Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Link to Marxist cultural analysis

Question has been answered. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thread retitled from "Why is there no link to Marxist cultural analysis". I come to this page with no expertise on the subject, so choose not to edit the article. A web page on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, which notes the role of the Frankfurt school in the asserted pantheon of conspirators, provides no mention (that I can see) Of Marxist cultural theory, which is particularly associated with the Frankfurt School and which has its own Wikipedia entry. Conspiracy theories find anchorage as irrational offshoots from reality. Those narrow tentacles connecting self sustaining belief with grounded reality should be discussed. Whilst the scholars of the Frankfurt School would presumably be offended by many of the assertions made by conspiracy theorists in their name, and perhaps bemused by the assertions of power and reach ascribed to their thinking, there are aspects of Marxist cultural analysis which seem to bear a relationship to the accusations made. A clearer explanation of this relationship would improve the encyclopedic nature of the article.27.32.5.187 (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Did you not see the disambiguation notice at the top of the article? Newimpartial (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

as someone with expertise on the Issue, it seems to me that somebody who disagreed with the implications of "Marxist Cultural Analysis" created a duplicate article, which does not have a neutral viewpoint, to try and discount it. Jaygo113 (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Consider Deleting Page

off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
a page called "Marxist Cultural Analysis" already exists. This article does not come from a neutral viewpoint either. Jaygo113 (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC) This article, its title and its sourcing have been extensively discussed and have been subject to repeated, widely-parricipated RfCs. Your edits-which amount to the POV that "Cultural Marxism" is an intellectual movement and not the trope of a conspiracy theory- run counter to this broadly-based consensus. I have therefore reverted your BOLD changes. Newimpartial (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC) This article is actually biased, an ideology does not require a "conspiracy", just as there is no "Muslim conspiracy theory" of Jihad, and there are criticisms of the destructive nature of such ideologies. To call the criticism of those ideologies a "conspiracy theory", due to identifying a group of people (such as the prophet Mohammed, Karl Marx) who came up with the ideology, is to paint them with the same brush as the followers of David Icke. None of the quotes of the alleged proponents even alludes to a "conspiracy", but repeatedly refers to a "school", an "intellectual influence" and a "culture war". 75.164.170.25 (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Marxist cultural analysis is a completely different topic to this one. That article overlaps with this one only a little. It explains that the conspiracy theory exists and is a separate topic. It gives a very brief explanation of what the conspiracy theory is and refers readers who want to know more to this article. The two articles are distinct but complementary. Both articles are on valid topics. Each links to the other, so anybody finding the wrong one by mistake can easily find their way to the one that they actually want. There is no reason to delete either. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC) Many communists sources (such as the chinese communists), refer to it as "Cultural Marxism", such as http://rdbk1.ynlib.cn:6251/Qw/Paper/570796 "The History and Enlightenment of Cultural Marxism" . It states the same "conspiracy theory" conclusions about the ideology of "cultural marxism" 75.164.170.25 (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "In the United States, the typical manifestation of cultural Marxism is "Political Correctness" or "Multiculturalism". For many Americans, "political correctness" is a vague term that refers to a series of scattered and unrelated views of "freedom" and "novelty" but lacking a unified character. Although these views sometimes appear extreme, highly sensitive and even confused, if you carefully observe the history of "political correctness", it will reveal a different face. Therefore, although it is sometimes referred to as "cultural liberalism" (cultural liberalism), it is more Appropriate, but a more accurate expression should be "cultural Marxism." In fact, "political correctness" is not a collection of accidental views. It is a carefully arranged attack on Western civilization. Its main goals are Christian faith and moral values; the other is narrow white men, especially white men. Considered to be the source of most violence and exploitation in the world." Okay boomer... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Forgive me for not knowing how to use inline quotes in wikipedia, I am not a regular editor of wikipedia. 75.164.170.25 (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC) I don't get why linking to a Chinese paper on American phenomena would be relevant? The paper was written in 2014, descriptions of the conspiracy theory already existed by then. The source of the theory has been tracked down already, to Lind and LaRouche.... The Lind/LaRouche claims can't be proven, and can specifically be proven wrong by looking at The Frankfurt School's writings. The Frankfurt School sort to de-militarize societies, and create systems of health care and education... for this it's claimed that they're trying to destroy western culture via installing communism? Sorry, that's a conspiracy theory. It's even proven out in bold faced lies conservatives have made about the topic. Pat Buchanan claims to be speaking from Herbet Marcuse's voice, but is in fact quoting himself from death of the west. I've seen multiple memes of fake Max Horkhiemer quotes. Hell, Breitbart even said that Adorno made music to turn people into necrophiliacs. There's a conservative by the name of Michael Walsh who claims The Frankfurt School were the devil, and have everyone trapped in a Matrix. So there's definitely conspiracy discourse on the topic. That a Chinese paper describes the conspiracy discourse? I don't know why that matters, it's outdated. Give me a Frankfurt School author saying "let's take over society and destroy it" then yeah, then it's not a conspiracy theory. Until then, it all looks pretty nutty, because it doesn't line up with Frankfurt School writings. --194.193.147.6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Cultural Marxism is not an American phenomena, the abstract of the article says the following: ″The theoretical framework and methodology of cultural Marxism have important implications for the construction of contemporary Chinese literary theory and aesthetics, as well as cultural studies and the development of cultural industries. To develop and respect the multicultural ecology, and to commit to the realization of the political rights and ideological emancipation of the broadest masses of people in China is the political nature of cultural Marxism, and it is also the greatest inspiration given to us by cultural Marxism.″ Moreover nothing in the article cites LaRouche, or any "right wing conspiracy theorists" it cites Dennis Dworkin: "Cultural Marxism in Post-War Britain", People's Publishing House, 2008 edition several times as well as others. 75.164.170.25 (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Give me a Frankfurt School author saying "let's take over society and destroy it" -- 194.193.147.6 this is a straw man argument, Antonio Gramsci said: “Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. … In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches, and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.” 'Audacia e Fide' in Avanti!; reprinted in Sotto la Mole (1916-1920), p. 148.... Whether implementing socialism leads to famines because its a stupid idea, such as the Soviet Unions scientist Lysenko's "socialist agriculture" rejecting the theory of genetics as fascist science, or in the context of critical theory leading to identity politics conflicts, has nothing to do with whatever noble intentions of the originators. Endomorphosis (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC) We already have a page for Gramsci, and hegemony. --194.193.147.6 (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

verblendungzussamenhang

I know, it's written this way in the cited article, but they have a bad typo in the word. It should only have one s and be "verblendungzusamenhang". The correct orthography can be found here for example: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verblendung_(Geistesgeschichte)

And even (German) Google autocorrects the word when using the variant with typo. 2001:9E8:4C54:700:213F:31AF:D04F:24BC (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to make the change. Am I correct in thinking that we should also double the m and make it "verblendungzusammenhang"? Firefangledfeathers 03:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The correct German term is Verblendungszusammenhang. See e.g. here: [1] That is: Verblendungs+zusammenhang with one s after Verblendung, one s and two m in zusammen-hang Mvbaron (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I corrected it in the article. Thanks for catching that! Mvbaron (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Evidence for antisemitism

This article claims that the conspiracy theory is antisemitic. However, there is no evidence provided anywhere within. This speculation should either be substantiated or removed. Wthompson2009 (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The article says it is so because the WP:RS say that it is so - no RS on the topic disagree. Newimpartial (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

There are definite parallels between Cultural Marxism, Cultural Bolshevism (a theory from the Nazis), and more general anti-semetic conspiracy theories (Jews rule the world, Jews run the media, Jews are trying to destroy Western/Christian civilization). In fact, there have been several suggestions to merge the articles on Cultural Bolshevism with the articles on Cultural Marxism (See Talk:Cultural_Bolshevism#Merger_Proposal). William S. Lind gave a talk on "Cultural Marxism" to a Holocaust Denial Conference, and hence Paleo-conservatives are responsible for early efforts to popularize the theory among antisemites (Lind even claims the origins of the theory were the politics of the Wiemar Republic era of Germany). Academics have also commented on these various connections to Nazism and antisemitism. Finally, it's been popularized on 4chan, and the topic of the antisemitic connections came up around the Suella Braverman scandal. All of these events/facts have reliable sources, and so that commentary is valid to include and is not WP:OR. --115.64.184.49 (talk)

You are objectively wrong. French Post Modernism is also called cultural marxism and it had very few if any jews involved. And it's not a conspiracy theory when the foundational "intellectuals" of the Frankfurt school can be quoted verbatim as saying that it is their intention to infiltrate schools of the west and promote marxist theory. Lind could give a talk on video games to a Holocaust Denial Conference, that wouldn't make video games a far right antisemitic activity. Your entire premise relies on tenuous equivocations from varying sources of a wide disparity, effectively culminating in a conspiracy theory of its own that it's somehow the "far right" responsible for promoting an idea that's been promoted out-right in the published letters and works of Adorno and Horkheimer.Crun31 (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that argument isn't going to fly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

French Post Modernism is also called cultural marxism - just one problem there, the sources focus on The Frankfurt School, who explicitly and within open academic works opposed French Post Modernism. What's more you've given no evidence for your claims. --203.221.166.218 (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Martin Heidegger who can be said to be the inspiration behind postmodernism wasn't a Jew or a Marxist, but a member of the Nazi Party. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

So? TFD (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

So, it is highly unlikely that he was involved in a Judaeo-Marxist conspiracy. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The article ties the theory to ideas that are anti-Semitic. It doesn't have to explain why those ideas are anti-Semitic. TFD (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably the ideas you address are anti-Semitic. However, it is falacious to assure thay, since components of A are anti-Semitic (or related to anti-Semitism) ergo, A is anti-Semitic.

The point is that there is no evidence to state the concept of cultural marxism is anti-Semitic. Patriarca de Alejandria Santiago I (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

That could possibly be true, but Wikipedia lets WP:RS speak, we never ventilate our own opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Accusing people of Anti-Semitism is a not a neutral viewpoint. Pointing out that a large number of members shared Jewish heritage is similar to pointing out that members of the Thule Society all had German heritage. or that the 9/11 Hijackers were all Muslims. Jaygo113 (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Empiricism is neutral. Jaygo113 (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise, we could call Feminism Misandrist, because the feminist movement and its ideology are often accused of being such. Jaygo113 (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Get that published in reliable sources, and get the other reliable sources to retract what they said about antisemitism, and we can consider changing the article. Until then, you are just a random person on the internet whose irrelevant opinions are outweighed by reliable sources.

Read WP:RS to start learning how Wikipedia works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

You should read reliable sources about the topic, instead of articles written by proponents of the theory. Conspiracy theorists can write very convincingly and people who have no other knowledge about a topic are easily mislead.

You should also be aware that most anti-Semitic literature is not overt.

TFD (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The irony present here, on a page on a website which is arguably one of the battlefields of culture wars in general, is hilarious. As a Jew who believes in the political concept of culture wars as a matter of fact, historical record and sound political strategy , it's astounding that anyone would even attempt to argue that Marxists, as a politically organized group for over one hundred years, would not engage in a culture war of their own. To fail to engage in a culture war as an organized political group would be such an enormous misstep and strategic blunder that the concept would not have lasted more than a few months had propaganda ("Cultural warfare") not been a part of the strategy. Clarissacolgate (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple pages for Marxist theorist, activists and "culture warriors" (The Frankfurt School for instance). There's also the page Marxist_cultural_analysis for the theories of The Frankfurt School, Birmingham School, and Gramsci in particular. So unless you have a more specific complaint, your comments will more than likely be removed as WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM. --203.221.166.218 (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

So what if other pages on different topics exist? This page was originally about a specific political theory called Cultural Marxism. My post is extremely on-topic and follows the rules of WP:NOTFORUM:"In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles". This article would be improved if it was accurate.

Not only do none of the sources listed accuse the source of the theory, which this exact article claims is Michael Minnicinno, of being anti-Semitic, but none of the sources even prove it's a conspiracy theory, or even claim it to be so. Things can be wrong without being anti-Semitic, and also without being Conspiracy Theories. That doesn't mean that any theory you disagree with is either, which seems to be what happened here. There's even evidence of Orthodox Jews like Ben Shapiro supporting the theory .

Further, the section "Political correctness and antisemitic canards" cites an opinion piece (ha) in the NYT, which, without sourcing, essentially claims that racists have used this theory. So what? Even if we take the opinion piece as truth, the fact that someone who is Anti-Semitic talks about a theory does not make that theory anti-Semitic. They can talk about ABC conjecture. That doesn't make math anti-Semitic. Again - none of the sources listed claim that the original source for the theory is anti-Semitic. Nor does the original source by Minnicinno have any obvious anti-Semitic claims.Clarissacolgate (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You are objecting to a correctly cited expert source (per WP:RSOPINION and offering your own original interpretarion/critique of other RS. Why would this be relevant to the article? Newimpartial

And by the way, there was no specific political theory called Cultural Marxism. At most there was a synonym for Marxist cultural analysis used by very few commentators, but then turned into a conspiracy theory in the '90s - or at least, that is what all RS on the topic tell us. (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The rules within WP:RSOPINION only further my point: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact."

Out of all of the sources listed in the article, the only ones calling Cultural Marxism an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory are, in fact, opinion pieces which may not be used as "statements asserted as fact".

Clarissacolgate (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

How "post-truth" of you. Actually, the academic sources given for antisemitism (notably refs. 11-14 in the current article version) are not opinion pieces. Newimpartial (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Accusations of 'antisemitism' has become a huge lesson in false equivalence. Just because some Nazis promote some conspiracy theory does not make that conspiracy theory antisemitic. I no longer take antisemitism seriously now because of articles like this, it's just absurd paranoid name-calling to discredit conspiracy theories. DovicKnoble (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@DovicKnoble: Robby.is.on (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: DovicKnoble (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As someone who has been editing Wikipedia since 2014 you should be familiar enough with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements to know that none of those three sources meet reliable sources criteria. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

That's true and not a problem for me. I do not agree with Wikipedia's reliable source policy and I question what a 'reliable source' even means. For the editors, it will be obvious for the philosophers perhaps not and I ask you which one is more committed to knowing the truth.DovicKnoble (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want to edit Wikipedia, you will need to adhere to the policy. Complaining about article content here on the Talk page without bringing reliable sources to back up your views is a waste of everyone's time.

The meaning of "reliable source" is explained in great detail at the link I gave. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a look at WP:NOTTRUTH, as well. Newimpartial (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

References

The evidence for the antisemitism seems pretty clear to me. A key proponent (William S. Lind) gave a talk on The Cultural Marxism "theory" very early on - at a holocaust denial conference. There's sources for that, and Lind doesn't deny it. Likewise, after Suella Braverman (the British MP) used the term Cultural Marxism in parliament, several news sources called the theory antisemitic. She was also warned by The Board of Deputies of British Jews - that the term was antisemitic. Of course, perhaps the most compelling evidence for the theory being antisemitic - is that it's very popular among neo-Nazis and the alt-right. That's at least 3 lines of evidence external to Wikipedia. You have to remember Wikipedia in part reports what's in the sources. If it's commonly enough called antisemitic by authoritative sources, such as specialists in hate-groups, the conspiracy theorists themselves, and the media... then it's likely to be called such on Wikipedia (that's the nature of WP:RS). Truth be told is that there are versions of the conspiracy theory which tie it directly into things like the Banking/NWO conspiracy theory, and the Jewish Blood Libel conspiracy theory. All in all, there's more evidence for it being antisemitic, than not.

Holocaust denial reference:

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2002/ally-christian-right-heavyweight-paul-weyrich-addresses-holocaust-denial-conference

Suella Braverman warning:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/26/tory-mp-criticised-for-using-antisemitic-term-cultural-marxism

Academic, Joan Braune noting that the conspiracy theory appears along side other antisemitic tropes:

http://transformativestudies.org/wp-content/uploads/Joan-Braune.pdf

Here's just, some of the related propaganda:

http://www.henrymakow.com/upload_images/Horkheimer.png

...Here's some more:

https://news.knowyourmeme.com/photos/999371-cultural-marxism

So yeah, it definitely appears in the antisemitic milieu.

Anyways, there it is. Evidence. --203.221.166.218 (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot all about that time Ron Paul accidentally tweeted the Merchant meme (which The Times of Israel called racist):

https://svenlutticken.org/2018/09/15/cultural-marxism-and-ironic-fascism/

and I'll include this one just because it ties concepts together:

https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/999370-cultural-marxism

To quote the knowyourmeme website: "Online the term is frequently used on political image and message boards such as 4chan's /pol/ board." --203.221.166.218 (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

2021-11 reddit

This talk page is slashdotted by reddit.com

• https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/r3ipdk/cultural_marxism_articles_on_wikipedia_in_2014/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/r2wq92/its_not_a_conspiracy_even_lol/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/r3k236/one_of_the_reasons_i_dont_trust_wikipedia_anymore/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/r3ojic/the_petersonians_are_at_it_again_read_my_comment/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/kotakuinaction2/comments/r4apwm/cultural_marxism_is_just_a_far_right_theory_bro/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/r4fz6f/reddit_wikipedia_and_cultural_marxism/

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

That's pretty natural for conspiracy related pages though. As far as "slashdotting", I don't think it's a large amount of people (certainly not enough to crash servers). They're certainly welcome to come here and discuss the facts of the content as it stands. That's the nature of Wikipedia. It relies on editorial standards and public efforts in order to remain neutral and honest. That's the foundation of Wikipedia, how it works. --203.221.166.218 (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

No, they are welcome to suggest improvements to the article. Discussing the facts would be misusing this page as a forum. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened in the last few days. The inappropriate contributions have been reverted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Reminder about this page.

Even if eg Schroyer's cultural Marxism and eg Fuchs's cultural Marxism were not the same thing, I think that this article needs to clearly explain that, look, this term has a legit (though perhaps less common than other terms) scholarly usage, generally referring to Marxist analysis of 'Western' culture, in order to clearly distinguish it from the conspiracy theory. Now, anyone who Googles 'cultural Marxism' is informed, without nuance or qualification that this is a conspiracy theory, and nothing more. There is quite a lot of potential for confusion here. Tewdar (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This page is about the CONSPIRACY THEORY, "Cultural Marxism" - it's a WP:FRINGE topic according to Wikipedia policy. We must thus side with leading academics over conspiracy theorist. There is no confusion here. Wikipedia has no obligation to characterize, inform, or otherwise explain the non-notable previous usage here (see (WP:NN and WP:NEO). It has been determined more than a few times that 'cultural Marxism' in the academic usage, is rare and non-notable. Information relating to that usage can be listed at Marxist cultural analysis (another generalist term which appears more frequently in academic literature, but has roughly the same gestalt meaning). Perhaps at some point we may even have a disambiguation page for Cultural Marxism. But currently the consensus is that 'cultural Marxism' has been (narrowly in some corners of academia, particularly those related to Cultural Studies) used as a generalist term for analysis of culture through a Marxist lens. Where as Cultural Marxism refers to the conspiracy theory. This page is about the latter.

Anyone here to "question sources" with a view to restoring WP:SALTED content, is in the wrong place.

Please keep in mind that we have two warnings at the top of this page about this being a controversial topic. This page is at the nexus of Politics, Conspiracy Theorist madness, and antisemitism. For this reason please go easy on your fellow editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.170.79 (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I definitely take offence at the implications here. Tewdar (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed your quote. Let me know if you still take offence. But the point stands that any usage which refers to legitimate Marxist scholarship around culture (and particularly relating to The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, and E.P Thompson) goes to the Marxist Cultural Analysis page, whereas this page is purely for the conspiracy theory usage. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It's even worse now. Put the effing quote from me back. That's what your inspirational monologue is about after all. Tewdar (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I've restored the quote, as it shouldn't have been removed per WP:TALK#REPLIED. IP 124, you might choose to strike that part of your comment, but please do not remove it. Firefangledfeathers 18:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it's still a bit dodgy, because the quote is taken out of context. Could perhaps be interpreted to mean that I think that the conspiracy theory might in fact be true, which is false. Perhaps my entire comment should be quoted, so that passing anti-Fascists can make up their own minds about what I was trying to say here. Tewdar (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a page for fringe views about Western Marxism. "Cultural Marxism" is a synonym for Western Marxism. The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory about Western Marxism. Sennalen (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Once again, you are assuming a thing to be proven. Is the conspiracy about (actual) Western Marxism, or something largely constructed/imaginary? Are the conspiracy theories about George Soros and other "Jewish financiers" actually about George Soros and a network of other donors, or are they about something that is largely imaginary? Typically WP does not concede to conspiracy theories a discussion of the question, "how much of the conspiracy is real", unless there is a critical mass of RS scholarship to follow - and only cautiously, even then.

And as an aside, "Cultural Marxism" cannot possibly be a synonym for "Western Marxism", because both CT "Cultural Marxism" and UK scholarly slang "cultural Marxism" refer to something that is still going on in Critical Theory and Cultural Studies - but I can't find any good sources that refer to "Western Marxism" as anything other than a 20th century tendency (i.e., in the past). Newimpartial (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It is proven. For academic sources using them synonymously, see Schroyer, Brenkman, Markwick, Jameson, along with others Tewdar has surfaced recently. For sources saying that the conspiracy theorists are referencing Western Marxism see Jamin, Braune, Tuters, Busridge, and Blackburn. Sennalen (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

As the sources show, Lind coined the term "cultural Marxism" and only later did that econspiracy theorists find that the same phrase was used in Marxism literature, although with a different meaning. They then used this coincidence in order to prove the existence of their conspiracy. Ironically, the inventer of the theory had called in "Critical Theory." But the term isn't catchy and the absurdity of its being a conspiracy are more evident.

While you might find it impressive to list several articles about writers who used the term cultural Marxism, you've left a lot out. Why is it that the conmspiracy began in 1900, yet you can't find any reference to it until the 1970s?

TFD (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that the first expression of the conspiracy theory was Lukács' 1918 "Bolshevism as a Moral Problem" before his apparent chage of heart, but that's naturally original research. It's hardly surprising that there's no vocal opposition to the Frankfurt School before it became a force for political action in the 1960's student movements. Minnicino has said his essay was echoing views of Lyndon LaRouche, who considered Marcuse and Adorno to be not only ideological rivals but some of the first of the long list of people LaRouche accused of plotting his assassination. LaRouche was ideosyncratic but deeply versed in Marxist theory. The connections to the legitimate scholarly corpus are not random or accidental inventions of 1990s Republicans. Sennalen (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

If you are under the impression that Lyndon Larouche was connected to the legitimate scholarly corpus on Marxism, then we have more serious problems than I thought. Running a groupuscule doesn't make anyone a reliable source on Marxist theory, as I ought to know. :) Newimpartial (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The connections to the legitimate scholarly corpus are not random or accidental inventions of 1990s Republicans. here in lays the problem. Conservatives of the same time frame have also made whacky claims about The Frankfurt School. So how are you connecting the music of Adorno and the claim that he created music to "induce mass necrophilia"? Feel free to try to legitimize that "connection". That you want to substantiate the claim that The Frankfurt School has taken over Hollywood, Television and Radio, is kinda proof that you're a believer in these things. Were the Frankfurt School secretly Satanic, as conspiracy theorists have claimed? Apparently "The connections to the legitimate scholarly corpus are not random"... When in actual fact, within American Republicanism since the 1980s, there was the moral majority letter/speech, which included the term "Cultural Marxism" and was written by a guy who used William S. Lind (an avowed nutter) as a legitimate historical source. There in lays your problem, that Paul Weyrich, and Lind, did in fact, write books titled "The New Conservatism" and "Victoria: a novel of 4th generational warfare" in the 2000s, in which they blamed the Frankfurt School for things going on in American society in the 1990s. Things not related or directly caused by The Frankfurt School. Things like Homosexuals appearing on television. Sorry, that's exactly an invention of 1990s Republicans. The idea that degenerate society is caused by The Frankfurt School in order to take over, is exactly inventions of 1990s Republicans. That they cited REAL texts - doesn't mean those texts led to a Frankfurt School take over of society. Hell the whole of the discourse around "Political Correctness" is mostly based on POV pushing conspiracy minded thinking. So again, you're using academia in an attempt to justify Conspiracy claims. That's not on, not here on Wikipedia. Not gonna happen. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I mean technically Western Marxism is just Marxism, and Marxism is just whatever Marx said, but Marx is just a human, and humans are just atoms, and atoms are just what we happen to know about atoms... long story short, I'm calling for a WP:merge of every single Wikipedia article. It shall all be merged into Knowledge. Anyone want to help with the RfC? /ping everyone/ --124.170.170.79 (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, the claim that Schroyer or Jameson used the terms "Western Marxism" and "cultural Marxism" synonymously is just bonkers poorly conceived, and the idea that the conspiracy theorists are referencing Western Marxism is not supported by the sources cited. For the conspiracy theorists to be "referencing" Western Marxism, they would first need to understand what "Western Marxism" is, and few of these sources provide any support for that being the case, while most of them show quite clearly the extent to which the conspiracy theorists do not understand what Western Marxism is/was, and therefore offer mistaken "creative" interpretations of it. Newimpartial (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

First of all the sources say that the conspiracy theorists are talking about the same Western Marxism that everyone else is talking about, so ipso facto Wikipedia should say the same thing. The sources are also clear on where the conspiracy theories are wrong, and no one is suggesting holding back on saying that either. Sennalen (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, and that already happens. True stuff goes on Marxist cultural analysis (as cultural Marxism was determined to be a generalist term, rather than a set ideology) - fake conspiracy stuff goes on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Is there something you're not getting with this arrangement, or is there a substantive edit you wish to discuss? Like yeah, both 9/11 and the melting point of steel are discussed by 9/11 conspiracy theorists... it doesn't mean that the page on steel or the 9/11 conspiracy theory should be merged, or have overlapping content. Like, we're not merging Flat Earth Theory with the page about planet Earth. That they both reference earth is irrelevant. Wikipedia divides WP:RS "truth" from WP:FRINGEWP:NN or WP:OR "fiction". Deal with it. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's irresponsible to use 1970s sources to prop up a term that's obviously gone through some rather drastic changes in meaning within the past 10 years. Wikipedia has decided (2 AfDs, 4 RfCs and a split proposal or two later) that THIS PAGE is for the Conspiracy Theory usage. If Brenkman et al. want to be used to discuss the ideas of The Frankfurt School, Birmingham School and E.P Thompson, that can be done on Marxist cultural analysis (which is SPECIFICALLY NOT about The Conspiracy Theory). The division is pretty clear. The history of this topic on Wikipedia is pretty clear. Hell, I even think you'd be violating WP:BLP to claim academics are in support of a conspiracy theory. So yeah, there's no meat for Wikipedia in attempting to 'recombine' salted content. It's just that simple, against policy and a closed case really. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

You make a very compelling case against points no one is making. Sennalen (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's good. It's my reminder section, so yeah. In “The Widening Gap Between the Military and Society” (1997), journalist Thomas E. Ricks said that Lind's rhetoric of Marxist cultural subversion is different from the "standard right-wing American rhetoric of the ’90s", because Lind said that the "next real war we fight is likely to be on American soil." --124.170.170.79 (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Although the article Marxist cultural analysis is not about the CONSPIRACY THEORY, as ip 124 dramatically types it above, that article does have a rather good paragraph to explain the difference between the conspiracy theory and legitimate scholarly usage: Since the 1930s, the tradition of Marxist cultural analysis has occasionally also been referred to as "cultural Marxism", in reference to Marxist ideas about culture. However since the 1990s, this term has largely referred to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, an influential discourse on the far right without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis. Unfortunately, this article, as far as I can tell, only seems to include Joan Braune's opinion that Frankfurt School scholars are referred to as "Critical Theorists", not "Cultural Marxists". Perhaps it would be nice if these two articles didn't partially contradict each other. Tewdar (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Not quite sure why it says Since the 1930s, however... Tewdar (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This does somewhat sound like a problem that might be solved with a disambiguation page. Wikipedia:Disambiguation should have instructions on how to initiate the relevant processes. Never done one myself, so you'll have to check there for what exactly should be done. Perhaps can comment or advise further about the necessary requirements. --RecardedByzantian (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

My name is Tewdar, not Spartacus, and so I will most certainly not be creating any disambiguation pages for this article, even if I knew how to do it. I'm not sure that would really be good enough anyway. The Marxist cultural analysis article at least makes an attempt to explain that readers might encounter two very different usages of the term "[C/c]ultural Marxism" – why doesn't this one? Tewdar (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think the disambiguation notice at the top of the page is insufficient.

And, RecardedByzantian, given the previous large-scale AfD that resulted in the deletion of the pre-2014 "Cultural Marxism" article, I don't think creating a disambiguation page would be a valid step without an RfC or other formal community endorsement of the idea. Newimpartial (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to view the pre-2014 "Cultural Marxism" article here (without visiting the Internet Archive, which I might if I have nothing better to do this afternoon)? What was it, a sort of Frankenarticle with the conspiracy theory and the Marxist cultural analysis all jumbled together? Tewdar (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This was the page "Cultural Marxism" in 2014 [2] Sennalen (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. Ꞇewꝺar (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Just remember that the most salient fact about that article was the community decision to delete it - a decision that resulted from wide participation of editors and a panel of admistrators that decided on deletion. Sennalen, could you point us to a diff of your participation in that AfD? Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Silence peasants, the autonomous collective has spoken!  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't involved. Had I been, I would have cited WP:COMMONNAME against there being a page with that particular title. The content however was legitimate, and there should have been more effort to WP:PRESERVE it at Western Marxism. Sennalen (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Your view that "Cultural Marxism" is a synonym for "Western Marxism" seems rather peculiar, and isn't really supported by any of the names you dropped when you made the suggestion above. I don't think anyone watching this page is likely to take that claim very seriously, but clearly YMMV. Newimpartial (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe that The Handbook of Economic Sociology, Second Edition by Smelser & Swedberg p. 605 (ISBN 0691121265) treats these terms as synonyms.  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) (contribs) 17:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

You keep saying that, which is why I attached full quotes on the citations at Marxist cultural analysis. Sennalen (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Quotations that did not demonstate the point you are claiming to make. I remember. Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding addition information

Hello, In the 'Political correctness and antisemitic canards' there is a segment from an article by Samuel Moyn. I would like to add this article [3] which is a direct rebuttal to the Moyns article. I believe this is a good addition because while it credits Moyn on some points, it argues against others and that having both articles will give a more complete and accurate understanding of the subject for the reader.

There is also the 'origin' section of the which cites an article that claims that the term itself originates from 'New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness' (1992), but the earliest use of the term is actually from a book published in 1973 [4] on page 15. All opinions aside, the claim that the term originates from 'New Dark Age' in 1992 is just factually not true, I think this should be corrected.

I would also like to add this [5] by Frankfurt School and Critical Theories academic Douglass Kellner with his description of what 'Cultural Marxism' is.

I see that the article is locked. What is the process I would need to go through in order to add this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital Herodotus (talk • contribs) 00:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Digital Herodotus - Thanks for that. You can use the template Template:Edit semi-protected to signal other editors to take a look. Otherwise, this talk page has watchers who regularly check in to converse on stuff like this. I will note here that the article doesn't actually say "the term" originates from 'New Dark Age,' but that the conspiracy theory this article is about originates there. You might be confusing this article with Marxist cultural analysis, which used to be under this title until the conspiracy theory overshadowed it in prominence. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 00:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Tablet Magazine is funded by a sole individual via the publishing house 'Nextbook'; "The New York Jewish Week describes Keren Keshet as a "powerhouse" in Jewish philanthropy that provided essentially all of Tablet's $5 million annual budget." - Zubatov has no relevant qualifications in the social sciences nor as noteworthy commenter, and appears to just be a random lawyer. It has been argued before that the inclusion of his opinion is WP:UNDUE and seeks to provide a WP:FALSEBALANCE. You can search the archives at The Frankfurt School talk page, as well as this one, to find previous attempts at inclusion and why it's been rejected previously.

Also, this page is for the conspiracy theory version of the term, so doesn't aim at finding the academic origins (the academic usage was later replaced by Cultural Studies BTW). This page only seeks to document the origins of the conspiracy theory regarding The Frankfurt School. --14.201.132.122 (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, it appears that Zubatov is a conservative leaning lawyer, and writes for thefederalist - a website that often sprukes for the conspiracy theory: https://thefederalist.com/author/alexander-zubatov/ --14.201.132.122 (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, apparently Zubatov used to write for The Republic Standard, a far-right, antisemitic website which no longer exists. --14.201.132.122 (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you might personally disagree with the political views of Zubatov is completely irrelevant. Im not really familiar with the rules of this website, but simply stating that you dont like certain publications that he has written for seems meaningless to me, as does the charge that he is a conservative.

"Also, this page is for the conspiracy theory version of the term, so doesn't aim at finding the academic origins" But the problem with the article is that it includes factually incorrect information and readers of the article may be mislead into believing this false information. The main problem I see it that this article makes it seem like there is no actual academic school of thought called 'Cultural Marxism' no where in the article does it even mention that the term was first used by a Critical Theorist in 1973, and instead gives the impression that it was coined in 1993 by a far right conspiracy theorist.

Trent Schroyer's usage has been included in the article before, and I don't oppose it. Nor do I oppose the inclusion of Kellner. Zubatov however has no chance due to WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE having previously written for far-right publications, and having no background in sociology or the structure/study of conspiracy theories. --14.201.132.122 (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, as I recall Schroyer has come up before. He writes about cultural Marxism, as in what is the culture of Marxism. I don't believe he's writing about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Likewise, his writing is not about a Frankfurt School take over. I'm probably more okay with noting his work as a possible origin of the term... but I believe others won't be fine with this, which is fair enough, as it's questionable whether he's talking about Cultural Marxism, or Marxist Cultural Analysis. I'd say the latter. But I'm not the only user of this website. --14.201.132.122 (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Please look at the Talk page archives, here and at Frankfurt School: these sources have all been discussed before. The consensus (both on-wiki and of the Reliable Sources) is that the usage of "Cultural Marxism" in the sense of the conspiracy theory does not derive from the "cultural Marxism" of mid-century (which was a less-common synonym for Marxist Cultural Analysis) but rather from Lind etc. No amount of original research or far-right RSOPINION pieces are going to change that reality. Newimpartial (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It doesnt really matter what a few wikipedia editors might think, the reality is that the term 'Cultural Marxism' was not created by Lind, that term first appeared in a book by Critical Theorist Trent Schroyer, this isnt a case of my opinion vs their opinion. Im not trying to argue if Schroyer or anyone else is right or wrong, the reality is that Schroyer coined the term first in 1973. I linked to his book and in the table of content of it, it states 'Cultural Marxism' that exact wording, not 'Marxist Cultural Analysis' or whatever else. Also, according to Kellner, another Critical Theorist academic whos field is all about the Frankfurt School, Cultural Marxism (again, the exact wording he uses) was "Many different versions of cultural studies have emerged in the past decades. While during its dramatic period of global expansion in the 1980s and 1990s, cultural studies was often identified with the approach to culture and society developed by the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, England, their sociological, materialist, and political approaches to culture had predecessors in a number of currents of cultural Marxism. Many 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life. Traditions of cultural Marxism are thus important to the trajectory of cultural studies and to understanding its various types and forms in the present age." [6]

The point is that this article has blatantly false or at best misleading information that makes it seem that Cultural Marxism is just this boogeyman or 'phantasmogoria' as Moyn says made up in the early 1990s, when in fact its an actual school of thought and was given that name, and later used by, academics in that field to label their own field of study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital Herodotus (talk • contribs) 12:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you missed the point, it's not about the wording - it's about capitalization. Proper nouns are capitalized. So 'cultural Marxism' (referring to either the cultural elements of Marxism, or the Marxist elements of the early development of Cultural Studies) is different than 'Cultural Marxism' (capitalized, referring to the supposed Marxist conspiracy plot to overthrow culture, the media and academia). If you look, you'll see Kellner and I believe Schroyer use cultural Marxism. So if you want to discuss the views of Kellner or Schroyer, you'll have to do it on the page Marxist Cultural Analysis, or on their own pages (see [WP:BLP).

Further more, all of the Marxist authors you listed already have Wikipedia pages, only two of those authors actually use the term "cultural Marxism" in their writings(Jameson and Kellner) - and only one of those bothers to go into it in detail (Kellner). So yeah, what are you asking for exactly? A special page which groups these thinkers together with a little devil hat on each of them?

There's no denial of the Marxism involved in The Frankfurt School's development, or of The Birmingham School, or Culture Studies. You can go look at their relative pages - they all clearly and directly describe their Marxism. That however does not justify the conservative claim that Marxism or Marxists controls academia, or the media, or Hollywood, or Politics, which is the claim of the conspiracy theory. --14.201.132.122 (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, to my knowledge, the field of study is titled "Cultural Studies" - there's no such field as "Cultural Marxism" nor does anyone self describe themselves using that term... and there's already a Wikipedia page titled "Cultural Studies" which details its development, and a lot of what you're saying. Maybe you can go update it, but THIS page is for the Conservative Conspiracy Theory titled "Cultural Marxism" - hence the title of the page "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory". If you wish to discuss the Marxist foundations of Cultural Studies, I suggest you do it there (although you'll find it's already quite detailed and honest). --14.201.132.122 (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

In my view, neither The Birmingham School (cultural studies) article nor the Cultural Studies article really does justice to the intellectual history of the Birmingham School itself, But that isn't a topic for this page... Newimpartial (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Far-Right?? Yeah right!!

Let's not feed the trolls, please. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is EXACTLY what is wrong with this article. It's not a far-right "conspiracy theory" as writen in wiki-land. This has been and is currently being taught in educational systems from K-12 well into the graduate schools. Preached EVERYWHERE in the media and so on. This has been happening slowly over a period of decades but now it's just so blatant it's disgusting. You allow edits everywhere normally except where you (Wikipedia) see fit as long as it doesn't go against the agenda. Publish the facts not just one-sided garbage. 96.18.231.208 (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Citation needed for your claim that it "has been and is currently being taught in educational systems" and is "preached EVERYWHERE in the media". And Wikipedia is not some singular entity that has an "agenda"; see "Who writes Wikipedia?". Kleinpecan (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Large social and civil rights movements are historically grounded and decentralized. The schools are teaching kids to not hate gay or trans students, not because of some organized central conspiracy from the left - but because community standards progress over time. That's the nature of change in a society - it's not mono-causal, all of society chooses to change and update through their own sense of moral causes. That you don't like where society is going, is not evidence for society being under the control of a plan or group. --203.221.166.218 (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Op-eds alone aren't being used to justify the anti-semitism categorization (see the section titled "Evidence for antisemitism" for details).

No, 'Op-eds' aren't enough to make the statement "Cultural Marxism is being taught in schools" ..."Cultural Marxism" is a conspiracy theory which makes claims about The Frankfurt School having taken over the world. For a short time, it was called "The Frankfurt School Conspiracy".

If you want to state that Marxism is being taught in schools, there are multiple pages to do that on: Because Marxism is taught in classes on politics, in classes on world history, in classes that relate to politics and political theory. Sure, Marxism is taught in schools, often along side conservatism, progressivism, neoliberalism, fascism, and numerous other "isms". That's the nature of schools, they're institutes of education, learning and knowledge. That's why we rely them for certain truth claims. --61.68.219.18 (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Far-right

LaRouche was a socialist and a Democrat. He was not on the right and the article on him even states this. 37.252.92.67 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Even if that were true, this article doesn’t even say that LaRouche was “on the right”… Mvbaron (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It does say fringe American right-wing political activist Lyndon LaRouche, because that's how the sources for that bit describe him. But that gets to the real answer here (which was discussed above) - LaRouche was, yes, at one point a socialist and a Democrat in his youth, before he was notable. But his politics shifted over time, and by the time he became well-known, most reputable sources considered him firmly on the fringes of the right. Therefore, sources largely treat him as right-wing, and we have to reflect that - arguing that he was actually secretly still left-wing in this period (when the source describes him as a fringe right-wing figure, in the context of the specific stuff we're discussing about him in this article) would obviously be WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

While Larouche began on the left, he became far right by the 1970s. TFD (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)