Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions about Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

"misrepresented as identity politics created by critical theory"

Hi friends! 😁 This phrase, which unmercifully concludes the first paragraph of the lede, is supposedly justified by three citations, viz: Jamin (2014) "Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right" pp. 84–103, Richardson & Copsey (2015) "'Cultural-Marxism' and the British National Party: a transnational discourse" in Cultures of Post-War British Fascism, and Jeffries (2016), Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School pp. 6–11. Alas, I could find no justification for this statement, either in the three given references or indeed anywhere else in the article, which as far as I am aware does not mention identity politics at any other point. Perhaps I have missed something, and the sources do indeed say exactly this. Or perhaps someone just thought it would be nice to tag this on the end of an already somewhat overloaded sentence.

Not that I'm against the suggestion that the conspiracists are misrepresenting the cultural liberal values of the 1960s counterculture and multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness as identity politics created by critical theory, mind you! Heaven forfend, I am fully on board with that statement, make no mistake on that! It would just probably be better in my view if we had a source that said so, preferably with a quotation... Tewdar 17:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the 169(!) page watchers could either remove this statement, or provide a citation. Or even better, draft yet another RfC oh yeah woohoohooo 😭 Tewdar 21:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The article should mention identity politics it is a major component of the theory. Perhaps you could suggest better phrasing or sources for this. TFD (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The only mention of identity politics is in the lede, where it is claimed that "liberal values" are misrepresented by conspiracists as "identity politics created by critical theory". I initially suspected that this view was yet another unattributed statement from Joan 'Wikivoice' Braune, but I could not find anything. Perhaps instead of putting our opinions in wikivoice in the lede, and then trying to find sources to support our hunches, we should find sources first, and then accurately summarize them. Can you suggest any sources that support the actual claim being made in the lede? Or can we just keep stuff in without any sourcing on this article? Tewdar 09:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

To put it very plainly: this claim appears to be original research, and should be removed if somebody can't find a reliable source for this claim within a reasonable timeframe. Tewdar 09:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, we are not disputing here whether the article "should mention" identity politics or whether identity politics "is a major component of the theory". All we're looking for is a reliable source that states clearly and explicitly, without the need for any WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, that the conspiracists are misrepresenting liberal values (which according to them so-called "Cultural Marxists" are supposedly promoting) as identity politics created by critical theory. Tewdar 09:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The sources do use the term "Identity Politics";

>A specter is haunting the imaginations of many in the modern West—the specter of cultural Marxism. Its influence, the suspicious say (and the suspicious range from the moderately conservative to the screamingly extreme alt-right), is evident in everything from gender-neutral pronouns to training in detecting microaggression to, well, virtually every aspect of what is now called identity politics. Centered in the academy, cultural Marxism is said to hold sway over the professoriate in humanities and social science departments, and every year legions of their proselytes are loosed upon the wider culture to spread the corrosive doctrine.

Source 1

>20 Minutes into the Future: The story begins in 2016, two years ahead of its date of publication, and depicts an increasingly oppressive American regime that follows a steep trajectory of post-Obamanian descent into extreme liberalism, identity politics and Political Overcorrectness. The science fiction elements in society and technology are subtly present almost from the start, then increase as the world advances, and become particularly prominent in the last third or so of the book.

Source 2

Here's Andrew Breitbart expounding on it:

Source 3

Here's Lind Expounding on it:

Source 4

>I’m suspicious of this word, “identity,” which has been wholly subsumed by the Marxist project. Simultaneously, the cultural-Marxist Left treats “identity” as something immutable and fixed, as in identity politics, and at the same time declares it to be fluid and whimsical, as in sexual politics. As usual (and especially in matters of sex) they want to have it both ways, so to speak. Rational people don’t have identity crises. Their lives may be a process of self-realization, but not of self-discovery, which is a kind of madness.

From Michael Walsh in the National Review

Source 5

>The most high-profile anti-cultural Marxist in Canada is Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist at the University of Toronto who has not published peer-reviewed research on Marxism. Peterson became an alt-right idol when publicly challenging Bill C-16, a change to the Canadian Human Rights Act that aims to prohibit discrimination based on gender expression (Cumming 2016). Appearing in videos such as “Identity Politics & the Marxist Lie of White Privilege” (Peterson 2018) and “Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism” (Peterson 2017), Peterson has tapped into the alt-right’s discourse of cultural Marxism and cashed in on the anxiety and anger of a large and growing alt-right fan base (Southey 2017).

Source 6*

>Today, of course, a classical, deeply traditional Greek/Latin/Great Books kind of education, founded upon universal values & universal truths, would be typically considered to be quite Conservative (at least by some lights). Naturally, therefore, it is mostly abandoned by the colleges which carry its name. They have adopted, instead, an essentially post-modern kind of cultural Marxism in which Multiculturalism, Sustainability, Diversity, Identity Politics & Relativism all hold sway.

Source 7

Andrei Znamenski of the Misses Institute expounding on it:

Source 8

>Ignored is whereas subjects like literature and history once taught students to empathise and feel sympathetic such an approach has long since been attacked as an example of capitalist inspired cultural hegemony. Literature, instead of teaching empathy and discrimination, is now about analysing texts in terms of radical literary theory and identity politics.

The Spectator (com.au)

Source 9

>Recalling the classical liberal capitalist orientation of XYZ, the stated mission of TU writers is to ‘protect free thinking and free markets’ (The Unshackled, 2019a). TU editors pledge to target socialist and leftist traditions they describe as a ‘Red Menace’(The Unshackled, 2019a), echoing XYZ’s targeting of ‘Cultural Marxism’ – while articles on both sites refer to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy. Other ‘enemies’ TU cites include the ‘progressive left, social justice warriors, and the bearers of so-called political correctness and identity politics’, who are collectively portrayed as harbingers of politico-cultural ‘totalitarianism’ (The Unshackled, 2019a). Unlike XYZ, TU mod-erators also seemingly target neoliberalism, professing to ‘tackle the corrupt ideologies within the right-wing that have led to parasitic institutions such as crony capitalism which has ruined the reputation and meaning of the original free market capitalism’ (The Unshackled, 2019a).

Source 10*

>It is a short step from the Marxist and cultural Marxist premise that ideas are, at their core, expressions of power to rampant, divisive identity politics and the routine judging of people and their cultural contributions based on their race, gender, sexuality and religion — precisely the kinds of judgments that the high ideals of liberal universalism and the foremost thinkers of the Civil Rights Era thought to be foul plays in the game. And it is a short step from this collection of reductive and simplistic conceptions of the “oppressor” and the “oppressed” to public shaming, forced resignations and all manner of institutional and corporate policy dictated by enraged Twitter mobs, the sexual McCarthyism of #MeToo’s excesses, and the incessant, resounding, comically misdirected and increasingly hollow cries of “racist,” “sexist,” “misogynist,” “homophobe,” “Islamophobe,” “transphobe” and more that have yet to be invented to demonize all those with whom the brittle hordes partaking in such calumnies happen to disagree.

Source 11

>Here Peterson, slowly pacing behind the podium, stops and moves his hands back and forth as if readying himself to give the air - and the facts that undermine Marxist ideology - a massage. "We can play the same damn game under a new guise," he said. Thus was born what the rightwing blogosphere calls "cultural Marxism."

Source 12 (The article in general is about Identity Politics, so here I've highlighted the use of "Cultural Marxism"

115.166.11.77 (talk) 06:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I know that the sources do use the term "Identity Politics"! As I've already said, that's not the problem here. What we need is a source that says the conspiracists are misrepresenting liberal values as identity politics created by critical theory. None of your sources do that. Since a lot of people here do not seem to understand our original research policy, I think it's safest to take this to the OR noticeboard, again, so that this unverified, and quite possibly unverifiable, statement can be removed with maximum input from neutral observers. Tewdar 08:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

No original research/Noticeboard section link... Tewdar 09:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the sentence just needs more commas, as each part of the statement is widely supported by multiple reliable sources, hence the wording having been the consensus for some time now. 115.166.11.77 (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Alteration to the lede paragraph.

As per discussions on the OR notice board (link in previous section), it's been suggested that we get rid of this rather clunky sentence; "The theory claims that an elite of Marxist theorists and Frankfurt School intellectuals are subverting Western society with a culture war that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and promotes the cultural liberal values of the 1960s counterculture and multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness, misrepresented as identity politics created by critical theory."

...and replace it with: "The conspiracy theory misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness, claiming there is an ongoing and intentional subversion of Western society via a planned culture war that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and seeks to replace them with the culturally liberal values of the 1960s."

Feel free to offer any agreements, disagreements, suggestions or further alterations here - with a view to forming a consensus direction either for or against this change. 115.166.11.77 (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the alternative is a definite improvement - much better constructed, and contains no original research while still including the relevant details. I have no improvements to suggest right now. Good Job! 😁👍 Tewdar 13:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, except Oxford comma between "Identity Politics and Political Correctness", and decapitalization of same... Tewdar 13:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I have updated accordingly, thank you for your helpful suggestions. 115.166.11.77 (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps "claiming there's been..." could be changed to "and claims there has been..."? Looks a bit informal, at least to me. Tewdar 19:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons for the conspiracy is that it's an explanation for current events. So things like tran's rights, women's rights and gay rights are viewed as a part of an ongoing effort to malign preexisting heterosexual, christian, and male social values. So phrasing it that way might suite the claims slightly more accurate. 115.166.11.77 (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I did hear your request for further formal language though, so I got rid of the apostrophe and went with "claiming there is an ongoing and intentional subversion ". Let me know if you have any further suggestions, and I'll try to WP:LISTEN from now on. 115.166.11.77 (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, it was the "there's been..." that bothered me. 😁 Tewdar 09:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Complete and Total Failure

No valid request made.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article is a completely and total failure.

"Content must be written from a neutral point of view."

Delete all content and rewrite from scratch. 185.33.1.202 (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Not done Realz before feelz, bro. That the sources say things which make you sad is not a reason for Wikipedia to change article content. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Misleading

"The destruction of American national identity through immigration" is false, the original claim did not contain the word ' American'. Please remove it.

And the poster above is correct, this article is grossly biassed and misrepresentative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.237.131.5 (talk) 13:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, you're right! Unfortunately, that was, I think, the only part of that section that I didn't write. As such, it probably wasn't given proper quality control. Who knows, perhaps some WP:OR was used. Sometimes people just put stuff in that sounds nice, even if there's no source for it. Wouldn't surprise me with this article. It's fixed now anyway. Tewdar 14:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually I didn't write the bit underneath the list either. Caveat lector! Tewdar 14:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

And anyway, I'm pretty sure Matthews is talking about American national identity here... Tewdar 14:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Matthew McManus

There's a source in the article, Liberalism and Socialism: Mortal Enemies Or Embittered Kin? by Matthew McManus. Does someone here have access to it? Google books finds Cultural Marxism on pages 182-191, but not with full text. It could probably say more than it's already saying here. Sennalen (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I have it. Hang on, I'll take a look... Tewdar 19:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean, the bit before it says The term “Cultural Marxism” even had an accepted and primarily descriptive (as opposed to conspiratorial or polemical) usage in the 1930s to refer to Frankfurt School theorists’ general intellectual program of recognizing the impact of economics—particularly under capitalism—on culture and “cultural production.” Huh. Tewdar 19:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It goes on: By the 1990s, however, “Cultural Marxism” took on a conspiratorial meaning, pushed by US-based conservative culture warriors...This notion of “Cultural Marxism” (as “political correctness”) as the application of Marxist or socialist economic illiberalism to the cultural sphere—a kind of cultural illiberalism—is markedly different from the Frankfurt School’s actual program... Tewdar 19:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The bit between the two quotes in the article quotes Jamin a bit, thrn goes on: The conspiracy theory of Cultural Marxism filled the vacuum created by the end of the Cold War, enabling backers not simply of US liberalism, but of a rightward-driving US neoliberalism to lend urgency to their ideological cause. Tewdar 19:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Good to have you back, by the way. 👍 Tewdar 23:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks😊 Sennalen (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Development of the Conspiracy Theory

Minnicino and Lind are broken in half between Origins and Development, so they're basically explained twice. The reason it's that way is people didn't want the Frankfurt School section to be first. That desire can still be respected if all of Minnicino and Lind move entirely to Origins. Breitbart can move to entering the mainstream, since a few sources say it relates to that. Matthews doesn't seem actually that prominent, but he can go in "circulating in the alt-right" since Jay links it with Stormfront. Then everyone will be closer to claims that relate to them. Sennalen (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I was going to merge the 'origins' and 'development' sections a while back, but never got round to it...your restructuring proposal sounds good. I'd rather just ignore people who never edit the article, but then show up once every three months to revert something or blather on the talk page (YKWYA!), but I suppose that's not really an option around here. Tewdar 09:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is a first pass through it. Sennalen (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

From a brief look, it looks good. The "Interpretation of the Frankfurt School as a conspiracy" coming immediately afterwards is a bit late in the day, especially since we've just explained in detail, that all these founders of the conspiracy theory blame the Frankfurt School and their pals, but I'm not sure how we could fix that? Tewdar 20:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I would have liked the article to start with a precis on the philosophers that get named, but at least this is hypermedia. Sennalen (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Content is live. Sennalen (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not like the way your special:diff/1103229088 edit mix moves, deletions and additions. For readibility, i would have prefered that this big change is split into several edits. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The edit summary has a link to the userspace draft where the changes were done incrementally. Sennalen (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed.

This statement "Predating any conspiratorial usage, the phrase "cultural Marxism" had occassional use in accepted academic scholarship to mean Marxism applied to matters of culture." is not supported by the sources given. 194.223.51.184 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The sources given are

Jamin In concrete terms, next to the history of Cultural Marxism as a well‐documented theory, developed by Marxist scholars and thinkers within cultural studies from the 1930s, another theory has emerged during the 1990s, and is particularly influential on radical forms of right wing politics.

Hanlon The term "Cultural Marxism" even had an accepted and primarily descriptive (as opposed to conspiratorial or polemical) usage in the 1930s to refer to Frankfurt School theorists' general intellectual program of recognizing the impact of economics - particularly under capitalism - on culture and "cultural production." Sennalen (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Neither of those describes it as "Marxism applied to culture". Which is in fact, a phrasing preferred by conspiracy theorists such as Andrew Breitbart. In fact, here is that phrasing used on stormfront.org [1] and on 4chan: [2] Here is William S Lind using his version, he says (just after the 5 minute mark) "The Frankfurt School would be the vehicle that translated Marxism from economic to cultural terms" [3] Again, William S Lind here [4] states "This institute, soon known simply as the Frankfurt School, would become the creator of cultural Marxism. To translate Marxism from economic into cultural terms..."

If you're going to talk about The Frankfurt School's objectives, you should use The Frankfurt School as a source. Horkheimer's statement that the school seeks "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them" would be a more well sourced goal of The Frankfurt School proper. 194.223.51.184 (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion to quote Horkheimer like that. We need to rely mostly on secondary sources, though, or why else wouldn't we equally highlight Marcuse saying The body in its entirety would become an object of cathexis, a thing to be enjoyed -- an instrument of pleasure. This change in the value and scope of libidinal relations would lead to a disintegration of the institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organized, particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family.? As for the similarity between what's in RS and Lind or 4chan, you could also find the same kind of statements in Jay, Stuart Jeffries, the article Western Marxism, Douglas Kellner, Newimpartial's comments on this page, and so on. That goes to prove only that when the conspiracy theorists discuss Cultural Marxism they are discussing the same Western Marxim found in all RS, and not some other thing they happened to make up. Sennalen (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

That goes to prove only that when the conspiracy theorists discuss Cultural Marxism they are discussing the same Western Marxim found in all RS, and not some other thing they happened to make up. I disagree, and that viewpoint (that you are a self-professed believer in the conspiracy theory) should probably strike you from making any further contributions to the article. I can assure you, that the "Cultural Marxists" are not putting homosexuals on Television to express that they have taken over society (as William S Lind has claimed). Likewise, Identity Politics its self is not a product of The Frankfurt School, as is variously claimed by the conspiracy theorists. The Frankfurt School were not satanists, as Micheal Walsh claims in The Devil's Pleasure Palace: The Cult of Critical Theory.

you could also find the same kind of statements in Jay, Stuart Jeffries and yet, you failed to do so. 03:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC) 194.223.51.184 (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not a "believer in the conspiracy theory". The Frankfurt School were not satanists and did not put homosexuals (or anyone) on TV. You see, when the conspiracy say things that are false, those things are false. When conspiracy theorists say things that are true, those things are still true regardless of the mouth it came out of. The Frankfurt School was part of a cultural turn in Marxism. I did not fail to do anything since the original claim is adequately cited. If you want to know more about the topic than Wikipedia articles provide, Stuart JEffries' Grand Hotel Abyss is an accessible overview. Sennalen (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You see, when the conspiracy say things that are false, those things are false. OH! So now all of a sudden there's two versions of Western Marxism being discussed, and the conspiracy theorists are talking about a second, false version of Western Marxism. I see now! If you want to know more about the topic than Wikipedia articles provide, Stuart JEffries' Grand Hotel Abyss is an accessible overview. Yes, unfortunately when your sources don't contain the content you're claiming they do, there's still a citation issue. 194.223.51.184 (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Dial it down a bit, will ya? Tewdar 08:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Some Athenians called Socrates a teacher and others called him a corruptor of youth. That does not mean they thought Socrates had an evil twin. Sennalen (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not even a coherent response. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion thread begins with the use of the term "cultural Marxism" in reliable sources before it was adopted by conspiracy theorists. The evidence shows that the two words were sometimes put together, but not in a consistent way and referred to an approach to studying capitalism, rather than to a movement. What difference does it make whether the object of the conspiracy is Western Marxism?

Take for example the term neoliberal. It assumed its modern meaning in the 1990s to describe the policies of Reagan and Thatcher. Yet the term had also been used in the 1930s to describe the liberalism of Mises and Hayek and again in the 1980s to describe the liberalism of Clinton and Gore. It doesn't mean that when the term gained popularity in the 1990s, it was the same concept as the two previous incarnations. Only a conspiracy theorist would try to draw a connection between them. Of course the three schools all involved a return to market economics, and each influenced the other, so it has the makings of a good conspiracy theory.

TFD (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

But they are talking about a thing they happened to make up. This chimera consisting of "the Jews", leftists, feminists, other social movements, Marxist cultural theorists, postmodernists, and the US counterculture was never "a thing", certainly never a social agent, and was also never Western Marxism. I'm failing to understand how you don't see something even Jamin recognizes - that the conspiracists conjured this up out of a complex Venn diagram of their fears and anxieties, rather than reacting to and misinterpreting an actual intellectual movement, as you would have it. Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from using Talk Pages for things other than discussing how to improve the article. Wikipedia is not a forum, which includes its Talk Pages. - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:7442:DD0E:66D8:DADC (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, Sennalen's ~~POV~~ interpretation of this topic is clearly expressed in their edit history in article space. Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

~~Sennalen's~~ The reliable sources' ~~POV~~ interpretation of this topic is clearly expressed in their edit history in article space. Sennalen (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You mean your TENDentious reading of Jamin. FTFY. Newimpartial (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

How about this edit, where you removed a perfectly reasonable comparison of the conspiracy theory with actual "Marxist Cultural Analysis" based on Jeffries, Jay, Woods, and Jamin? With the absolute utmost WP:AGF, it's hard not to see this removal of sourced content as TENDentious. Tewdar 17:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

And which of these sources refer to common basis of facts versus instances where about conspiracy theories diverge from reality? Asking for a friend. Newimpartial (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You should probably tell your friend to look at the concluding remarks of Jamin (2018). Perhaps you have a different interpretation of this source, or a different summarization that we could use to improve Sennalen's edit? Asking for a friend. Tewdar 20:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial - did you and your friend ever decide what Jamin meant in his concluding remarks? My friend and I would still like to include some version of this in the article. 😁👍 Tewdar 08:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

For example, we could replace "reality" with "mainstream scholarship" or something like that. Tewdar 20:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

That would make a softer indictment of the conspiracy theory. Sennalen (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed it would, but it would also be closer to what Jamin actually writes. Tewdar 22:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

To which concluding remarks do you refer? Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The bit that comes after the heading CONCLUSION. 😁👍 Tewdar 19:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial has a point. The conspiracy theory is about events today which it says are influenced by the Western Marxists. It's hard to tell because they view them as a puppet of international Communism which itself was a puppet of the international Jewish conspiracy. The Frankfurt School fits in only because they were foreign Jewish Marxists with liberal views teaching at an Ivy League university in New York City. That checks most of the boxes for suspiciousness. What they actually taught or did was irrelevant. TFD (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

What are the sources for that? Sennalen (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Close your eyes and let the visions flow? Tewdar 17:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Next time you're on an alt-right thread about cultural Marxism, do a search of the discussion thread for "Jew." TFD (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm frequently on those alt-right threads searching for Jews. Anyway, I somehow doubt that Minnicino (for example) decided to target the Frankfurt School only because they were foreign Jewish Marxists with liberal views teaching at an Ivy League university in New York City. But it doesn't matter what I think. Where is the published reference for this assertion? And by that, I do not mean Stormfront.org. Tewdar 09:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Paul Gottfried said some things about how the foreignness and Marxim of the Franfurt School was overstated. Out of anything I've read, that's the most reminicent of TFD's interpretation above. Sennalen (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep, the page is supposed to be about the fringe conspiracy theory - but some editors have decided it's about anyone associated with The Frankfurt School. 27.33.201.239 (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, the Frankfurt School background info section has been there for all this year at least. Perhaps you might want to argue it has too much scaffolding now (or the wrong kind of scaffolding, maybe), but it's been there a while. Tewdar 21:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not debating the scaffolding. I'm stating explicitly that the idea that The Frankfurt School was "applying Marxism to culture" isn't found in any of the cited references. When did such basic points become so difficult. If something's the widely accepted academic viewpoint it should be accepted as such, and written up as such, if something cannot be found at all in the sources given (no matter how many errant sources are cited) - it should be removed. This is (or used to be) basic stuff on Wikipedia. Now it seems, not so much. 110.175.188.252 (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Great to hear that you're now in favour of sourced content. So, how about ...occassional use in accepted academic scholarship to mean the study of how culture is used by elite groups to maintain their dominance (which is supported by the sources) or something along those lines? Sounds a bit like "applying Marxism to culture" to me, but who knows, maybe you'll like the other version better. I'm all ears if you have any other suggestions. Tewdar 10:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Or even, ...the study of the effect of economics on culture? Tewdar 10:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather see an explicit reference to the "culture industry" framework, myself. Something closer to the actual cognitive machinery. Newimpartial (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

"...occassional use in accepted academic scholarship to mean the study of how culture is used by elite groups to maintain their dominance" - yes, this phrasing coheres a lot better with the actual projects of The Frankfurt School. 110.175.188.252 (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, perhaps if you weren't so quick to call people conspiracists, because you think they're 'using their phrasing", we could have had a more sensible discussion. Just a suggestion. Tewdar 10:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)