Jump to content

Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Woods misused in lede

A contemporary revival of the Nazi propaganda term "Cultural Bolshevism", the conspiracy theory originated in the United States during the 1990s.

uses Woods 2019 as evidence of the first clause; however, what Woods says is (emphasis mine),

(Several commentaries) claim that the paleoconservative myth of cultural Marxism is simply an updated version of NAZI propaganda about “cultural Bolshevism” and “Weimar degeneracy” (both tropes depended on obscene and offensive anti-Semitic caricatures). While the Frankfurt School conspiracy has anti-Semitic components, it is inaccurate to call it nothing more than a modernization of cultural Bolshevism propaganda.

In short the article says the opposite of the source. Sennalen (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


I'd say that the source says it is an updated version of Cultural Bolshevism, along with some other novel features, wouldn't you? Perhaps we should add these details?  Tewdar  07:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps 'has some similarities to Cultural Bolshevism' would be a more accurate summary?  Tewdar  07:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
We do have Jay calling it "a recycling of the old Weimar conservative charge of 'cultural Bolshevism'"...  Tewdar  08:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Woods elaborates that it's not related to Cultural Bolshevism because it's not related to any kind of German or foreign ideology, but a distinctively American homegrown point of view. In fact, that's something he elaborates on in a magazine article about how the conspiracy theory originated with LaRouche[1]. Sennalen (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Okay, so how about 'some similarities with Cultural Bolshevism, but a distinctively American ideology (originating in the 1990s...) or something like that? (provisional text) 🤔  Tewdar  13:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
It's a start. Finer nuances can be parsed in the body. I've been thinking that scattered bits about how the CT relates to anti-Semitism and Nazism could be collected from all around the article into a more coherent treatment. Sennalen (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Not that anyone would require my blessing, but I'm fine with this approach. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Not that anyone would require my blessing... - right. We just need your blessing, TFD's blessing, Aquillion's blessing, MVBaron's blessing, NorthBySouthBaranof's blessing, that IP from Australia's blessing... 😭  Tewdar  18:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Here's a first pass at it. Things have been pulled from around the article to make top level sections of "Terrorism" and "Antisemitism". diff of changes on a userspace draft I think what's left in the rump of "Aspects of the conspiracy theory" could also be distributed differently, but I'll pause here for the spirit of incrementalism. Sennalen (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
phase 2 finished parceling out "Aspects of the conspiracy theory" to other headings Sennalen (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The changes are in article space now. If it stays stable I'll move on to WP:SOURCEMINEing Jay's Dialectic of Counter-enlightenment. The book version is considerably expanded from the web version, and a lot of it should land in the new Antisemitism heading. Sennalen (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.137.102 (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment

  • A general comment from somebody who knows a thing or two about (neo-)Nazi (and adjacent) ideologies and their history (including after the defeat of Nazi Germany): While it is fine to state that the idea of cultural Marxism originated in the US, I would be careful to use the word "homegrown", since that obscures the substantive interactions between American and European right-wing extremists, which continued after 1945. The far-right is surprisingly international, so nothing after World War One is truly "homegrown" with them. TucanHolmes (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
If you have a source explicitly making this link, then we should probably add this to the article. If not, we probably shouldn't. 😁👍  Tewdar  20:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Also, 'homegrown' is straight from the cited source, I believe...  Tewdar  20:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

QAnon

For some reason, QAnon is only a link in the see also section. For what it's worth, cultural Marxism conspiracy theory plays a huge role in their messaging. Much more should be said about it here. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no mention of cultural Marxism in the Qanon article. Could you please provide sources that explain the connection. TFD (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the article could explain the anti-semetic/white supremacist connection a bit more.

Here's an early post from 2010 on Stormfront.org: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741129/

There's also the 2002 speech at a holocaust denial conference given by Lind: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2002/ally-christian-right-heavyweight-paul-weyrich-addresses-holocaust-denial-conference

Neither of which are mentioned in the current article. 60.242.247.51 (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, 60.242.247.51; thanks for your suggestions. Unfortunately, we can’t use the Stormfront source because the content is self-published and user-generated, and also, Stormfront isn’t a reliable source for Wikipedia’s purposes (see WP:RS). What we would need is a reliable secondary source commenting on the Stormfront content in order to include it here, otherwise, we would be engaged in WP:OR, which is forbidden by policy. While the SPLC is generally reliable (although by consensus at WP:RSN, needs to be attributed in text), I’m only seeing one brief mention in that piece about something related to the topic of this article, the “Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory.” Here’s the mention: “Lind's theory was one that has been pushed since the mid-1990s by the Free Congress Foundation — the idea that a small group of German philosophers, known as the Frankfurt School, had devised a cultural form of ‘Marxism’ that was aimed at subverting Western civilization.” I’ll see what other editors think of the SPLC piece, but my worry is that including any of the rest of that piece’s content in this article would run afoul of WP:OR, specifically, WP:SYN. Do you, by chance, have any secondary WP:RS that make the connection and provide the specific content you’re hoping to see here? ThanksForHelping (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
The Joan Braune source covers the fact that William S Lind spread the Cultural Marxism conspiracy at a holocaust denial conference in 2002. [2]

Another major purveyor of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is “paleo-conservative” William S. Lind. Unlike MacDonald, Lind does not focus his critique of Cultural Marxism explicitly on “the Jews,” but his theory does have antisemitic dimensions. In fact, in 2002, Lind spoke to a Holocaust denial conference organized by Willis Carto, and in his talk on the Frankfurt School, Lind pointed out, “These guys were all Jewish.” Instead of “the Jews,” however, Lind’s professed antagonist is the “globalists,” a term that conflates capitalists (supporters of capitalist “globalization”) with socialists and communists (supporters of a “global” working class revolt against capitalist globalization). Attacks on “globalists” (as well as “cosmopolitans,” or to use an earlier term,“internationalists”) are often used to make antisemitism more palatable fora wider audience. Antisemitism has long leaned on an equation of Jews with both capitalists and communists; a frequent element of antisemitic belief has been the portrayal of the Jew as both “banker and Bolshevik.”(This two-sided nature of antisemitism also helps to explain some of the frenzied agitation against George Soros, the liberal capitalist and philanthropist; in Soros, antisemites have hit upon an ideological jackpot poster child for their purposes: an influential left-leaning capitalist Jew,whose leftism and influence they exaggerate.32) By presenting Jews as secretly both capitalists and communists, antisemitism harnesses legitimate working-class anger against capitalism (including a corrupt and exploitative financial system) and redirects that anger towards the left and scapegoated groups, including Jews. Although antisemitism pre-dates capitalism, the tendency of modern antisemitism to cast Jews as both capitalists and communists has made it possible for fascist movements to present themselves deceptively as “workers” movements (think National Socialist “Workers” Party) while still being fiercely oppositional towards the left.

There's also a Salon piece which includes the information about Lind and the holocaust denial conference, as well as comparing "Cultural Marxism" to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (a touchstone of White Supremacists). [3]

In many ways, Lind's "cultural Marxism" tracks the famous anti-Jewish hoax “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” and at a 2002 Holocaust denial conference (Lind, I'd note, says he rejects Holocaust denial) told attendees, of the "cultural Marxism" conspirators, that "These guys were all Jewish". Like the Protocols, Lind's cultural Marxism idea purports to expose a secret Jewish plan for world domination.

As for Stormfront being an early source of the conspiracy theory, Paul Jackson and Anton Shekhovtsov hit both topics in their 2014 "The Post-War Anglo-American Far Right" (DOI: 10.1057/9781137396211) [4]:

Meanwhile, in the same way, according to Bill Berkowitz, Lind’s thesis on Cultural Marxism has been well received in the Holocaust denier community too, including being discussed in 2002, at a conference organised by the anti-Semitic newspaper Barnes Review. Cultural Marxism has also been the subject of many discussions and exchanges on forums such as Stormfront.org, a site more clearly associated with white racial nationalism, and espousing the platform ‘White Pride World Wide’.

I think the latter half of the above quote really gets to the point of the matter - that the conspiracy theory has had wide usage on stormfront since at least 2010. However the first half does seem to be referencing the SPLC source (whose author is Bill Berkowitz). But that latter half seems viable.
Martin Jay mentioned that The Frankfurt School is often used as a stand in for The Jewish Conspiracy in his "Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment: The Frankfurt School as Scapegoat of the Lunatic Fringe" (2010) [5], Skidmore College, NY.

A number of years later a fringe neo-Nazi group called "Stormfront" could boldly express what had hitherto only been insinuated, and in so doing really spill some foul-tasting beans:

Talking about the Frankfurt School is ideal for not naming the Jews as a group (which often leads to a panicky rejection, a stubborn refusal to listening anymore and even a "shut up") but naming the Jew by proper names. People will make their generalizations by themselves - in the privacy of their own minds. At least it worked like that with me. It was my lightbulb moment, when confusing pieces of an alarming puzzle suddenly grouped to a visible picture. Learn by heart the most important proper names of the Frankfurt Schoolers - they are (except for a handful of minor members and female "groupies") ALL Jews. One can even quite innocently mention that the Frankfurt Schoolers had to leave Germany in 1933 because "they were to a man, Jewish," as William S. Lind does.

Of less relevance, but perhaps more forward looking are these two references, linking to the wider diffusion of the concept into the conservative right:
Sven Lütticken, writing in "Cultural Marxists Like Us" for the journal "Afterall: A Journal of Art, Context and Enquiry" (2018) (DOI 10.1086/700248):

Cultural Marxism largely came to function as a code word for the challenging of racial hierarchies and traditional gender identities.

Chamsy El-Ojeili of the University of Wellington connects Cultural Marxism to various aspects of "Crusader Christianity" here [6]. Saying:

I have already noted post-fascist borrowings from the philosophical vocabulary of liberalism—for instance, free speech, individual freedom over equality, opposition to leftist social engineering. Elements of socialist philosophy and anti-systemic good sense, from opposition to centrist political parties, corporate and intellectual elites, globalist (neo)liberalism, right up to challenges to global capitalism and its materialist culture, are equally characteristic features of the post-fascist imaginary. But these elements of anti-systemic good sense are bound to emotionally charged dystopian and conspiracist !gures. Two central conspiracist notions within post-fascism provide some insight into the ways this potentially intertwines with apocalyptic Christian appeals. First, Bat Ye’Or’s Eurabia conspiracy (a plot to establish Muslim control of Europe), mentioned 171 times in Breivik’s manifesto, and related counter-jihadist ideas are noted by Strømmen and Schmiedel. However, they fail to link them clearly to post-fascist Christian-identity claims, historical anti-Semitism, and attempts to cognitively map the world and power; nor do they take up the connections between this and a second major conspiracist notion, that of ‘cultural Marxism’. Arguably connected to the classical fascist notion of ‘cultural Bolshevism’, which was also taken up by certain churches in the interwar period, the aims of cultural Marxism, according to the neo- Nazi Stormfront website, include ‘Huge immigration to destroy identity [the] [e]mptying of churches’. is theory is now widely available, deployed in mainstream media by political parties (UKIP, for instance, but also the Conservative party), and the likes of Jordan Peterson

So again, it is mentioned that the term has had widely acknowledged usage on the neo-nazi website stormfront. I Hope that's enough reliable sources. Let me know what your interpretation is. Just to clarify, I'm not trying to make the case that William S. Lind is anti-semetic, just that the conspiracy theory had been spread early among Holocaust Deniers (back to 2002), and on the neo-nazi website, Stormfront (back to 2010, as the Martin Jay source, and others note). 60.241.70.177 (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Except for El-Ojeili, I believe all of this information is already approprately summarized in the article. Sennalen (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's really overt enough, especially considering how many high quality academic sources there are for these two statements. 60.241.70.177 (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

None of these are valid sources. Theories of "Cultural Marxism" conspiracies are extremely simple: a marriage of Marxism and post-modernism is conspiring to destroy all that is good. Citing cases of the far right co-opting the idea for their own hateful ends is evidence of exactly nothing. It's the fallacy of composition. Joeedh (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Conveying what current and reliable academic sources are saying, is generally highly approved of on Wikipedia. See these two policy pages WP:RELIABLESOURCES and WP:SOURCETYPES. 220.245.153.214 (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Mortensen and Sihvonen

@Llll5032 Here are the relevant parts of the source you requested: Negative Emotions Set in Motion: The Continued Relevance of GamerGate[1] Bold emphasis is mine, highlighting the parts supporting contested claims.

In addition to feminism, the term cultural Marxism is continuously used in the context of #GG to refer to the ideology of academia and of the DiGRA connected researchers. In subsequent videos, SoA kept returning to this term, inflating it with the Frankfurt School of thought. The connection to the Frankfurt School is to a certain degree correct, as the ideas of the Frankfurt School held sway with the British cultural studies tradition, which emphasized the importance of a contextualized knowledge brought up through a variety of methods, quantitative and qualitative, and critical reading of the cultural expressions in question. The emphasis on understanding the context of an expression of popular culture, described in seminal works such as Raymond Williams’study of television (Williams 1974) or outlined in Stuart Hall’s classic encoding/decoding model (Hall 1980), has been deeply influential on contemporary studies of games and game culture.

Game studies has similarly been shaped by the early call for understanding games and play independent of existing academic paradigms, by studying a game as its own object, and not a version of literature, television, or other pre-existing modalities (Aarseth 2001). This is, however, not how SoA understood the influence of Marxist thinking in game studies. Instead, it was presented in much the same manner as Anthony Walsh (2018, p. xii) presents cultural Marxism, as an old and deeply embedded conspiracy that is toxic, anti-capitalist, anti-moral, and the purpose of which is to destroy the Christian core of American (or more widely, Western) culture.

From a Nordic point of view, this is sinister indeed. The terrorist attacks in Oslo and on the Utøya island on July 22, 2011, were carried out as a deliberate attack on cultural diversity and the social democratic political ideals of inclusivity and openness, and the terrorist’s manifesto contained several direct references to cultural Marxism (Tromp 2018). During #GG, cultural Marxism was used as a dog whistle for anonymous messages from online audiences using radical free speech as their justification for the often aggressive and hate-filled content with which they crammed the mailboxes and social media feeds of their targets. We can still see traces of this when we look at the current Twitter feeds of the accounts that were among the 50 most active #GG tweeters in 2014 and 2015. The connection between #GG and a public reaching back to fascist ideology is a recurrent theme in articles discussing the event. Mortensen (2016) referred to #GG proponents as hooligans, although mostly to point out that aggressive mass movements surrounding games are not new. #GG does however come up again and again in articles discussing misogyny and racism online. Madden, Janoske, Winkler, and Edgar (2018, p. 72) point out how race and gender intersects in the harassment caused by significant participants of #GG, using the example of how Milo Yiannopoulos, Breitbart associate editor during #GG and prominent participant in the #GG event, “sparked a barrage of comments” of harassment and racist slurs targeting black comedian Leslie Jones for her role in the movie reboot of Ghostbusters. Topics concerning the intersection of racism and misogyny keep coming up in several discussions of #GG, either together or separately (Nieborg and Foxman 2018; Massanari and Chess 2018; Gray et al. 2017). Racism and misogyny associated with #GG are also regularly brought up in discussions of gender and geek masculinity (Ortiz 2019; Salter 2018; Condis 2018, p. 3). Sennalen (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Free speech is directly named as the concern in the intersection of Gamergate and cultural Marxism. Also, Salter's work on masculinity is name dropped at the end of the section on cultural Marxism. That in itself would give license to link the work, although I don't think it needs the justification. Merely being in the intersection of Gamergate and the Frankfurt School makes Salter's work due a mention. Sennalen (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, Sennalen. I WP:BOLDLY condensed the section further because in my opinion it interpreted the sources too selectively and was somewhat tangential to the subject of the article. I see you have reverted the pargraph to your version. Do other editors agree? Llll5032 (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The expanded version reads like it was written by someone with an ideological ax to grind. Not what I expected to read in an encyclopedia article, but please keep it so people know what they're dealing with. BrianH123 (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The paragraph is edited substantially now, but in my opinion the two sentences naming Salter are still tangential. Is his work being used as a WP:BESTSOURCE about Gamergate, or as something else? If he is a BESTSOURCE, then should the two sentences focus more on what he said and less on how he said it? Llll5032 (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I also thought it was worth letting the reader know that there is this work out there that applies Frankfurt School critical theory to Gamergate. If they want to know more, they can follow up on those citations. Actually explaining what Salter had to say would require introducing a host of players and ideas that would be a WP:COATRACK on this article. If someone can strike a better Goldilocks balance of due weight, I'd be happy to see it. Sennalen (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
If the main purpose for inclusion is not explaining what Salter had to say but rather letting the reader know that there is this work out there that applies Frankfurt School critical theory to Gamergate, then perhaps we would need an additional secondary source to confirm the importance of that aspect per WP:PROPORTION. Llll5032 (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't take an extra source to say claims about a topic are about the topic. I've written more on that theme at Wikipedia:Write the Infinite Article. Salter's technological rationality paper has been cited 193 times according to Google and is a fairly ubiquitous reference in post-2017 Gamergate scholarship. Sennalen (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
That number of citations may support the work's use as a WP:BESTSOURCE, but we should be wary of providing an original slant (per WP:PSTS and WP:OR: "Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.") What could make such an interpretation more DUE is if a WP:BESTSOURCE devotes its own words to letting the reader know that there is this work out there that applies Frankfurt School critical theory to Gamergate; perhaps such a BESTSOURCE exists among the 193 sources that cite Salter. Llll5032 (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I think the edits are okay, but you still have an infinite regress problem in your justification. It's not an original analysis to select relevant sources and summarize their main points. Sennalen (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Here is a WP:BOLD simplified and condensed version of the language per WP:DUE and WP:PSTS. Llll5032 (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Sennalen's original, more expansive wording (which has been reverted to), as it adds a greater level of nuance and helps highlight a less conspiratorial mode of viewing The Frankfurt School. This version is in alignment with the Marxist cultural analysis article, which I think a relevant point of contrast. 60.242.160.243 (talk) 04:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I WP:BRB'd some of the interpretation to possibly arrive at a consensus. Llll5032 (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I also added the SPLC. Here is a link with the edits. Llll5032 (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Sennalen, can you cite the source's context for describing Gamergate as a social movement? The Gamergate Wikipedia article top appears to dispute that description. Llll5032 (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Gamergate is a controversy which contains a movement that has engaged in a harrassment campaign. A lot of ink has been spilled about the false dichotomies of trying to decide which of the three things it "really" is. There are sources that focus on each aspect, and most of the sources emphasize ambiguity. There was a local consensus on the Gamergate page to diverge from the treatment in best sources in favor of polemical ones. That article's deficiencies are a matter for another time, but it's why I specifically cited here the definitions as a controversy and movement. Sennalen (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I think unbiased, cited definitions are important, but I don't find anything else objectionable about your recent edits. Sennalen (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Sennalen. I've removed that phrase for now because it appears to be disputed by some RS, but as I wrote in the summary, in my opinion the phrase could be restored in some form if its use in academic WP:BESTSOURCES that also discuss the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is clarified with contextual refquotes. Llll5032 (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
A summation dispute between reliable sources shouldn't generally be resolved by simply removing some of them. Mortenen and Salter aren't the entire top echelon of Gamergate sources, but they are in it, and representative of it. Sennalen (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Sennalen, can you quote the context for the paywalled source's use of the phrase "social movement", as you did for the other phrases above? Llll5032 (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Sure. The particular use I had in mind was #GamerGate was a far-reaching and significant online movement even in contexts that are seemingly disengaged from video games or gaming cultures. There's also In this kind of a research setting, the hashtag #GG has many functions: it is the name of this online movement, a contextualizing tag for the discussion, a shorthand for discussing certain convoluted internet politics, as well as a practical search tool. and a dozen off-handed uses of "movement" to refer to Gamergate in passing. Sennalen (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. That usage may be sufficient to warrant the phrase "online movement" in one of the sentences in the paragraph, perhaps not the first one. Llll5032 (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I WP:BOLDly added "online movement" to the third sentence. Llll5032 (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic discourse about modern fascist states. Let's refocus on proposed changes to the article itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"a public reaching back to fascist ideology is a recurrent theme" Reaching back? When did fascism and neo-fascism stopped being influential political movements with mass appeal? They are not part of the distant past. Dimadick (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
At one time fascists controlled most of the governments of Europe, while now they don't control any. TFD (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Russia and Belarus are in Europe. 60.242.160.243 (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Except they're not fascist. In any case, they have a combined GDP slightly higher than Australia's, meaning they cannot be a serious threat to countries other than their immediate neighbors. TFD (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultra-nationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy."

I don't see any claim that there's some economic hurdle, or externalization of threat capacity that suddenly makes a country fascist. Fascism is a set of ideological aims and sacrifices to get to those aims. Currently Russia does have an ultra-nationalist outlook, hence the recent politicization of the concept of Russian_world, and the connected revanchism being acted out on Ukraine, this in of itself constitutes a subordination of the individual to the state, and a regimentation of society (literally conscripting people into regiments)... and all of Russia's power is concentrated in Putin as a figure. There are accordingly articles about how if Putin were to suddenly cease being in power, the war would most likely come to an end. [7], [8] ...which seems to be what the majority of Russia's business interests want. [9], [10] Ergo and in relation to the article, I think that's enough to qualify fascism and neo-fascism as still having periodic currency in the world. That said, this is a relatively minor point to be making. 220.245.153.214 (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
It's not up to you to determine which states are or are not fascist. You would have to show that standard textbooks consider it to be. In any case, it's a fairly minor power in the world, compared with actual interwar fascism. Your approach reminds me of the rhetoric that surrounded Saddam Hussein 20 years ago. TFD (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Ideological movements themselves can also be considered fascist, such as the Patriot Front, which is a currently active group in America. I bring that up as an example of the fact that not all fascism has to be comparable to WW2 fascism to still be considered fascist. 220.245.153.214 (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mortensen, Torill Elvira; Sihvonen, Tanja (2020). "Negative Emotions Set in Motion: The Continued Relevance of #GamerGate". In Holt; Bossler (eds.). The Palgrave Handbook of International Cybercrime and Cyberdeviance. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 1353–1374. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-78440-3_75. ISBN 978-3-319-78440-3.

This article was written by a cultural Marxist.

No reason to engage with an off-topic, accusatory rant. Since there was a decent reply, I'll just HAT instead of removing the whole thing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Calling cultural Marxism a "conspiracy theory" is a prime example of how cultural Marxism works. Any idea that these assholes don't want promulgated they mislabel in this way, sort of like calling abortion "health care".The whole article needs to be rewritten with more sensitivity to the POSSIBILITY that some of the claims are actually true.

Geez, this is just one example of why Wikipedia is so untrutworthy. The bias is extraordinary. 66.173.7.27 (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

«This article was written by a cultural Marxist.» => How do you know that? What is your method? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
«Calling cultural Marxism a "conspiracy theory" is a prime example of how cultural Marxism works.» => Why? How many of the following articles have you fully read?
Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
«The whole article needs to be rewritten with more sensitivity to the POSSIBILITY that some of the claims are actually true.» => Such? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
«Geez, this is just one example of why Wikipedia is so untrutworthy. The bias is extraordinary.» => FYI
Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Please do not resurrect topics that have been dead for nearly two months. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article is in clear violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies. There is nothing intrinsically anti-semitic about "Cultural Marxism" or even criticism of the Frankfurt School (Not one of the conservative influencers I listen to has ever listed their names, the act of which according to one of the linked sources is what makes this an anti-semitic conspiracy thoery). Joeedh (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Anti-semitism is a very important part of the topic, but the inclusion of the big anti-Semitism banner at the top of the article is (intentionally) unduly prejudicial. There are other categories/series that are equally or more applicable, such as socialism, conservatism, 20th century American politics, etc. Sennalen (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
While its main proponents are less overt than their predecessors and instead use coded language, the core of the theory is to accuse the Jews of trying to overthrow Western civilization, which is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces What you said is itself a conspiracy theory. Claiming that people who criticize Marxism are secretly using coded language and that really they are just antisemitic, that is a conspiracy theory. 68.232.118.40 (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source for that opinion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Criticism of cultural Marxism becomes conspiracism when those critics invent the existence of a secret plot. TFD (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not a "Conspiracy."

This has diverged from the original complaint about "not a conspiracy theory" into insinuations about specific Marxist scholars and the Frankfurt School, which is a different topic. Closing per WP:FORUM. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marxist cultural analysis is a term Marxists themselves use. Lots of Marxists openly claim to want to subvert different elements of western culture. And the "long march through the institutions" is an idea the left openly promoted. I don't see where there is a conspiracy, and especially where is the antisemitic part? Just because Marx was Jewish doesn't make all criticism of Marxism antisemitic.

This article sounds like someone who has framed criticism of The Frankfurt school and certain strains of Marxism as a "conspiracy theory." I don't think it merits the term.

It would be like right wingers writing "The Trump Conspiracy Theory (TCT) is the false belief held by far left radicals that Trump and white Nationalists are secretly plotting to undermine American democracy and turn America into a authoritarian dictatorship. It is rejected by mainstream academia as a dangerous far left conspiracy."

Person note, I agree with a lot of what Marx said. Not a big fan of capitalism. But framing this as a "conspiracy theory" is ridiculous. 68.232.118.40 (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

«conspiracy» and «conspiracytheory» are not the same thing, in the same way that «wife» and «midwife» are not the same thing. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
«framing this as a "conspiracy theory" is ridiculous.» => Why? And how many of the following articles have you fully read?
Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
There's already a page for Marxist cultural analysis, this is a page specifically for the conspiracy theory claiming there's a planned agenda by The Frankfurt School, to take over society. Hence the page title Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. 194.223.32.46 (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
There are some absolutely pants-on-head insane takes on the Frankfurt School. Then there are some grounded criticisms of the Frankfurt school that might be considered gauche by some. The article has shamelessly equivocated between these two kinds of things, but it's getting better over time. Sennalen (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Can you specify what criticisms of The Frankfurt School you mean? Also, wouldn't they just go on the page for The Frankfurt School? 194.223.32.46 (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm speaking to OP's core point that the members of the Frankfurt school were avowed Marxists with all that entails. Sennalen (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Most of them, particularly Horkheimer drifted away from Marxism, Marcuse is well known to have written his criticisms of the Soviet Union, Adorno is often described as a 'critical humanist' (likewise with Fromm) - and they're all somewhat considered to be neo-Marxists, or exiles from Marxism. Hence the "Grand Hotel Abyss" criticism. So I think to claim they were "avowed Marxists" is incorrect. They really weren't avowed Marxists, and were clearly working on something else, something different and beyond that label (Something within the Grand Hotel Abyss, rather than trying to destroy it). They weren't pushing some Marxist agenda, in fact, I think you could even describe them as Critical Liberals. 124.149.235.195 (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
They were weeping due to the failure of the Socialist revolution worldwide (well, mostly in Western countries). So, of course, they realized that orthodox Marxism or Stalinism weren't popular, so they tried to posit something else, more attractive to the masses. Of course, their promotion of sexual liberty wasn't conforming to Marxist standards: Communists were basically prudes. My point is also that they failed to offer something more attractive, they only made sense to other academics. And to the extent that the sexual revolution happened, it happened without them or despite them. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Weeping? I don't think so. That's very emotive language, and was far from their main focus. "failed to offer something more attractive" - their critique of The Culture Industry is widely accepted by both sides of politics, as is the use of inferential testing, which they pioneered in psychology. They also contributed to the Nuremberg trials, as well as contributing to work against the Nazis for the OSS during WW2, and work against the USSR for the CIA during the Cold War. Anyways, agree to disagree. There sure are a lot of negative views of The Frankfurt School around here. 124.149.235.195 (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Not exactly my original thoughts, if you read the article, you will see therein are cited sources for my statements. Oh, yes, in case I wasn't clear, I meant "attractive for the masses". tgeorgescu (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
The word weeping doesn't appear in the article. Just the idea that they "failed to offer something more attractive" than Stalinism, is silly. Even Oat milk is more attractive than Stalinism... they weren't even a group during the German 1918 - 1919 revolution. So I guess by "them" you must mean, pre-revolution Marxist intellectuals, rather than the actual Frankfurt School... I mean, Marcuse was 20 (and off shooting right-wing snipers), and Adorno was 15. I'm not really sure what you've come onto the thread to say. 124.149.235.195 (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
The critical theory is not exactly my cup of tea, but it does have merits for their fellow academics.
See Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory#Conspiratorial interpretations, look for "jeremiads".
And, yes, when the sexual revolution actually began, the critical theory turned against it. They no longer liked what they had formerly preached. Oh, yes, Freud was a conservative in liberal's clothing. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I think we might be agreeing that The Frankfurt School dropped their interest in understanding the 1918 German revolution - in favour of critiquing fascism, including culturally hegemonic forces such as The Culture Industry?.. so backed away from being avowed Marxists (if ever they were), and turned to being avowed anti-Capitalists (albeit ones living within Capitalists societies). 124.149.235.195 (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
The Culture Industry is very diverse, and its sole common denominator is the pursuit of monetary profit. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

While some Marxists may want to subvert different elements of western culture, Marxist cultural analysis is about analyzing rather than changing it. And the long march through the institutions was a term coined by a Marxist who had nothing to do with cultural analysis. IOW, the IP brings together unrelated things and theorizes their connection through a conspiracy, which is what a conspiracy theory is. TFD (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Herbert Marcuse had close and ongoing collaborations with Rudi Dutschke. Sennalen (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
What does that have to do with say - Michael Walsh's claim that The Frankfurt School were Satanists, or William S. Lind saying that The Frankfurt School were responsible for the appearance of gay people on television? No one is denying that the New-Left existed. Hell, there's a whole article on it, maybe you could discuss Herbert Marcuse having done a conference with, and exchanging letters with Rudi Dutschke (who was shot in the head a couple of years after meeting Marcuse) over on that page?
What's your claim? Rudi Dutschke communicated with Marcuse - therefore Intersectionality is caused by a Cultural Marxist plot and thus has no merit? Jumping leaps and bounds and decades in between with no connection or explaination.
All conspiracy theories have some truth, that truth unfortunately doesn't justify their more grandiose and false claims. The fact is that leftists wanting to change society - doesn't make for a conspiracy theory, any more than Trump wanting to get re-elected in order to change society. Welcome to politics; where people want to change society. Trying to manufacture that into a world-controlling conspiracy just misapprehends the basics. That in politics, people discuss ideas, that in politics, people progress agendas, that in politics - people do activism to try to attain their goals (like DeSantis is with Critical Race Theory, or the left are, with complaining about the video game Hogwarts Legacy).
Does that mean Wikipedia should support the claims that Trump or DeSantis are trying to make women wear chastity belts, and create a fourth Reich? No, we should not.
We already have pages for Herbert Marcuse, Rudi Dutschke, The New Left and even, Long march through the institutions. Because they were all factual elements of the 1960s and 1970s. They are however not the cause of Stonewall or Third-wave feminism. Nor is there a consistent ideology titled "Cultural Marxism" which somehow remained in central control of the Education System, Media, and Politics from 1968 to 2023. This claim is a distortion of history, politics, the 1980s, Republicanism, and numerous other political factors which permeated through out those years. At any rate, there are various FACTUAL pages for you to contribute to, rather than trying to prop up a conspiracy theory here.
Coincidentally, this page - to its detriment - has never focused enough on the more preposterous claims around the conspiracy theory. So it's little wonder people still see the scant facts of leftists existing and communicating, as proof of an organized take over of society. I guess that's just natural for those who feel dominated by their own side's failures to keep up with reality and discourse. Perhaps if more conservatives, and conservative friendly "classical liberals" were interested in studying social justice issues - the left wouldn't dominate those fields, and the world would be more open to conservative solutions. 203.214.85.88 (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
OR perhaps you could - rather than trying to justify the term "Cultural Marxism" - focus on describing the LEGACY of The Frankfurt School, or the LEGACY of Herbert Marcuse. That's fine, of course - by changing that language, you can no longer just use your invented "ideology" as their MacGuffin. You couldn't falsely construct a motivation titled "Cultural Marxism". A motivation, which was up to them, not you.
You'd actually have to draw a consistent line between Marcuse and The Frankfurt School and modern progressivism, and even then you'd be making an argument of "influence" and you still wouldn't negate any of the logic or mechanisms progressives base their arguments on, and you'd look quite a bit like you were praising Marcuse and The Frankfurt School as pivotal.
No, civil rights movements, progressive movements, historical leftism, had its own motivations. Every actor in history had their own motivations. Saying that two people met, or worked on a conference together "and therefore", simply doesn't justify the construction of a new term or ideology being attributed to them. One they never used for themselves, and weren't aware of. One that didn't exist at that point. Sorry, you don't get to define what other people's politics were. You just don't. 203.214.85.88 (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
You may find Frankfurt School#Praxis worth your time. Sennalen (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
What makes you suggest that? It says nothing I wasn't already aware of. Also, like I said, Marcuse isn't the whole Frankfurt School. Perhaps Conservatives should have leveled their complaints at "Cultural Marcusianism" rather than at the whole of The Frankfurt School as "Cultural Marxism". Likewise nothing there suggests responsibility for modern progressivism, or justifies the conspiratorial claims the term "Cultural Marxism". 203.214.85.88 (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
The entirety of the problem can be summed up as Conservatives trying to blame Marxism for Liberalism. 203.214.85.88 (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Western Marxism is another name for cultural Marxism

But cultural Marxism is not another name for Western Marxism! 😂 Which demonic hermeneutics is this?  Tewdar  12:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the section, Tewdar, but my (edit-conflict) version had the following section heading:

The phrase "cultural Marxism" is another name for Western Marxism/the Frankfurt School?

I did think that heading was, ahem, more complete.
In any case, I know that you and Sennalen believe that this is true of the phrase (and Sennalen invoked simplicity and truth in service of the edit war). But this isn't what the provided source says, it doesn't align with other sources, and it contradicts the conclusion of prior discussions on this Talk page (such as the one at the top of this archive).
As you have noted, Tewdar, what Sennalen's source actually says is, [Western Marxism] also started to focus more on cultural rather than economic problems and it is for this reason also known as "cultural Marxism". Sennalen's text both flips the formulation and introduces the another name for claim. Now some published source might potentially say that I am "also known as 'the Boss'", but that wouldn't justify text in wikivoice that "'the Boss' is another name for Newimpartial" since the phrase, "the/The Boss", has many other significations according to various sources.
Regardless of that hypothetical, the paraphrase already in the stable version of the article, Predating any conspiratorial usage, the phrase "cultural Marxism" has been occasionally used in accepted academic scholarship to mean the study of how the production of culture is used by elite groups to maintain their dominance, seems already to include the focus "on cultural rather than economic problems" while being based on sources that make more specific claims. The proposal to add additional text, in either proposed formulation, seems to cater to the minority view that "cultural Marxism" referred to a school or a group of thinkers - rather than an activity - before the conspiratorial usage (which the Oxford Dictionary certainly does not support) while presenting said minority account without qualification, in wikivoice. Without an RfC or other explicit instrument to change consensus, this just isn't on, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
The source is clearly saying that the etymology of 'cultural Marxism' derives from 'Western Marxism' 😐  Tewdar  14:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any such claim in the source. The dictionary entry I see is on "Western Marxism", not "Cultural Marxism", and the sentence you and Sennalen are invoking makes an interesting shift of tense: Western Marxism started to focus on culture (in the past) and is for this reason also known (in the present) as "cultural Marxism". I dont see an etymological claim there, or a statement that this usage predated the conspiratorial one (though I might be missing something). Newimpartial (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a joke about previous content...I thought that emoji means 'deadpan' or something?  Tewdar  15:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I guess straight faces are hard to read lol.
In any case, you have now provoked Sennalen into taking your reverse-wording proposal seriously, so I hope you're rethinking your life choices. :p Newimpartial (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Very happy with my life choices, tyvm. 😁👍  Tewdar  16:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Well that is disappointing. Newimpartial (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Equivalence is a commutative operator. Since Western Marxim is a synonym for cultural Marxism, cultural Marxism is a synonym for Western Marxism. Sennalen (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
The paper says "also known as", however. I myself may be "also known as 'the Boss'", but that doesn't turn "Newimpartial" and "the Boss" into synonyms. Newimpartial (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
The source is clearly saying that 'Western Marxism' and 'cultural Marxism' are different terms for the same thing...  Tewdar  16:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
It really isn't, though, emoji or no emoji. The source is completely agnostic about whether "cultural Marxism" is used to refer to anything other than certain explorations carried out by my Western Marxists. Newimpartial (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Freudo-Marxian slip corrected by Newimpartial (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh, so they're your Western Marxists, now we know who to blame! (j/k) — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
"Fixed" Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps you are more concerned about what someone might do with that assertion, than what the HQRS actually says? What does your hermeneutics of suspicion think my the conspiracy theorists are going to do with something like 'Western Marxism and cultural Marxism are different terms for the same thing?' Fill the whole article with lunatic bollocks, now that the floodgates are open? Or what?  Tewdar  18:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I just don't believe that they are terms for the same thing. Apart from Belgians and grad students, I don't see anyone using "cultural Marxism" as a synonym for "Western Marxism".
And please read the discussion I linked at the topic of this section, from Archive 14. My interptetation of these terms is shared; it isn't simply some idiosyncratic, personal view. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I thought Ian Buchanan was Australian, and seems to have qualifications above grad student? I've probably read the archive before - is that the one where RGloucester confuses a SAGE encyclopedia entry for a self-published source? 😂 Or people talking about 'orders of magnitude' when two or three sources are more than enough elsewhere? 😂😂 Hey, here's an old favourite: do we have a source that says cultural Marxism and Western Marxism are not different terms for the same thing? 😂😂😂 Anyway, don't worry, the usual suspects will be along soon to agree with you, you'll soon have the article back to normal...  Tewdar  19:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
My apologies, it was the old 'they're just putting the word cultural next to the word Marxism' discussion. Great, great times...  Tewdar  19:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I really don't see anything in the Dictionary that says what you think it says; "also known as" does not mean synonyms in two directions. Newimpartial (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
My interpretation of the source is that Buchanan is saying that cultural Marxism and Western Marxism are interchangeable terms. I do not think your 'Boss' analogy above is appropriate, although it may be a perfectly fitting nickname for you in real life for all I know. Perhaps an RfC is needed (rubs hands together).  Tewdar  19:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Like, in this article, The Shulaveri–Shomu culture, also known as the Shulaveri-Shomutepe-Aratashen culture means that the Shulaveri-Shomutepe-Aratashen culture is also known as the Shulaveri–Shomu culture. Just normal common sense is needed really.  Tewdar  19:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
And anyway, the new improved version does not reverse the order of the original source, thus invalidating this objection. And it helps improve the section in my opinion. So, I don't see the harm, but maybe I'm not suspicious enough.  Tewdar  20:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
The Dictionary only mentions "cultural Marxism" in passing; it is not a suitable source for the claims that you or Sennalen believe to be true. Newimpartial (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Seems fine for an AKA claim. Anyway, look at the two sections above: This article was written by a cultural Marxist, Not a "Conspiracy." - the cranks are still getting cranky, so everything's just fine here. 😁👍  Tewdar  20:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory/Archive_19&oldid=1151149442"