Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 3

Young and Montgomerie - Different use of the term and possibly libellous?
The following refers to an issue this editor has with this section:


 * Tim Montgomerie wrote about the conspiracy theory in "The 20th Century was Far from an Overwhelming Victory for the Right: Though Revolutionary Marxism Died, its Fellow Traveller, Cultural Marxism, Prospered" (2013) in The Times. Similarly, Toby Young asked the whereabouts of the theory in "Are the cultural Marxists in Retreat, or Lying Low?" (2015) in The Spectator. Hussein Kesvani and Owen Jones, respectively writing for The Independent and The Guardian, cited those as examples that the conspiracy theory entered mainstream discourse.

The article has two sources - the Guardian and the Independent - taking about how Tim Montgomerie and Toby Young talked about cultural marxism and uses this as evidence of the conspiracy theory becoming mainstream. However I don't think Montgomerie and Young are talking about the conspiracy theory (as in they think there is a cabal of evil Marxists plotting to destroy Western civilisation), they seem to be complaining about Marxist cultural analysis - it's the classic right-wing complaint that universities and the arts are all too left-wing. In fact, Owen Jones in the Guardian does note:


 * Or consider the Times, supposedly a paper of record, which has published Tim Montgomerie bemoaning the prospering of “cultural Marxism”. Or Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times, who believes young Britons are brainwashed by the “delusions of cultural Marxism”. It’s not clear whether these people were aware of the phrase’s loaded nature – they surely should have been more careful – but many readers would certainly have heard a dog whistle.

So Jones is clearly aware that Montgomerie (and Liddle) may be using the phrase to mean something different and the fact of the matter is some people still use Cultural Marxism to refer to Marxist cultural analysis - they aren't talking about Jews plotting to take over the West, they're talking about Gramsci. Jones brings this up because he thinks Montgomerie is being reckless in his use of the term.

So basically I think this section should be removed because it's not actually an example of two journalists propounding the conspiracy theory in mainstream discourse - yes the sources say it is but they only mention them briefly and they even acknowledge that people use the term differently (and as I've explained I don't think they actually realise how Montgomerie and Young are using the term). In my view this is actually unfair to people like Montgomerie and Young because it's implying that they believe in the conspiracy theory when they are using the term to mean something else. Now if Montgomerie and Young articles were cited and acknowledged as their point of view that would be fine. But they're not, they're not cited and are instead used in reference to the Jones and Kesvani articles (I am essentially arguing that Jones and Kesvani misunderstood Montgomerie and Young). This could also possibly run afoul of Libel.

Thus I suggest that that section be removed. Don't remove the sentence by Greeve that immediately follows, that part is fine, but get rid of the discussion surrounding Montgomerie and Young. Alternatively, re-write the paragraph so it no longer implies Montgomerie and Young believe the theory - we could perhaps say that Jones was observing that the term was becoming more common and Montgomerie et al need to not be so casual in using it. Alternatively, we could perhaps bring up something like this Douglas Murray article or this Paul Kengor article which talk about arguments over the use of the term (essentially arguing that some people are using it to refer to cultural analysis, not the conspiracy theory).

If no-one responds to this within a few days I'll go ahead and remove it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdio7 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * not done - I don't see any reliable sources supporting the interpretation offered here, so there is no reason to change based on an OR interpretation. Newimpartial (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps change the wording of the paragraph? This is particularly the case with Young, since it says "Young asked the whereabouts of the theory" when in the article Young mentions the term only once (outside of the title) and its not clear if Young actually is talking about the conspiracy theory or if he's just making a joke about the British Labour Party and theatre. Notably, the article mention both Montgomerie and Young's articles by name, with a date, but doesn't actually cite them properly. Perhaps we should at least do that? Or maybe change it to Kesvani and Jones "claimed" (rather than "cited") those as examples, since this would a) avoid the issues with ambiguity I mentioned above and b) is also true and more reflective - the article isn't proclaiming these two articles are examples of the conspiracy theory entering the mainstream, it's clearly treating it as a claim by Kesvani and Jones by giving them voice. So if not to remove the paragraphs, perhaps add in the Montgomerie/Young citations and make the voice clearer


 * So I am thinking:


 * Tim Montgomerie wrote about Cultural Marxism in The Times (add Montgomerie citation here). Similarly, Toby Young mentioned it in The Spectator (add Young citation here). Hussein Kesvani and Owen Jones, respectively writing for The Independent and The Guardian, claimed these articles were examples that the conspiracy theory entered mainstream discourse.[49][50]


 * So this avoids the issue of ambiguity with how Montgomerie and Young use the term while still allowing Kesvani and Jones to make the clam that they are taking about a conspiracy theory by giving it voice to the latter two journalists. What do you think? Sdio7 (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * don't see an issue with original text, matter of editor's POV, in particular Jones is clearly talking about CM per context of article subject, we cite him, so WP:VER, same for Kesvani. Acousmana (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok but could we make it clear that Jones and Kesvani think that the two are bringing up the conspiracy theory, because the paragraph doesn't actually make clear that its the view of the two sources - it makes it look like Montgomerie is using the term to refer the anti-semitic conspiracy theory (and thus presumably endorsing it), when its Jones saying that Montgomerie is using the same term and wondering if Montgomerie knows that the term is commonly used to refer to the conspiracy theory. The current paragraph doesn't completely make clear that this is what Jones and Kesvani think, rather it indicates that Montgomerie/Young were referring to the conspiracy theory and that Kesvani and Jones are simply observing this, rather than this being their POV. As I said, Jones explicitly notes that its unclear if Montomgerie knows what the phrase means to a lot of people. So I think the above suggestion in my last edit would work and be more reflective? This is particularly true since I only realised this because I hunted down the Montgomerie and Young articles (which aren't cited for some reason?), so I think Wikipedia should avoid a potentially misleading phrase. I mean it doesn't even get rid of Jones/Kesvani's argument, it just makes it clearer its their viewpoint on how Montgomerie/Young use the phrase, rather than an objective fact. Sdio7 (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't quite get your point - Jones and Kesvani *did* refer to the conspiracy theory, whether or not they were aware of that is not importnat. You can refer to something without knowing everything about it, being not diligent enough - exactly the complaint the source makes. And here in the wikipedia article, all that is said is that the two (perhaps unknowingly) refrerred to an antisemitic conspiracy theory, and that this is an example of it (the CT) entering mainstream disourse. Mvbaron (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * By "Jones and Kesvani" you mean "Montgomerie and Young"? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , ah yes of course, thank you. Oh god, my mind is already all jumbled.
 * Also, in the end, having reflected a bit on this issue, it looks to me a bit trivial. I don't see what Sdio7's reformulated version adds: "asked the whereabouts of the theory in The Spectator." --> "mentioned it in The Spectator". ... The original is actually more detailed here. And "cited those as examples that the conspiracy theory entered mainstream discourse." --> "claimed these articles were examples that the conspiracy theory entered mainstream discourse." ... says exactly the same? I don't get the problem here. But maybe I'm just tired :) Mvbaron (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

My point is that the paragraph indicates that Montgomerie and Young were buying into the antisemitic conspiracy theory. However, this is what Kesvani and Jones thought they were doing, not necessarily what they were doing (remember some people use "cultural Marxism" to refer to Marxist cultural analysis. So I suggested it be removed or the paragraph be changed to reflect the fact that it's their view (as well as properly citing the Montgomerie and Young articles, which for some reason are given a name and date but not a proper citation).

So I suggested it be changed to this:


 * Tim Montgomerie wrote about Cultural Marxism in The Times (add Montgomerie article citation here). Similarly, Toby Young mentioned it in The Spectator (add Young article citation here). Hussein Kesvani and Owen Jones, respectively writing for The Independent and The Guardian, claimed these articles were examples that the conspiracy theory entered mainstream discourse.[49][50]

Which reflects the viewpoint of Kesvani and Jones that the use of Montgomerie and Young of the term "cultural Marxism" reflects its entrance into mainstream discourse by giving it voice (their voice), rather than portraying it as an objective fact in Wikipedia's voice. Indeed Jones even noted that Montgomerie may not be aware of what the term means, which shows that Jones doesn't necessarily believe Montgomerie is propounding a conspiracy theory. Because as it stands, the paragraph indicates that the two of them do believe in an antisemitic conspiracy theory, but as I've explained, they may be using the term differently. The above suggested paragraph would more accurately reflect things in my view. Putting things in voice also makes clear that Wikipedia is not making a claim, so Montgomerie/Young can't claim that Wikipedia says they are anti-semitic, they should take it up with Jones/Kesvani instead. I appreciate this may seem trivial but I think it matters enough (and if it is trivial is there anything really wrong with me changing the paragraph to my above version since it will be quite similar?) Sdio7 (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither Montgomerie nor Young has the slightest clue about "Marxist cultural analysis" - both of them are clearly using tropes of the conspiracy theory. No change required - the proposal is WEASEL anyway. Newimpartial (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And the sources supporting that interpretation are? Even Jones didn't necessarily think that, I quoted him above. Sdio7 (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Jones isn't sure they know about the antisemitic dog whistle. He offers not the faintest suggestion that they are talking about "Marxist cultural analysis" - he's questioning their depth of commitment to the conspiracy theory, not whether they're spreading it or not. Newimpartial (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But the issue is it's not clear whether they are referring to the conspiracy theory or not. This is why I mentioned the other articles above. And as I said, putting it in voice would avoid this issue. So the above quote would work fine in this context. It's a minor change, appropriately attributes to who is making the argument (since its another journalist making the claim) and keeps the sources (and properly cites others), which is important with an ambiguous phrase. Basically if we don't know what they mean and we know people use the term to mean different things, we need to avoid making accusations. By making it clear that they were using the term and Kesvani/Jones argued this was a sign that the term had become mainstream (even if Montgomerie/Jones weren't endorsing the conspiracy theory), we avoid all these issues. Sdio7 (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see what's said below, but I am still going to bicker here - there is no possibility, within the framing offered by Jones and Kesvani, that Montgomerie or Young might not be referring to the conspiracy, or that they might be referring to "Marxist cultural analysis". Nor is there any IRL possibility that either Montgomerie or Young has the slightest clue what "Marxist cultural analysis" is. There is no reason to hedge the language of this article against that impossibility. Newimpartial (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Right so if its within their framing, then we should logically give the quote more obvious voice (per my proposal above)? I mean Kesvani/Jones are arguing that Montgomerie/Young are talking about the conspiracy theory, so if we give the quote voice it reflects what is required? If not that, then the Montgomerie and Young articles should receive full citations. Alternatively, present more sources, outside of the Kesvani/Jones interpretation showing that Montgomerie and Young are promoting the conspiracy theory, so it makes clearer that it is Kesvani and Jone's point of view. And can you provide a source showing that they don't know anything about Marxist cultural analysis? You said this above at 19:56 02.12.20 but I asked for a source and you started talking about what Jones thought, rather than offering another source for the claim. Sdio7 (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , well it seems like this was already changed to your preferred version more than 10 hours ago. why are we still discussing this? Mvbaron (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, the current paragraph is the same as the one on 1st December, before I raised this issue, only difference being the source numbers:


 * 1st December, pre-dispute: Tim Montgomerie wrote about the conspiracy theory in "The 20th Century was Far from an Overwhelming Victory for the Right: Though Revolutionary Marxism Died, its Fellow Traveller, Cultural Marxism, Prospered" (2013) in The Times. Similarly, Toby Young asked the whereabouts of the theory in "Are the cultural Marxists in Retreat, or Lying Low?" (2015) in The Spectator. Hussein Kesvani and Owen Jones, respectively writing for The Independent and The Guardian, cited those as examples that the conspiracy theory entered mainstream discourse.[49][50] Dominic Green wrote a conservative critique of conservatives' complaints about Cultural Marxism in the Spectator USA, writing: "For the Nazis, the Frankfurter School and its vaguely Jewish exponents fell under the rubric of Kulturbolshewismus, 'Cultural Bolshevism.'"[48]


 * Current Version as of this edit: Tim Montgomerie wrote about the conspiracy theory in "The 20th Century was Far from an Overwhelming Victory for the Right: Though Revolutionary Marxism Died, its Fellow Traveller, Cultural Marxism, Prospered" (2013) in The Times. Similarly, Toby Young asked the whereabouts of the theory in "Are the cultural Marxists in Retreat, or Lying Low?" (2015) in The Spectator. Owen Jones and Hussein Kesvani, respectively writing for The Guardian and The Independent, cited those as examples that the conspiracy theory entered mainstream discourse.[43][46] Dominic Green wrote a conservative critique of conservatives' complaints about Cultural Marxism in the Spectator USA, writing: "For the Nazis, the Frankfurter School and its vaguely Jewish exponents fell under the rubric of Kulturbolshewismus, 'Cultural Bolshevism.'"[51] Sdio7 (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , the political scientist Jérôme Jamin already explained this back in 2014, when he wrote that "next to the global dimension of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, there is its innovative and original dimension, which lets its racist authors avoid racist discourses, and pretend to be defenders of democracy in their respective countries." Davide King (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I can’t see any issue other than these incidents possibly not being due, IMO. The sources are pretty clear. People might not like to be caught out pushing conspiracies, but they are what they are. It’s kinda like when when people tweet offensive things and then claim they were “hacked”, not convincing, bad excuse. When people say dumb and nasty things they almost always know exactly what they are saying, even if they deny it afterward. Certainly nothing libellous here, not even close. Bacondrum (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It's on public figures to clarify their hidden opinions/positions. We just report on what they say overtly. 123.243.234.239 (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Spot on. Even then, people say stuff and then deny it all the time, that's why we look to secondary sources. Bacondrum (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok but this still doesn't acknolwedge the issue I raised above with the ambiguity of the phrases or why the changing of the wording would be a bad thing since it helps avoid this ambiguity. It seems to just be saying "Nope, not a problem". Sdio7 (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Fundamental issues
There seems to be an assumption that answers to the following questions will be obvious to the average reader, but they are not obvious to me. Could somebody help me out?

The second sentence in the article starts: “The conspiracists claim that...” Who are the conspiracists? Is this article intending to imply that anyone using the term “cultural Marxist” is a conspiracist, regardless of what he or she means by that term?

The article talks about “proponents” of the conspiracy theory, as well as about those “espousing” or “promoting” or “holding” the theory. Do all these terms refer to anyone who uses the term “cultural Marxist”? — Swood100 (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that no reliable sources suggest that "Cultural Marxism" is anything other than a conspiracy theory, both of your questions are to be answered in the affirmative. Is the article unclear about this? Newimpartial (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The article on antisemitism says, “A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite.” So, according to this article Ben Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew, is an anti-Semite? This seems somewhat counterintuitive.
 * The antisemitism article says that antisemitism “is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews.” Elsewhere on this page you wrote: “Anti-semitism is not always a term labeling conscious beliefs; it is also an appropriate label for unconscious motives, and also for the results of actions that were not necessarily based on anti-semitic motives.” Your description seems not entirely congruous with the definition given above. You referred to an explanation in a section titled Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory#Anti-semitism as an Essential Quality.  I looked back in the archives and found a section with this name but it contained no such explanation. Could you provide a link to the explanation, or give me a summary here?  — Swood100 (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You can read the sources, we are not here to do your reading for you. If you find specific issues with specific claims and sources then please raise them. Bacondrum (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, is this article claiming that, according to the sources, Ben Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew, is an anti-Semite? (I located the talk section I referenced above but it doesn't explain how this would make sense.) If the answer is "yes" then wouldn't an explanation in the article for such a puzzling conclusion make sense? — Swood100 (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say he's an antisemite; it says he is promoting an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Is this distinction not clear enough to you? Newimpartial (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I reckon peddling antisemitic globalist conspiracies does make the peddler antisemitic, but that's my POV. The article does not claim he is antisemitic, as Newimpartial has already pointed out. It reflects the facts presented in reliable sources. You'd have to ask Shapiro about the contradiction, he;s the one peddling antisemitic conspiracies despite being Jewish himself, his motives are a mystery. Bacondrum (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Given that no reliable sources suggest that "Cultural Marxism" is anything other than a conspiracy theory How does this article handle sources such as the following?
 * The term, in other words, has perfectly respectable uses outside the dark, dank silos of the far right.
 * To complicate the issue further, the term “cultural Marxism”, when used informally, often seems to refer to nothing more than left-wing cultural criticism. ...
 * Sometimes, when people complain about “cultural Marxism”, their emphasis seems to be on something more specific. They are thinking, perhaps, of a left-wing variety of cultural authoritarianism: a tendency to criticize movies, video games, and other cultural products in a very harsh way that implies a need for government censorship. Short of that, it may at least imply the need for aggressive social policing and an environment of public shaming. ...
 * Meanwhile, we can conclude that the term “cultural Marxism” has a variety of uses – scholarly, ideological, and more popular. It is employed by extreme right-wing ideologues, such as Breivik, in grandiose theories that have little credibility, and it is used popularly in ways that show little understanding of its history or its original meaning. Nonetheless, it is has also been useful for mainstream scholars who tend, themselves, to be Marxists or sympathetic to Marxist thought – for example, Trent Schroyer and (more recently) Dennis Dworkin.


 * “Cultural Marxism” is used accordingly as a shorthand phrase to describe the Left’s onslaught on core Western precepts. As Braverman said, “We have culture evolving from the far Left which has allowed the snuffing out of freedom of speech [and] freedom of thought.” — Swood100 (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the archives are now divided between the ones at this Talk page and the ones at Talk:Frankfurt School, but I believe all of those sources have been discussed. You can look for yourself. Newimpartial (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't locate the one in the Jerusalem Post. No return for "Jerusalem" or "Phillips". Nor did I find this one:
 * While cultural Marxists did accept the ideological bases of their own theoretical and political positions, and consequently had begun to recognize the problematic, contingent nature of their own interpretive activities, it was poststructuralism that gave Marxists the vocabulary with which to begin theorizing their own determination. — Swood100 (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Jerusalem Post piece is by Melanie Phillips, who has been discussed in the archive on this page and is certainly not a RS on this tppic.
 * And while I don't recall discussing Cary Grossman here, that text is using "cultural Marxism" to mean something like "Marxist approaches to culture", not as a term that would be relevant to this article. As has been discussed many times on both this Talk page and its predecessor, that juxtaposition of words is not the referent of the conspiracy theory, nor is it a label for some kind of "movement" that would show that "Cultural Marxism" exists as a real thing outside the conspiracy theory. So while it shows up in a word search for "cultural Marxism", it isn't helpful for editing this article in any way. Newimpartial (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw Melanie Phillips mentioned but I didn’t see this specific article mentioned. Is the Jerusalem Post not a reliable source? What about this source makes it not reliable?
 * that text is using "cultural Marxism" to mean something like "Marxist approaches to culture", not as a term that would be relevant to this article.
 * Here’s another reference to cultural Marxism from that same page (emphasis added):
 * In the middle and late 1960s (although it did not reach England and America until the late 1960s and the early 1970s), Marxism underwent a profound interchange with structuralism and semiotics, an interchange that marks the beginning of the third moment of Marxist revision and established the context within which the essays in this book were written, including the apparently humanistic essays by Schacht and Golding. While the second generation of humanist Marxists–who became known as cultural Marxists–placed the active human agent (understood both individually and socially) at the center of their theoretical perspective, it was the intersection of Marxism with structuralism and semiotics that gave the study of culture new momentum in the 1970s, both within Marxism and across a wide range of disciplines and theoretical perspectives.
 * The authors say that “humanist Marxists” became known as “cultural Marxists.” They are not talking about a Marxist approach to culture, but rather about a specific school of thought. Here are earlier references to humanist Marxists (emphasis added):
 * The humanist (and often Hegelian) Marxism that emerged, ranging from Lukács to Korsch to the members of the Frankfurt school, increasingly emphasized experience as a mediating term in the relations between social structures and individual lives. ...
 * Following on a critique begun, in fact, by Engels, this humanist Marxism typically attempted to rethink (or at least problematize) the unidirectional causality implicit in the base/superstructure model and often focused on questions of meaning, experience, and individuality as mediations. ...
 * As the implications of this second appearance of a humanist Marxism began to be recognized, it became clear that cultural analysis needed to be concerned with all the structural and meaning-producing activities by which human life is created and maintained. — Swood100 (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you would need more than just the one source to convince other editors that "humanist Marxism" really means "cultural Marxism" and so we should see this discussion as relevant to the current article. Since subscribers to the CT are generally confusing Marxism with Postmodernism, it seems unlikely to me that they are actually referring to "humanist Marxism" in particular, which is pretty much the opposite tendency.
 * As far as the Phillips piece goes, it is clearly a piece of "analysis" that would be subject to WP:RSOPINION, and she is not a reliable source in this domain (notably, because she subscribes to the CT). Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Since subscribers to the CT are generally confusing Marxism with Postmodernism, it seems unlikely to me that they are actually referring to "humanist Marxism" in particular, which is pretty much the opposite tendency. I think that a great many people talking about “cultural Marxism” are not talking about the CT described in this article but are using the term loosely to describe some combination of political correctness, identity politics, a postmodern frame of mind, and/or a desire to ‘cancel’ those who disagree with them. This supposition seems especially reasonable with respect to an Orthodox Jew. The theory of this article, as I understand it, is that it doesn’t matter what they subjectively mean by “cultural Marxism” because that term has only one objective meaning. I think you would need more than just the one source to convince other editors that "humanist Marxism" really means "cultural Marxism" and so we should see this discussion as relevant to the current article. Perhaps if the source were saying something that seems inconceivable or preposterous, or if the reliability of the source were in doubt, one source might seem insufficient. But there is nothing inconceivable about this term in this context and I would be surprised if the reliability of this source could be impugned. Nevertheless, as to whether “humanist Marxism” and “cultural Marxism” refer to the same thing, see this article (emphasis added):
 * The main aim of the article is to suggest what and how a contemporary, revised version of humanism, inflected with critical realism and Marxism, can contribute to sociology. I focus primarily on two areas in which sociology is often found lacking today: theorizing the relationship between structure and agency, and deciding what to do with moral evaluations in sociological analyses. I argue that the solution to both lies in attempting to finally transcend the traditionally hostile and mutually exclusive paradigms of “humanist” or “cultural” Marxism on the one side and “anti-humanist” or “scientific” Marxism on the other. This enables us to carefully reinstate the agency of human subjects and the moral dimension, both of which were and still are dismissed by anti- or post-humanist social science, without neglecting the objective and causally relevant existence of social structures at the same time.

See also this article, which connects this concept to Lukacs and Korsch, just like the Grossberg & Nelson do (emphasis added):
 * Debates on Marx’s economics are easy to dismiss as obscure spats among technical specialists. This misunderstands their significance. “Economics without Marx” catalysed a broader trend, for which economics of any kind was a dispensable embarrassment. Recoiling from the mechanical materialism of the Second and Third Internationals, Western Marxists were drawn to dissident ideas on philosophy, politics, sociology or aesthetics from Gramsci, Lukacs or Korsch, ignoring equally challenging economic ideas from the likes of Grossman or Rosdolski.
 * “Cultural Marxism”, an extreme variant, sought in effect to free aesthetic criticism from all economic trappings. Its roots lie in the Institute for Social Research, endowed by multimillionaire Felix Weil, which on taking refuge from Nazi persecution in New York became an incubator for post-1968 Marxism. Kuhn (2007:186) records its directors’ hostility to the outstanding economic work of Institute member Henryk Grossman, arising from fear that its conclusions would alienate funders...
 * We can discard the idea, which has dogged Marxist theory and indeed provoked Cultural Marxism’s secession, that capitalism’s laws are mechanical or inevitable.

What this establishes is that the CT is not the only objective meaning of “cultural Marxism”. At a minimum, this needs to be pointed out in this article, as a disambiguation. But beyond that, what is the rationale for concluding that any use of “cultural Marxism” can only be a reference to the CT, especially when that involves the dubious assertion that an Orthodox Jew is promoting anti-Semitism? — Swood100 (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The object of the conspiracy theory is "Cultural Marxism", not "cultural Marxism", and the article explains what it means. Ben Shapiro and Melanie Philips are not in any way discussing "cultural Marxism"/"Marxist humanism"; they are discussing the object of the conspiracy theory: the attempt to subvert Western values through cultural hegemony in the universities, or something like that.
 * No matter how much nostalgia you try to bring back for me, Swood, by reminding me of the delicious aroma of my first love (Marxist humanism), you will never make it relevant to this article, although there are many other articles where it is downright important. Newimpartial (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The object of the conspiracy theory is "Cultural Marxism", not "cultural Marxism"
 * Search on the page for “cultural” and take a look at the references. Do we need to remove all the ones will a lower-case ‘c’?
 * Ben Shapiro and Melanie Philips are not in any way discussing "cultural Marxism"/"Marxist humanism"; they are discussing the object of the conspiracy theory: the attempt to subvert Western values through cultural hegemony in the universities, or something like that.
 * If you asked Ben Shapiro if he was talking about a theory that is anti-Semitic, he would say no. If there are two potential “objective” theories what is the justification for assigning him to the CT? Why are you saying that his subjective intention is suddenly relevant when you've been denying that all along? How does his subjective intention influence our conclusion as to whether he is promoting the CT? — Swood100 (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Then it's probably a good thing that Ben Shapiro is not a reliable source about himself, or Cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism is based on a conspiracy theory dating back to at least the 19th century. Whether someone considers it sufficiently removed from, or disconnected enough from the inherent anti-Semitic -ness of it all, is not a topic suitable for encyclopedic evaluation in most cases. It's still a conspiracy theory with those origins, and those people are still promoting it. Their lack of awareness is not relevant. It's pretty simple--- we go with what reliable sources say about a subject. Why does it matter whether Shapiro would deny it's anti-Semitic? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do we say that Shapiro's statements are a reference to the CT rather than to the version of "cultural Marxism" discussed by Nelson and Grossberg? — Swood100 (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because they're two very different subjects. Shapiro is very obviously not referring to the obscure academic ephemera of Nelson and Grossberg. To say otherwise would be misrepresenting our sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because he is talking about Marxist Culture War, not the hippy dippy world of 1960s Marxist humanists. There are indeed two "objective" movements that can be discussed in this context: (1) Marxist humanism and more generally Western Marxism, which were actual intellectual and political movements of the 20th century, and (2) "Cultural Marxism", which is a conspiracy theory used as a shibboleth in the Culture War. The former describes real phenomena and is seldom described in RS as "cultural Marxism"- compared to the use of other labels - and never as "Cultural Marxism". The object of the conspiracy theory is generally described as "Cultural Marxism", and even without the extra capital it refers to a cultural conspiracy to corrupt the yout' and prejudice them against Western values. You can tell which of these two references an author is making - Western Marxism or the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory - based on what they actually write about. It isn't hard. Newimpartial (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe you are saying that we will examine the beliefs people have and then characterize them as holding either Belief A or Belief B depending on which one we think they are closest to, but we can’t characterize them as holding the actual belief they hold. So if they are closer to Belief A, then they get tarred as holding an anti-Semitic belief, whether they actually do or not, because that is a component of Belief A. Do I have this right?  — Swood100 (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither the historical literature around Marxist humanism nor scholarship about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory depends on "beliefs" in any particular way. People who are writing historical scholarship about Marxist humanism (and more broadly Western Marxism) are writing about what a set of thinkers said and wrote. People who are writing analysis of the "Cultural Marxism" CT are describing how that construct or rhetorical device was constructed (from a few key elements including antisemitism) and how it has been used. These topics do not overlap and are not identified in terms of the "beliefs" of those writing about them.
 * There are also people who believe in the Cultural Marxism CT. Some of them hold explicit antisemitic beliefs, while others explicitly oppose antisemitism (and still others express no public opinions about antisemitism one way or another). According to the RS on the topic, what these people believe in - like the Obama birthers and the 9/11 truthers - is a conspiracy theory, and this conspiracy theory is antisemitic in its origin and argumentation. Black Americans can be Obama truthers, and Jewish Americans can believe that Zionists brought down the twin towers: neither of those scenarios makes the CTs in question less racist or less antisemitic. So it is with the "Cultural Marxism" - we base our article on what reliable sources say, not on what anyone "believes". Newimpartial (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, when Ben Shapiro talks about “cultural Marxism” how do you know he is talking about the CT rather than about the version that evolved from “humanist Marxism”? Don’t you have to first analyze what he said and then assign it to one or the other?  — Swood100 (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you reply to the above? — Swood100 (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah; I analyze what he said and that is the basis of my statement, he is talking about Marxist Culture War, not the hippy dippy world of 1960s Marxist humanists. But it isn't a matter of "he has one belief, and the scholars have another" - it is a case where the actual published record allows a certain range of interpretations, but Shapiro doesn't accept that range of interpretations but instead believes a conspiracy theory, in the context of a perceived Culture war. But the people he thinks are on the "other side" of that war, who write about Marxist humanism etc., aren't offering a "theory" of postwar intellectual history to "believe in", they are offering an evidence-based account of actual events and writings. On this matter, at least, they are not "culture war"-ing at all. So to present the CT and the actual history as two competing beliefs or theories is, as I have said elsewhere, FALSEBALANCE of the worst kind. Newimpartial (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

As far as the Phillips piece goes, it is clearly a piece of "analysis" that would be subject to WP:RSOPINION The Phillips article is not labelled “opinion” like this one is. Why did you not object to that one? Furthermore, why would this article be unacceptable as an opinion piece? How do you distinguish the Phillips article from every other included article, on those grounds? and she is not a reliable source in this domain (notably, because she subscribes to the CT) Her article says:
 * Yet for stating the obvious about something that should concern all decent people committed to liberal values, she found herself disgustingly smeared by association with antisemitism and mass murder.

It doesn’t sound like she subscribes to an anti-Semitic CT, or do you read it differently? — Swood100 (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * She is making the argument of the conspiracy (Marxist Cultural Warfare!!) while denying that it is antisemitic. Most conspiracists claim to be describing a real phenomenon, and deny that they are spreading an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Their statements on this matter are not reliable.
 * As many WP editors have lamented, not all newspapers label their content into "opinion" and "news". Any thoughtful reader of the piece can tell from its use of evidence that the Phillips piece is "analysis", a.k.a. opinion, rather than investigative journalism.Newimpartial (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yawn, please stop WP:bludgeoning the debate, you've had your say, majority of editors are not convinced by your argument, move on. Bacondrum (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Coming late to the debate, I see no dead horse. It looks like the nub of the disagreement is that the term ‘Cultural Marxism’ was at one time a precise term, but is now used as a general criticism/insult for the kind of attitude which was once called ‘political correctness’. This is the kind of usage our readers are likely to have come across. It is, in fact, the usage I had come across, and I came to this article to find out what it was all about, since the expression seemed to be meaningless.  Some editors may object to this use of the term, but, like all words and expressions, the meaning can change by use. The changed meaning explains why Jewish people such as Ben Shapiro and Melanie Phillips can use the term. The article is unrealistic in claiming that the term is always used in an anti-semitic way, and in this respect is misleading to readers. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , what you describe might be termed "cultural Marxism appropriation" - right-wing grifters appropriating a term because while everyone recognises political incorrectness as a dog-whistle for reactionary views and bigotry, most people are unaware that cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory. In other words, it's classic IDW, or, to use a term from Usenet of yore, PISIP: Pseudo-Intellectual Self-Indulgent Penc. Penc is a ROT-13. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Am I correct in interpreting your comment as meaning that you actually agree with my point that the term is used in a way which is not explained in this article? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Any thoughtful reader of the piece can tell from its use of evidence that the Phillips piece is "analysis", a.k.a. opinion, rather than investigative journalism.
 * How do we objectively identify “opinion” or “analysis” pieces? Let’s take the first reference: Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment: The Frankfurt School as Scapegoat of the Lunatic Fringe.By what objective criteria do we distinguish this one from the one in the Jerusalem Post? What about The Alt-Right's Favorite Meme is 100 Years Old? That one is labelled “opinion” right on it. What special treatment did you demand for it?
 * She is making the argument of the conspiracy (Marxist Cultural Warfare!!) while denying that it is antisemitic. Most conspiracists claim to be describing a real phenomenon, and deny that they are spreading an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Their statements on this matter are not reliable.
 * How can her statement about the theory she holds be not reliable? Do you mean that even though she writes “disgustingly smeared by association with antisemitism” we have no reason to suppose that she opposes anti-Semitism? This is not the type of assumption we normally make about what people write. Why is she different? She is saying that the belief that Jews are behind an evil plot to subvert American society is not necessarily a component of “Cultural Marxism” as understood by many people.  Of course you understand this. It is undisputed in the case of Ben Shapiro, as it is with Jordan Peterson.  Concerning Peterson, the Berlatsky article that is referenced even says:
 * Peterson isn't an ideological anti-Semite; there's every reason to believe that when he re-broadcasts fascist propaganda, he doesn't even hear the dog-whistles he's emitting.
 * If people say that they do not believe that there is an evil Jewish plot to subvert American society, why do you resist reporting this accurately, in accordance with the references? — Swood100 (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, please read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:SEALION, which this discussion is rapidly descending into.
 * Secondly, my own view is that WP:RSOPINION should always also be read in relation to WP:SPS, specifically in that statements by experts that would be RS if published on their blog, are also RS if published under an opinion masthead in a newspaper. For these cases, we look at who is writing and whether the evidence they use is in line with the norms of their professional community. In this way, we can easily tell the difference between Martin Jay's comments and those of Melanie Phillips, for example.
 * Finally, this isn't the Melanie Phillips article - in the latter, it might well be DUE to note that she has promoted the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory while denying that it is antisemitic (for one thing, it might make sense to invoke WP:ABOUTSELF in that context). But for the purpose of this article, the only way Melanie Phillips is relevant is as a garden variety conspiracy theorist who insists that her preferred conspiracy theory is real. She can't be a RS in how "Cultural Marxism is a real thing", because no such expertise exists because "Cultural Marxism" - as a cabal in the culture war opposing Western values - does not exist. That she believes it does cannot make her an expert in anything, and that she denies that it is antisemitic is also not relevant outside of a discussion of her personal beliefs. Since her beliefs are not in-scope for this article - except in so far as she is a verifiable supporter of the conspiracy theory - this simply isn't the place to discuss her personal opinions. The evident fact that not all the people Cultural Marxist CT supporters hold responsible for the corruption of our yout' are in fact Jews is irrelevant to the fundamentally false claim of an evil plot to subvert American society. I feel like I am listening to a puppet theatre where one puppet talks about this "evil plot" and another breaks in, "yes, but are they Jews?", and all the puppets continue to argue about how many of those involved in the evil plot are, or aren't, Jews. But the "evil plot" is still fictional, and the structure of that CT is still antisemitic regardless of arguments about the greater or lesser importance of Judaism within "Cultural Marxism".
 * As far as the beliefs of the Jordan Peterson hand puppet are concerned, they aren't notably relevant to this article either, although they might be worth parsing at Jordan Peterson. Newimpartial (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For these cases, we look at who is writing and whether the evidence they use is in line with the norms of their professional community. In this way, we can easily tell the difference between Martin Jay's comments and those of Melanie Phillips, for example.
 * What evidence used by Melanie Phillips is not in line with the norms of her professional community.
 * she has promoted the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory while denying that it is anti-Semitic
 * This could be said about every source denying that Cultural Marxism is necessarily anti-Semitic. It begs the question by assuming its own conclusion. Any mention of "Cultural Marxism" is automatically a reference to the CT.
 * She can't be a RS in how "Cultural Marxism is real thing", because no such expertise exists because "Cultural Marxism" - as a cabal in the culture war opposing Western values - does not exist.
 * You’re misreading her. She acknowledges that there are many people who believe in what she calls “a demented conspiracy.” She refers to them as “neo-Nazis, white supremacists, antisemites and other conspiracy-theory fruitcakes”. These are the people who believe in a cabal. But then she says that there is also an actual political movement “propounded by far-left thinkers known as the ‘Frankfurt School,’ along with other Marxist theorists such as Antonin Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse and Saul Alinsky.”  A political movement is not a cabal.  Don’t you agree that “identity politics,” for example, is associated with a political movement?  All experts agree that such a political movement does exist, and that is her position as well. She agrees with the RS that there is no real conspiracy, or cabal, except in the minds of “conspiracy-theory fruitcakes.”  So your objection to her being an RS fails on this ground, right? Or do you think that a reference to a political movement can only be a reference to a cabal? — Swood100 (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I am not misreading her. She says that, Yes, “cultural Marxism” surfaced in Nazi discourse as “cultural Bolshevism.” But it also has roots in an actual political philosophy propounded by far-left thinkers known as the “Frankfurt School,” along with other Marxist theorists such as Antonin Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse and Saul Alinsky. In other words, in spite of the antisemitic associations of the term, she claims that cultural Marxism ... has its roots in an actual philosphy and then cites the Frankfurt School, Gramsci, and Alinsky - who do not notably agree on anything - as "propounding" this political philosophy. This is still the conspiracy theory, folks, even though she uses a small "c", and making such claims devoid of any kind of evidence is not in line with the norms of her professional community, if we are to treat her as an expert in anything other than her own feelz opinions.
 * Phillips then goes on to argue that the Long march through the institutions was the actual plan based on this political philosophy, and that [t]his has been achieved to the letter particularly in the universities in the form of identity politics, victim culture, the progressive destruction of the traditional family, and moral and cultural relativism, in other words, the Culture War against Western values. (Personally, I find the accusation that "Cultural Marxism" has undermined the West by inculcating Nietzschean relativism particularly hilarious, especially since the last incarnation of actual Frankfurt School Marxism, Jurgen Habermas, is also one of the last effective defenders of Western liberal values against moral and cultural relativism. But I digress.)
 * What she has done here is reproduced the "Cultural Marxist" conspiracy theory in an unusually lucid formulation, but as factually wrong and devoid of evidence as all other versions of the CT must inevitably be. And please don't misread her statement about neo-Nazis, white supremacists, antisemites and other conspiracy-theory fruitcakes - she isn't saying that she has a view of Cultural Marxism that is fundamentally different from theirs; rather, she is promoting an equivalence between the "Cultural Marxism" theory and "anti-globalism" and arguing that neither is necessarily more antisemitic than the other. Which reliable sources do not actually support, sadly. Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and identity politics may well proceed from one, or more, political movements, but it does not proceed from (imaginary) "Cultural Marxism" or from (real) "Marxist humanism" or from Western Marxism in any of its other varieties, like the Birmingham School or the Frankfurt School. Or at least, that is what the reliable sources say, and we should follow them. Newimpartial (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The following, written by Andrew Sandlin, is an example of a source that defines “Cultural Marxism” in a way similar to the way that many people use the term. There is no anti-Semitism. There is simply an explanation of an evolution of Marxism. Is there any objection to adding this source to the article, with the statement that not all sources include anti-Semitism as a component?
 * Here, then, is a provisional definition of Cultural Marxism. Sidney Hook defines it as ...a philosophy of human liberation. It seeks to overcome human alienation, to emancipate man from repressive social institutions, especially economic institutions that frustrate his true nature, and to bring him into harmony with himself, his fellow men, and the world around him so that he can overcome his estrangements and express his true essence through creative freedom. ...
 * Today, class consciousness has morphed into “identity politics.” Under Cultural Marxism, the conflicting classes have been expanded from the bourgeoisie and the proletariat to include men versus women, whites and Asians versus blacks and/or Hispanics, children versus parents, millennials versus the middle aged, wealthy versus poor, “middle class” cosmopolitans versus nationalists, and other binary categories. Cultural Marxists portray one pole of the binary (women, homosexuals, millennials, blacks) as oppressed. Then they demand that the state liberate these groups from their oppressors.

Maybe this guy is wrong about the Marxist roots of the phenomena he describes, but it still represents a widely-held viewpoint. — Swood100 (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't speak for other editors (of course), but this was published in a journal specializing in biblical truth ... as it relates to law and legal institutions. This is about as relevant as citing a Lacanian psychoanalytic journal in a discussion of biblical inerrancy - which is to say, not especially relevant.
 * Sandlin begins by "quoting" Sidney Hook, who never wrote anything about "Cultural Marxism" or "cultural Marxism", and then makes a nonsequetur leap into binaries constituting oppressed groups - which might have something in common with Post-Marxism, but nothing to so wtih either "Cultural" or "Western Marxism" - and then refers to the liberating role of the State in a way that sounds like Maoism. In other words, Sandlin is engaged in what is generally denoted in the field as making things up, but insofar as he is writing about anything outside his own imagination, it is the Cultural Marxism CT as evoked by Peterson, Shapiro, Bolsonaro et al. Newimpartial (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't speak for other editors (of course), but this was published in a journal specializing in biblical truth ... as it relates to law and legal institutions. This is about as relevant as citing a Lacanian psychoanalytic journal in a discussion of biblical inerrancy - which is to say, not especially relevant.
 * That would be true if his explanation of the origin and development of Cultural Marxism were biblically-based or relied on biblical concepts, but it is not. Surely you are not saying that a Christian cannot be a RS.  The fact that he finds consequences for Christians is irrelevant.
 * Sandlin begins by "quoting" Sidney Hook, who never wrote anything about "Cultural Marxism" or "cultural Marxism"
 * According to Sandlin, Sidney Hook wrote this for an article on Marxism, in Dictionary of the History of Ideas, Philip P. Wiener, ed., 157 (1973).
 * and then makes a nonsequetur leap into binaries constituting oppressed groups
 * I’m sorry, didn’t you see the ellipsis following the first paragraph?
 * which might have something in common with Post-Marxism, but nothing to so wtih either "Cultural" or "Western Marxism" - and then refers to the liberating role of the State in a way that sounds like Maoism. In other words, Sandlin is engaged in what is generally denoted in the field as making things up
 * So you disagree with his analysis. I appreciate that you have expertise in this area but are you citing your own expertise to contradict the RS status of this source?  Even if you are, whether or not the analysis is correct is irrelevant.  There are a number of people who trace “identity politics” back to a Marxist source. The relevant thing is that they have a theory that is different from the CT described in this article. — Swood100 (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood me. I was not arguing that Christians cannot write accurately about Marxism, I was arguing that publication in a journal focused on biblical truth does not ensure that the resulting article is an RS on a topic that is not related to its mandate - to expand on this a little, the peer review processes of this journal were clearly unable to catch numerous errors of fact and scholarship, which is unsurprising since it is not the editors' areas of expertise.
 * Sidney Hook was writing about Marxism (actually "libertarian Marxism" if I remember correctly) but Sandlin substituted "Cultural Marxism". To AGF as much as possible, this is still a fundamental error of fact. And I was not basing comments on your quotes but on his actual argument; there is simply no basis for moving from Marxism to Post-Marxism (a term Sandlin doesn't use, perhaps because he doesn't know about it) to a kind of Maoism, and Sandlin does so without producing any evidence that anyone made the series of moves he is describing, much less that they were following some kind of "Cultural Marxist" strategy in doing so. If you wanted to see an analysis like this incorporated in this article, Swood, you wouid have to find a source that has some of the basic marks of reliability (professional reputation, relevant expertise, and effective peer review), which has not been true of anything you have presented so far. Newimpartial (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh Jesus, no. Not a reliable source. At best that opinion is fringe and undue. I'm starting to think an ANI report is coming soon. Swood, you are bludgeoning the debate, this is disruptive. Please stop filling the talk page with long winded and frivolous arguments. Bacondrum (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I second this. ... has done a fantastic job of providing you with a cogent, detailed, and knowledgeable analysis of all this in response to the hypotheticals you’ve been posing. Which even I personally found somewhat edifying, I’ll admit. But it’s not something they were required to do in this situation past a certain point, and I think it’s ultimately just a courtesy; them assuming good faith, and trying to be helpful to you. No credible source makes the connections you’re positing here. The goalposts of your arguments keep moving, and you’re setting up straw men for other editors to knock down.
 * I’m going to assume less good faith than Newimpartial here at this point, and say that you’re probably not confused, or likely seeking any substantive clarification about the article text. From what I’m reading, it seems to me that you’re looking to make the case that Cultural Marxism is more than a conspiracy theory, but just might be a plausible state of affairs, woven from (excuse me for speaking figuratively) disparate threads of various schools of thought in social philosophy. There’s no tapestry of historical development to be found there, as Newimpartial spelled out; just a “yarn” spun by a few people, that falls apart when you actually pull at those threads.
 * Or that you also want to make the case that Shapiro is a credible commentator, who just might actually be discussing the theoretical framework underpinning Neo-Marxist thought, rather than subscribing to and propagating a conspiracy theory (as our sources say he is)... Even though he ascribes various motives to a variety of actors that he says undermine “western civilization” in the, well, manner of a conspiracy theory.
 * Both? Neither? I’d also point out that, assuming I’ve not misread, that these two hypothetical “hypotheses” that you’re proposed, out of several such lines of questioning (in the form of begging the question), are somewhat mutually exclusive, and even contradictory. Beyond that, neither line of argumentation is relevant to article improvement.
 * As I said, most of what I’m seeing here are moving goalposts, and straw men. It’s in no way conducive to building an article. WP:FRINGE applies to this article, and we can’t be unclear. We can’t use original research, such as speculating at what various people could or might have meant (or been thinking), and we can’t indulge in WP:SYNTHESIS of sources to make a point about something they themselves did not directly make. Beyond the hypotheticals, I’m also not seeing any actual edit proposals. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Does anyone object to collapsing this section? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd give it, say, 24 hours, but after that I have no objection. Newimpartial (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this article open to including scholarly disputation of the premise of the article? The authors of Baudelaire Contra Benjamin: A Critique of Politicized Aesthetics and Cultural Marxism (2019) include the following in the preface to their book:
 * Finally, toward the completion of thIs work it came to our attention that the term "cultural Marxism," which, for decades, had been commonly used as more or less synonymous with critical theory, Western Marxism, and, cultural studies, when focused upon class, is now widely said to to be a figment of the imagination of right wing anti-Semitic crackpots. Wayne is old enough to recall the enthusiasm during the late 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s which greeted the reception, translation, and application of writings by the Frankfurt School, Benjamin, Gramsci, and others for applying Marxism to cultural critique. Thus he was originally bemused when he read Samuel Moyn's opinion piece, “The Alt-right's favorite Meme Is 100 Years Old,” for the New York Times (November 13, 2018), which after posing the question "What Is Cultural Marxism," assures the readers that "Nothing of the kind actually exists." As it turned out Moyn had been repeating an argument that, as far as we know, first appeared in the Intelligence Report of the Southern Poverty Law Centre in the essay "'Cultural Marxism’ Catching On" by Bill Berkowitz. What triggered Berkowitz's essay was the fact that a number of conservatives had already identified critical theory as an attempt to destroy American values, although the piece set in train the idea that because the Frankfurt school's leaders were Jewish, anyone who thought critical theory/cultural Marxism was socially toxic was an anti-Semite. The piece was as polemical and unscholarly as the "anti-cultural Marxist" authors it criticized. It was true, though, that an increasing number of conservatives, as well as “crackpots,” were saying that a range of destructive Marxist ideas, developed by the Frankfurt School, were thriving in the humanities, and having socially and culturally penicious affects. Whether the influence of the Frankfurt School is good or bad is a matter for disputation, but that it has been very influential in the humanities, especially in literary studies is indisputable.
 * In any case, Berkowitz's account has not only found itself repeated many times, but in December 2014 the Wikipedia entry on "Cultural Marxism," which, though brief, and uncontentious, was deleted. The decision was taken by three members of the Wikipedia board having reviewed a small forum (which has been preserved on Reddit) disputing the merits of the entry. The arguments in favor of deleting the entry were passionate, but grossly methodologically deficient in appraising what counts as "evidence" for the meaning of any term, or existence of a practice. The decision was made that anyone searching for "cultural Marxism" on Google was to be directed to the section "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory" in the entry on the Frankfurt School (which still stands), though there is an entry on "cultural Marxism" in RationalWiki. The "RationaIWiki" entry also focuses upon the idea that the term is used by conspiracy theorists, while it concedes that "extremely rarely . . . [it] refers to an obscure critique of popular culture by the Frankfurt School." The fact that the term was littered throughout scholarly literature for decades can quickly be seen by entering it in Google scholar. It had also been commonly used as conversational shorthand for decades and, in all likelihood, even before the term initially appeared in print in 1973 in Trent Schroyer’s The Critique of Domination: The Origins and Development of Critical Theory. That a collection of interviews on North America's leading Marxist Literary theorist, Fredric Jameson, edited by Ian Buchanan in 2007, could appear under the name Jameson on Jameson: Conversations on Cultural Marxism, should confirm what anybody who has watched its evolution knows: that the term was not originally a pejorative term, it was purely descriptive, and was used rather loosely to cover a common approach to literary and cultural studies of the sort pioneered in critical theory by the Frankfurt School but also In British Marxist literary studies as found in Raymond Williams and his students.
 * After agonizing about whether to keep the term "cultural Marxism" subtitle in a book which (a) disputes the merits of making Marxian categories central to the study of literature in general, and Baudelaire, in particular, and (b) which identifies weaknesses in Marx's concepts of the nature of society, class and the economy, which are retained by Benjamin, we have decided not to cave in to a politically motivated rewriting of the history of language. We reject outright that we are dog whistling right wingers or anti-Semites, or that we use this book to advocate any social or political policy that could be designated as right (or any other) wing. This book offers a critique of politicized aesthetics, in general, and the problems of deploying Marx's ideas for the study of Baudelaire in so far as Baudelaire's ideas are too interesting to be held prisoner to flawed socioeconomic categories.  — Swood100 (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

By the way, in Positioning Critical Educational Studies within the Field of Education: Rethinking Lagemann’s An Elusive Science, Isaac Gottesman identifies cultural Marxism with Marxist Humanism and with the opposition of the academic left "to rapidly expanding global capitalism and concomitant state sponsored oppression". If people come to this page looking for more on that shouldn’t they be sent to either Marxist Humanism or Western Marxism?

Gottesman writes that the Western Marxist tradition of Lukacs, Korsch, Gramsci and others, often labeled critical Marxism, humanist Marxism, and cultural Marxism, found its way into academia and underwent a revival in the 1960s and 1970s among radicals who "were looking for new language and frameworks to help them understand the complexities of culture and social structure and to help them strategize opposition to rapidly expanding global capitalism and concomitant state sponsored oppression. In the United States, as the 1970s wore on and the fragmented New Left became an Academic Left searching for answers to address the rise of neoconservatism and Reagan, the critical Marxist tradition became a staple for left academics attempting to theorize resistance in a post-Fordist world." See the section "The Critical Turn" starting on page six. See also the essay by Roger D. Markwick in Saluting Aron Gurevich: Essays in History, Literature and Other Related Subjects which connects Western Marxism, humanist Marxism and cultural Marxism:
 * Marxist cultural analysis, as it emerged in post-war Western and Eastern Europe, was a reaction to the tendency within Soviet-style Marxism to treat culture as a mere secondary epiphenomenon of economic relations, of classes and of modes of production. Western European Marxists led the way. The humanist Marxism of the New Left, which first emerged in the late 1950s, increasingly engaged with anthropological conceptions of culture that emphasized human agency: language, communication, experience and consciousness. By the 1960s and 1970s Western cultural Marxism was engaged in a dialogue with structuralism, post-structuralism and semiotics.(citing Nelson and Grossberg)

Furthermore, the index of the above book equates "Cultural Marxism" with "Humanist Marxism". — Swood100 (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , please stop with the walls of text and bludgeoning the debate with arguments that have little or no support. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, This repetitive and long winded attempt to find some obscure source to support WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE claims is tired, and then some. This is pretty blatant civil POV pushing. Time to move on, please. I won't take you to the admins, but someone else will get jack of this soon enough. Bacondrum (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, I provided seven sources from scholarly journals (references 4 –10) to the effect that there is a recognized, legitimate meaning for “cultural Marxism” that is different from the anti-Semitic CT meaning, and there are countless others that I would be happy to supply. I know that it’s a lot easier to simply reply with an ad hominem and spew out WP clichés but why don’t you engage honestly? What fault do you find with these sources? Why no disambiguation?  — Swood100 (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Other editors, is it okay to archive or collapse this long winded section that contributes little or nothing to improving the article? Bacondrum (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "we have decided not to cave in to a politically motivated rewriting of the history of language." That's funny, these academics, and their insular little research bubble, nobody really cares about this distinction expect a small cadre of similar academics, how many copies will that book actually sell? oh wait... none, it will end up in university deposit libraries, buried in the stacks, checked out by someone once a year. In providing a contemporary definition of the term, Wikipedia is addressing common usage, real world usage, no one is "re-writing" the "history of language," academics can moan all they like about it, if they cared enough, maybe they would have put some energy into sorting the matter out here, rather than writing prefaces to each other that "agonize" over how to deal with people applying the term in a context they don't like. Acousmana (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, so scholarly journals aren’t best-sellers, but terms such as “humanist Marxism” and “Western Marxism” are only found in such journals and yet we have WP articles for those. So I have trouble understanding your argument that an equivalent term used in those circles is not important enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia. But apart from how widely read these scholars are do you have a principled reason to denigrate such observations as “The fact that the term was littered throughout scholarly literature for decades can quickly be seen by entering it in Google scholar. It had also been commonly used as conversational shorthand for decades...”?  As far as coming and sorting the matter out here is concerned, what they say as a Wikipedia editor carries no weight.  It’s what they say in the scholarly journals that carries weight for Wikipedia purposes.  — Swood100 (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "what they say as a Wikipedia editor carries no weight." If they don't contribute to an article's construction, and help shape discussion around issues they feel exist, then yes, no weight. It's also not a given that material published in an academic journal "carries weight," widely cited/high impact rating, then perhaps. Acousmana (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I would say, go ahead and collapse it now. All of these "new sources" clearly reflect the distinction between "cultural Marxism" as a synonym for Marxist humanism or the cultural turn, and "cultural Marxism" as a conspiracy theory/trope (in spite of their handwringing that one could be confused for the other). There is no actual confusion between these except among a small number of strongly motivated wikipedia editors. Newimpartial (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * the distinction between "cultural Marxism" as a synonym for Marxist humanism or the cultural turn, and "cultural Marxism" as a conspiracy theory/trope
 * If you recognize that there is such a distinction, and that “cultural Marxism” is used in the academic literature as a synonym for Marxist humanism, then why doesn’t this article include a disambiguation that sends the reader to the appropriate article? Do you find some fault with the sources? If I have provided an insufficient number I could supply many more that show “cultural Marxism” being used in a non-CT, nonpejorative sense, all from scholarly journals. Why the resistance? Should I start a new topic on the question of disambiguation? — Swood100 (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , what do you even actually propose? We already have articles about small-c cultural Marxism as "a synonym for Marxist humanism or the cultural turn" and capital-c Cultural Marxism as "a conspiracy theory/trope." Do you want that Cultural Marxism be a redirect to Critical theory, Marxist humanism, or whatever? I do not think that is possible because Cultural Marxism is overwhelmingly used to refer to the conspiracy theory and because we would give credence to the conspiracy theory that a movement by that name actually existed, when scholarly analysis has proved that is not the case. Do you propose that we add a hatnote and distinguish template where we explain the difference between "cultural Marxism" as a synonym from Marxist humanism (with cultural Marxism meaning a Marxist approach of culture, not the culture war the conspiracy theory entails, rather than an actual movement, the same way there are Marxist approaches to criminology, films, etc.) and "Cultural Marxism" as a reference to the conspiracy theory? Davide King (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't find the Wikipedia article 'cultural Marxism' (i.e. not the conspiracy theory) which you refer to. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The relevant articles are Western Marxism, Marxist humanism, Critical theory, Freudo-Marxism, Frankfurt School and Birmingham School of Cultural Studies, among the main phenomena that have ever losely referred to as "cultural Marxism" in RS. In none of these cases is the main term used to denote them "cultural Marxism", which is why the reliable sources don't designate one specific movement in 20th-century Marxism as "cultural Marxism". "Marxist approaches to culture", which is what RS usually mean when they use the words "cultural Marxism", is an even broader concept that is not limited to even this long list of schools and movements: as Davide King has noted, it is actually a domain, like "Marxist approaches to armed conflict" and "Marxist approaches to agriculture". Newimpartial (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We already have articles about small-c cultural Marxism as "a synonym for Marxist humanism or the cultural turn"
 * Where is the article that states this? Neither when a user searches for “cultural Marxism” nor when he reaches this article is he presented with such information.
 * Do you propose that we add a hatnote and distinguish template where we explain the difference between "cultural Marxism" as a synonym from Marxist humanism
 * I’m fine with the user being told simply that small-c cultural Marxism has been widely used in the literature as a synonym for Marxist humanism and Western Marxism, as the literature says over and over. (I would be happy to supply more examples.) How about something like this:
 * This article discusses “Cultural Marxism”, which is considered by conspiracists to be a Jewish plot to subvert Western culture. The term “cultural Marxism” (with a small-c) has been used in the academic literature as a synonym for both Marxist humanism and Western Marxism. — Swood100 (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , as noted by Newimpartial, "[t]he relevant articles", the ones you are actually referring to as cultural Marxism, "are Western Marxism, Marxist humanism, Critical theory, Freudo-Marxism, Frankfurt School and Birmingham School of Cultural Studies." If it is used as synonym for both Marxist humanism, then we already cover "cultural Marxism" as an approach to culture, an actual domain like "Marxist approaches to armed conflict" and "Marxist approaches to agriculture", in the aforementioned article and we should not coatrack them here to push the POV Cultural Marxism actually exists. Davide King (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I did actually propose disambiguation in an earlier section above, it might seem hypocritical of me to oppose it very forcibly now. At the moment, I am thinking the header might helpfully read as follows:
 * This is an article about the conspiracy theory propagated in 21st-century popular culture. The phrase "cultural Marxism" was also used for 20th-century contributions by Marxists to the study of culture, such those made by the Frankfurt School, Critical theory and Marxist humanists. For actual attempts to undermine Foundationalism and Western ethnocentrism, please see Postmodernism, Identity politics and Postcolonialism. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just found Marxist cultural analysis which has a section on 'Cultural Marxism'. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This looks good, except that Baudelaire Contra Benjamin: A Critique of Politicized Aesthetics and Cultural Marxism (2019) was published in the 21st-century. How about the following wording:
 * This is an article about the conspiracy theory propagated in 21st-century popular culture. The phrase "cultural Marxism" has also been used as a synonym for Marxist humanism and Western Marxism when examining contributions by Marxists to the study of culture, such those made by the Frankfurt School, Critical theory and Marxist cultural analysis. For actual attempts to undermine Foundationalism and Western ethnocentrism, please see Postmodernism, Identity politics and Postcolonialism. — Swood100 (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with that. Newimpartial (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * the wording "actual attempts to undermine" is poor, potentially misleading, from one suggestion of conspiracy to another. Acousmana (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I thought my proposed language was accurate, or I wouldn't have proposed it. But if you have another suggestion for how to introduce the Culture war protagonists that the conspiracy theorists are fighting against in the real (intellectual) world - as opposed to the shadowboxing with imaginary Marxists - I am all ears. Newimpartial (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How about leaving out the last sentence? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * keep it as simple as possible: This article is about the conspiracy theory Cultural Marxism. For cultural Marxism in a cultural studies context see Marxist cultural analysis and Marxist Humanism. We don't need a string of interrelated articles listed, discussion above identified possible definition issue requiring disambiguation, this solves it without getting bogged down in permutations. Acousmana (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with that, too, if it will keep the peace. If people come here looking for their actual Culture War opponents - and I'm sure they will - I suppose we are not obligated to provide them with a convenient dab. Newimpartial (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What does “in a cultural studies context” mean? The point is that “cultural Marxism” has been widely used as a synonym for “Marxist humanism” and “Western Marxism” in whatever context those terms have been used. Also, the principal distinguishing characteristic of the conspiracy theory is the belief that Jews are at the center of it.  How about this:
 * This article discusses the conspiracy theory “Cultural Marxism”, believed by conspiracists to be a Jewish plot to subvert Western culture. The term “cultural Marxism” (with a small-c) has been used in the academic literature as a synonym for both Marxist humanism and Western Marxism when examining contributions by Marxists to the study of culture. — Swood100 (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * unnecessarily verbose, don't need this level of granularity in a hatnote, if there isn't a simple structure, with relevant linkage, forget the idea, it's not a place to hang POV micro-level explanations of language usage. Acousmana (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The text of the article does not support that the view that ‘the principal distinguishing characteristic of the conspiracy theory is the belief that Jews are at the center of it.’ Various people mentioned in the article as supporting the conspiracy theory deny that they are anti-semitic. The article also refers to a ‘cabal’ which includes Islamists. I would support Acousmana’s wording. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on this discussion, I have added a minimalist disambiguaton to the top of the page. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * works for me. Acousmana (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * One more time: this article is about "Cultural Marxism", the conspiracy theory, and not "cultural Marxism", the beat-generation and hippie humanist vibe. Reliable sources do not confuse these, and do not use "Cultural Marxism" to refer to the cultural turn in Marxism (capitalizing a term in an index, Swood, is not the same as creating a proper noun).
 * Un-reliable sources, mostly conspiracy theorists and mostly on YouTube, do confuse these things as a small part of their much larger-scale "confusions" in which Marxism, poststructuralism, Nietzchean relativism and identity politics all appear to be manifestations of one underlying attempt by nefarious agents to undermine "Western civilization". This is nonsense, and there is no reason to give credence to this nonsense by adding in parenthesis that "some Marxists made a cultural turn after WWII" or "some thinkers abandoned Marxism and moved to identity politics" or "some poststructutalists are post-Marxists and some poststructuralists are Nietzscheans". Each and every one of these would represent original research in the context of the CT, and would be UNDUE for mention in an article about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.
 * If any non-marine mammal actually thinks readers are coming to this article expecting to find Western Marxism or Critical theory and need better signposts to their goal, I think that could be managed in the lede text, without creating a redirect that might appear to most readers as signposted a "real" Cultural Marxist threat to western values, versus the antisemitic CT version. That's not reality, folks, and we shouldn't give that framing any of the trappings of reality.
 * As a postscript, WP really does need some work on Birmingham School of Cultural Studies article, which currently offers more institutional than intellectual history, while I think the DUE treatment would be the opposite. I won't blame the conspiracy theorists (or Team Baudelaire) for that, though. Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And upon reflection, I think the best approach to that last issue might be to replace the redirect at The Birmingham School with text about British Cultural Studies(/subset of "cultural Marxism") and disambiguate the top of that page and the top of Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies from each other, so that one article concerns the school of thought and the other, the institution. Newimpartial (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This discussion started with issues around words like “proponents” and "Ben Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew" now we're on the nth cherry picked, obscure, tangentially related paper. We are being sealioned here by a civil POV pusher - it needs to stop. Bacondrum (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

“But the people he thinks are on the "other side" of that war, who write about Marxist humanism etc., aren't offering a "theory" of postwar intellectual history to "believe in", they are offering an evidence-based account of actual events and writings.“

This is preposterous sophistry. Even by the it’s own framework the Marxist critique of anything is a critique, a theory, or a particular construal of available facts. To claim such an analysis as the only possible interpretation of facts stretches the boundaries of analysis beyond their breaking point. No one who attempts this can credibly lay a claim to impartiality of an interest in truth. TidyPrepster (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)