to be had here. Most of the knock backs are just part of trying to avoid WP:SYNTH or doing WP:Original_Research. Marxist cultural analysis is as much progress as has been made to having a page for the topic. 59.102.7.77 (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Recently I found out Richard Hoggart wasn't a fan of Marxism: "Hoggart’s political viewpoints were not outwardly expressed until much later in life, and make clear his aversion to Marxism" [28] and the works of Raymond Williams "retained a consistent hostility towards what has become a central component of our understanding of the social construction of the subject - the theory of psychoanalysis" [29] - and so he doesn't mention Freud a whole lot (he isn't particularly based there), and certainly not in the same way as the "Freudo-Marxists" of the Frankfurt School were... hence creating a "cultural Marxism" that coherently includes both schools is, probably not an easy or straight forwards task. They don't even share the same fundamental influences or basis for their analysis. 59.102.7.77 (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly as easy or hard as speaking of "Western Marxism". Sennalen (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, there's also this source which discusses at length how The Frankfurt School weren't really Marxists as such. So if we've got Hoggart actively saying he's not a fan of Marxism, and a large variety of sources (found in that link) about The Frankfurt School not actively being pro-Marxist... then perhaps Western Marxism is not the right term for the lead? 118.210.58.91 (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)