Jump to content

Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Question: Is “Cultural Marxism” inherently far right?

As a leftist I am unsure why “cultural Marxism” is labelled as far-right when it is possible for one to claim that there is a “culture of Marxism” without inherently advocating against any specific group. I am extremely sorry but could someone please fill in the details for me? 142.254.81.239 (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You're reading this in good faith where it doesn't exist. People have been complaining about identity politics being used as a shield for over a decade, without any connection to anti-semitism. The environment in universities where every group, besides whites and christians, claims oppressed status is precisely cultural Marxism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.238.246.94 (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is about a specific conspiracy theory. That you could make some related but different claim isn't really germane to what the conspiracy theorists actually do claim. MrOllie (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
If you want the details filled in for you, you might begin by reading the article. TFD (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
For the leftist version, see Marxist cultural analysis. This is mentioned in the first sentence on the Cultural Marxism page. 14.200.225.102 (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Cultural marxism can be an unencumbered synonym for Western Marxism. This page is about a conspiracy theory that is about cultural Marxism. The conspiracy theories are typically far-right, but sources say there have been communist and neoliberal iterations too. Sennalen (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Then why not make Cultural Marxism a redirect to Western Marxism? BenW (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
"Can be", but seldom is. The vast majority of references to "Cultural Marxism" are in relation to the conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Sennalen, no, the whole of Western Marxism doesn't boil down to a cultural phenomena or cultural analysis - and the idea that it does is a very idiosyncratic viewpoint, which I've only ever seen you express. Your views on the topic are very specific to you. 220.240.211.68 (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I didn't say that. Anyway, here are some views that are not specific to me:
[...]western Marxists were drawn to dissident ideas on philosophy, politics, sociology or aesthetics from Gramsci, Lukacs or Korsch, ignoring equally challenging economic ideas from the likes of Grossman or Rosdolsky. ‘Cultural Marxism’ took this to extremes, freeing aesthetic criticism from its allegedly mechanical materialist trappings. Its roots lie in the Institute for Social Research,[1]
Lukács is a foundational thinker of the Frankfurt School and of cultural Marxism in general.[2]
Adorno, Marcuse, and Sartre, in particular – tended to be silent on the issues that had given Marxism its initial impetus, namely the study of economics, the analysis of political machinery, revolutionary strategy, and so on. It was under these conditions that so-called ‘cultural Marxism’ emerged and with it the dominance of philosophy as the primary area of interest[3]
The importance attached in Western Marxism to issues of culture and ideology is of course by no means just a matter of theory. What Trent Shroyer (1973) called 'cultural Marxism' was an important element, though more in Europe than in North America, in the 'counter-culture' of the 1960s (Roszak, 1970).[4]
It has also been commonly used as a conversational shorthand for decades and, in all likelihood, even before the term initially appeared in print in 1973 in Trent Schroyer's The Critique of Domination: The Origins and Development of Critical Theory. That a collection of interviews on North America's leading Marxist literary theorist, Frederic Jameson, edited by Ian Buchanan in 2007, could appear under the name Jameson on Jameson: Conversations on Cultural Marxism, should confirm what anyone who has watched its evolution knows: that the term was not originally a perjorative term, it was purely descriptive, and was used rather loosely to refer to cover a common approach to literary and cultural studies of the sort pioneered in Critical Theory by the Frankfurt School, but also in British Marxist literary studies as found in Raymond Williams and his students.[5]
Moreover, while the standard account of the relationship has it that “British cultural studies has tended either to disregard or caricature in a hostile manner the critique of mass culture developed by the Frankfurt School” (Kellner 31), the connection between cultural studies and Cultural Marxism has not always been so straightforward or so antagonistic. This is especially true in relation to the work of Raymond Williams, who writes of the “excitement of contact with more new Marxist work” in the 1970s and who, upon reading Marcuse’s Negations, celebrated a “sense of meeting, after a long separation”[6]
‘British cultural Marxism’, Dworkin argued, shares three common themes with the Frankfurt School: both were shaped by the failure of the revolutionary movements in the West; both saw themselves as philosophical alternatives to Marxist economism and Leninist vanguardism; and both stressed the autonomy of culture and ideology in social life.[7]
Post-modernism cultural Marxism, a Western Marxist trend of thought that has emerged and had extensive influence under the new historical conditions where significant change has taken place in contemporary capitalism, has quickly become a critical cultural trend that questions the mainstream values of Western modern society.[8]
There has remained a vexing problem, which may be described as follows: the philosophical justification of the revolutionary program in a way that captures the loyalties of a significant portion of the intelligentsia. The attempt to solve this problem has created 'Western Marxism', and an extraordinary intellectual stew with something to suit every taste — a Hegelianized Marx, a de-Hegelianized Marx; Marx-with-Kant, Marx-with-Spinoza, Marx-with-Freud; Marx romanticized ('the young Marx'), Marx de-mystified, Marx re-mystified; emancipatory Marxism, cultural Marxism, Marxism as 'method'. A sceptical observer might easily conclude that this protracted ferment is less a testimony to intellectual vigour than a massive effort to 'save the appearances'. In the last analysis, however, what matters to dedicated Communists is not intellectual considerations, but political power.[9]
Cultural Marxism, most prevalent in the late 1970s and early 1980s, represents a stage when Marxists had grown disenchanted with organizations such as trade unions and labor parties (Crouch 1982). These Marxists turned their sights toward the daily practices of workers for the genuine insurgent potential they felt had been stifled in formal political institutions. Cultural Marxists thus probed the earthy mores and sociable interactions of workers and their communities for buried signs of incipient radicalism.[10]
it is precisely this blindness to socialist class struggles that provides the crucial opening for the neocapitalist interests that now seek to complement their state power with a new, better fitting mantle of legitimacy. Viewed from this standpoint, in which the relation of the political, ideological existence of class conflict to its economic basis is conceived as strictly mechanical and unilateral, “Western” or cultural Marxism in fact converges on its “Eastern” counterpart. True, the former typically repudiates the latter’s “vulgar” base superstructure determinism, with the facile assertion that base and superstructure are now entirely outmoded as analytical categories. Among a preponderance of contemporary Marxist and “post-Marxist” intellectuals from Aronowitz and Laclau and Mouffe to Bowles and Gintis, the superstructure, often rebaptized as “discourse” or simply “culture,” inflates itself into the newly and uniquely pertinent category for a left politics.[11] Sennalen (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
This source doesn't seem to think very highly of Wikipedia: in December 2014 the Wikipedia entry on “Cultural Marxism,” which, though brief, and uncontentious, was deleted [...] The arguments in favor of deleting the entry were passionate, but grossly methodologically deficient in appraising what counts as “evidence” for the meaning of any term, or existence of a practice. 😂  Tewdar  20:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
That source is a non-specialist diatribe by Beaudelairean literary critics without notable expertise in Marxist theory, intended to defend their choice of title for their book. And I don't find their evaluation of the "methodological deficicncies" of the 2014 AfD to be of other than entertainment value. Newimpartial (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Sennalen, which two of these oddly assembled sources do you think are using "C/cultural Marxism" to refer to the same thing, and what do you think they are referring to? More specifically, do you think you have found two sources that are referring to an intellectual movement rather than an activity? Because on first glance, I'm not seeing that at all. Newimpartial (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
We also have Ian Buchanan's A Dictionary of Critical Theory which, as you know, states that Western Marxism is also known as cultural Marxism. Hence, the claim that Cultural marxism can be an unencumbered synonym for Western Marxism is not unsupported by sources.  Tewdar  11:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
If "known as" isn't mentioned in Wikipedia's writings on Weasel Words, it should be. 27.33.205.234 (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
It is not, but rationalWiki use 'also known as' in their lead sentence definition of the term. Why don't you use your famed powers of persuasion and charm to get them to add it to the list?  Tewdar  09:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
They are all referring to the same thing broadly construed, excepting minor shades of emphasis. I am not aware of any source that corroborates the importance you place on the movement/activity distinction or on the capitalization of the 'c' in 'cultural'. Sennalen (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Re: They are all referring to the same thing broadly construed, excepting minor shades of emphasis - I believe here we come (at last?) to the heart of the matter. You apparently believe that a large number of writers - inside and outside the conspiracy theory - are referring to broadly the same thing as "cultural Marxism". I haven't seen textual evidence for this, though - it seems to be a preconception you bring to these texts (WP:OR) rather than something they actually say. When it is pointed out by others that some of these texts actually distinguish one meaning or usage of "Cultural Marxism" from another, and that references to Britiah humanist Marxism or to the Frankfurt School do not represent "minor shades of emphasis", you lean into this idea of yours about the "same thing broadly construed". In the absence of good sources that do what you do, this becomes a recurring motif of mutual incomprehension. Newimpartial (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Some if not all of these examples have been provided in discussion before and can be found in the archives. Indeed there are a few isolated examples of writers describing Marxist cultural analysis as "cultural Marxism." But the conspiracy theorists who first wrote about their version of cultural Marxism were unaware of this and instead merely altered the name of the Nazi conspiracy theory "cultural Bolshevism," which itself derived from "Jewish Bolshevism." Eventually, they found a handful of examples of the term cultural Marxism in writings of the Frankfurt School and use this as "proof" that the object of their conspiracy theory actually exists.
The main premise of the conspiracy theorists that Marxists are trying to corrupt Western culture in order to undermine Western civilization is bogus and has nothing to do with whatever any Marxist writer meant by cultural Marxism. Instead they were referring to a method of analysing culture in capitalist society. TFD (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
But the conspiracy theorists who first wrote about their version of cultural Marxism were unaware of this and instead merely altered the name of the Nazi conspiracy theory "cultural Bolshevism," which itself derived from "Jewish Bolshevism." - please can you provide a source for this, which you must have repeated at least 50 times by now, so that we can add it to the article.  Tewdar  11:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
The main premise of the conspiracy theorists that Marxists are trying to corrupt Western culture in order to undermine Western civilization is bogus and has nothing to do with whatever any Marxist writer meant by cultural Marxism. - good job nobody here is saying that, then.  Tewdar  11:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay, let's first quote exactly what you said: "Cultural marxism can be an unencumbered synonym for Western Marxism." - synonym, meaning "a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close." None of your sources are using the terms in this interchangeable way, most are using the connection between the two as more of a segue into talking about cultural Marxism, rather than as a synonym.
They might be synonymous, but they're not synonyms, and there's a myriad of individuals counted as "western Marxists" who would not generally be considered to be cultural Marxists in the majority of writings about them. Henri Lefebvre for instance is a western Marxist, but is generally considered a philosopher and sociologist, and NOT a cultural Marxist, likewise, Jean-Paul Sartre is a western Marxist, but is seen as a philosopher and existentialist, NOT a cultural Marxist, the western Marxist Maurice Merleau-Ponty was seen as a phenomenologist and public intellectual, NOT a cultural Marxist. Louis Althusser, Galvano Della Volpe, Nicos Poulantzas, do I need to go on?
Pretty much any list of western Marxists is going to span outside of The Birmingham and Frankfurt Schools. Your trying to conflate the two terms as synonyms doesn't make it so, nor does presenting a large, but irrelevant set of quotes from sources that simply; don't back up your position. This is just your particular spin on The Gish Gallop, it's not a compelling argument, but more expression of your desire to shoehorn the terms into being synonyms when they're not used as such.
Ironically, had you said "Western Marxism can be an unencumbered synonym for cultural Marxism" you would be - just ever so slightly more correct - but the statement still isn't really worth while including - especially if as you claimed recently on The Frankfurt School talk page, you're still in favour of keeping them separate. 27.33.205.234 (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Don't forget specialist expert Ian Buchanan's critically acclaimed Oxford Dictionary of Critical Theory published by the world-renowned Oxford University Press, which states that (Western Marxism) also started to focus more on cultural rather than economic problems and it is for this reason also known as cultural Marxism. Anyway, all of this is entirely off topic for this section. This was all discussed back in February. Feel free to start a new section.  Tewdar  09:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes "known as" is a very subjective phrasing. 27.33.205.234 (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
By the way Sennalen, I have noted elsewhere that your project on Wikipedia is often focused on merging all articles on Marxism into one. As some may be aware, to your mind all Cultural Bolshevism is actually just Degenerate Art, and all Marxist cultural analysis is actually just Culture Studies. This goes along with your essay statement to write the infinite article... and even along with what some right wing propagandists would love to have people think about Marxism that it's a single demonic entity - but in actual fact there are distinctions to be made, and Wikipedia is better for keeping such distinctions separate. 27.33.205.234 (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
They might be synonymous, but they're not synonyms sorry, you're going to have to explain that for me. Please, use as much detail as you feel necessary.  Tewdar  09:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
As I pointed out before, Minnicino, whose 1992 essay "New Dark Age: The Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'" is seen as the starting point of the conspiracy theory, never used the term cultural Marxism. Lind, who first used the term "cultural Marxism" in his 2000 speech "Origins of Political Correctness," never claimed that the conspirators had used the term themselves. So it's entirely OR to say that Minnicino and Lind were talking about a concept in Marxist critical theory. As some writers have suggested, the term used by Lind is merely an update of the term cultural Bolshevism, rather than anything he found in the literature about Marxist cultural anaysis. TFD (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
So it's entirely OR to say that Minnicino and Lind were talking about a concept in Marxist critical theory - please point out any WP:OR remaining in the article so that I can exterminate it. I effing *hate* WP:OR, I do.  Tewdar  11:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
We can never be sure who or what Minnicino was talking about when he wrote The single, most important organizational component of this conspiracy was a Communist thinktank called the Institute for Social Research (I.S.R.), but popularly known as the Frankfurt School. This will forever remain an impenetrable mystery. 😏 Sennalen (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm saying they're synonymous by association, not as having the exact meaning that synonyms would. Western Marxism of course having a much wider reach, meaning and discourse around it as a term than cultural Marxism does as a usage. Hence my listing western Marxists who aren't generally considered or described as cultural Marxists, in an earlier reply to this thread. To quote the second listed meaning of 'synonymous' from the Oxford Online English Dictionary: closely associated with or suggestive of something. "his deeds had made his name synonymous with victory" - that's how I'm using the term. Is this fairly common usage in the English language now clearer for you Tewdar? Hence saying cultural Marxism might be synonymous, but they're not synonyms. 27.33.205.234 (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, this is much clearer now, thank you. I think 'also known as', also a very common phrase in the English language, is probably even clearer, and fortunately agrees with the language used in the source that we currently cite in the article.  Tewdar  11:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't have to always be a synonym to say it can be a synonym. Some writers say explicitly that Western Marxism and cultural Marxism are the same thing. Wikipedia shouldn't do that without qualifications, since other writers say that cultural Marxism is just part of Western Marxism. The point at this stage is not which of those views is correct. This is about unsticking editors from the increasingly untenable position that the phrase "cultural Marxism" isn't used in scholarship, or that it somehow gets used without meaning anything at all. No one should need me to teach them how synecdoche works.
Let me put a question to all of you. Imagine that the block of quotes I posted above were transformed directly into article text. What is the name of the article in which it appears? Sennalen (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
"Sennalen is dragging out an argument for no good reason". — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 00:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
This is about unsticking editors from the increasingly untenable position that the phrase "cultural Marxism" isn't used in scholarship
I think you're failing to WP:Listen here, as you've been told several times that the name of that article would be Marxist cultural analysis, which it was decided was less controversial, and less of an open neologism than having a title of "Cultural Marxism" but was created with the intention of storing information about the schools in question that related to the term.
I think you should stop pussy footing around, and state your grand plan to revive an article under the title of Cultural Marxism, or to divide the current article into two topics; legitimate usages, and conspiracy theory related usages, or whatever else your wider vision may be (perhaps in a new discussion somewhere appropriate).
You mentioned earlier that you didn't understand the difference between the capitalised version of Cultural Marxism, which is more often than not how proponents of the conspiracy theory typed it at the time of the 2nd AfD, and the lower case version cultural Marxism, which is a version more often written by leftwing theorists and researchers. The observation goes that cultural Marxism is simply the word 'cultural' followed by Marxism, to indicate the general discussion of cultural approaches to Marxism, rather than a set school of approach (which whilst having key subjects of discussion, has never really been well defined in terms of mode, perhaps due to the development of cultural studies, hence multiple groups generally being referenced by the term but no solid answer on what's required to 'join the club') - where as conspiracy theorists (at the time of the AfD) had turned their ideas into somewhat of a proper name; 'Cultural Marxism', to make their theory seem more definitive and singular. A singular, intentional, organized project known as Cultural Marxism (or at least, a conspiracy about such). This was discussed at the time of the AfD and is only a general rule of thumb.
It may surprise you that I'm not necessarily against having Wikipedia eat its words, and further acknowledge the usages of cultural Marxism which predated the conspiracy theory usage. Because I agree with you, that the position will become more untenable as interest in the ideas of said theorists have gained popularity (perhaps due to being subject to the types of repression involved when conservatives construct such a targeted conspiracy theory take-over of left-wing language). But it's also important to acknowledge that the conspiracy theory version has become the more prevalent understanding of the term in main stream public discourse. With the lower case version cultural Marxism of the understanding being more niche to Marxist and humanist academics of Marxism.
There would be certain key elements and requirements needed for any such revamping of the content. It would have to some what counter the functions of the conspiracy theory, that is to say it would have to go to extra special lengths to make clear that the groups of theorists described as cultural Marxists, were not unified, and do not create a directed or intentional line to today's politics. That there were and have been, many different schools of thought, and changes of mode in popular cultural theory between The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, and E.P. Thompson (as well as others) - between those theorists/groups - and today's politics.
This write up of David Anshen's recent book, is a fairly good example I'm going to use for some of the distancing and ideas that may be required (although I can't speak to the contents of the book its self). The write up does things like, 1) indicating that the so called cultural Marxists were performing analysis of the mechanical reproduction of culture, rather than being a unified project aiming to control that reproduction, 2) it situates the movement as an early fore-runner to Cultural studies without making it seem like the cultural Marxists intentionally created or control Cultural studies, 3) it names movements that were influenced yet came after said theorists, like the situationalists, and structualists, stating them as sort of road blocks, landmarks, or points of distinction in terms of how discourses change, as a means to make the cultural Marxists historically distinct from later ideas they either would, or did, disagree with, such as Post-modernism (Jurgen Habermas famously being a key critic of Post-modernism). These are the sorts of built-in premises and features needed for any responsible discussion of the topic (which as stated earlier, has been somewhat eclipsed from mainstream view by the conspiracy theory usage).
So here's the problem, you've now, on countless occasions appeared to desire a melding of, and interlacing of topics in this area, making multiple fairly unwanted attempts to lump pages together, and to combine articles and topics in a fashion that somewhat defies consensus understandings. You've expressed a desire to make topics seem less distinct from one another, not more. So you've given yourself a reputation that runs counter to what would be required to responsibly make the distinctions between the conspiracy theory usage, and the original left wing usage now housed at Marxist cultural analysis - and that's not to say you've got a bad reputation (indeed, you work very hard at improving Wikipedia in terms of what you think it requires). Merging articles, and disbanding coat-racks is indeed a valuable asset that has many use-cases. You are a useful Wikipedian and content writer, trying to do good here.
But there are some topics that are controversial, that have lots of fringe material attached, that have a history and various consensus viewpoints formed and discussed around them, that require a different, more sensitive, and more community consensus based approach. So whilst I have no doubt, that as a content writer, individual researcher, and contributor to Wikipedia, you'd be perfectly capable of performing the due diligence and depth of research required to construct a fairly good article on the original usage; that's simply not the sole concern here. Drawing clear distinctions and barriers between the two usages is.
For this reason - I would suggest working on a draft aiming to update Marxist cultural analysis as best you can to the point it can reasonably be read as an article on the original, leftwing use of cultural Marxism. In doing so, you would have to make sure there's not even a chance that it could later be converted to a right-wing trojan horse designed to support the conspiracy theory. It should be invulnerable to such vandalism. Then you'd have to communicate that built in distance and distinctness to the community here, and get help in requesting a deletion review - building that consensus (assuming that you'd still want to change the name from Marxist cultural analysis to cultural Marxism) - and you'd probably have to give assurances that the separation between that new article and the conspiracy theory usage not only intends to remain, but would be difficult to dissolve (due to how the new article would be written).
At that point you're cooking with gas, until then, this whole cultural Marxism is western Marxism, is whatever else - doesn't seem to be going anywhere useful. You know, maybe you're right and all of western Marxism has been dissolved into cultural analysis. In my opinion that erases any number of existing youth groups, union groups, activist groups, co-ops, study groups, academics, and other political individuals in the west, but really all that is moot unless it's also made distinct in the ways described above. No one wants to load the gun when it doesn't even have a handle yet - let alone try to pull the trigger. Anyways, before I create any other metaphors or start writing my own page here, I'll end this comment. Feel free to create a more specific discussion where you see fit - but really, is there any editorial discussion you still want to have here? 124.149.238.174 (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that short write up is more focused on Cultural studies and Marxist views of culture in general, rather than anything called cultural Marxism (not even mentioning The Frankfurt School beyond citing Walter Benjamin). I'm just using it as an example for the clarity of the distinctions being made there in. 124.149.238.174 (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
This is a large wall of text, some of which might be helpful, but I would like to underline and problematize the reference above, to the original, leftwing use of cultural Marxism, which rather assumes the thing to be demonstrated. I haven't seen any scholarship presented - by Sennalen, or Tewdar, or anyone else - that would establish an intellectual tendency or school of thought known as "cultural Marxism" prior to the rise of the conspiracy theory. There was certainly a domain or activity, which Wikipedia calls "Marxist cultural analysis", that some scholars referred to as "cultural Marxism" as opposed, e.g., to "political Marxism" or "economic Marxism". But that isn't the school of thought usage that editors like Sennalen assume (without relevant evidence) was already always intended when those two words are brought together. Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, only our favourite Belgian scholar, Jérôme Jamin, describes cultural Marxism as literally a school of thought. TBH, I wouldn't even describe the Frankfurt 'School' as a school of thought. But I suppose that is another debate for a different article...  Tewdar  16:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
...prior to the rise of the conspiracy theory - that's an odd rider. It's perfectly acceptable for future scholars to come up with post-hoc terminology to describe what was not recognised at the time as a discrete school of thought or whatever.  Tewdar  16:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Post-hoc terminology is certainly a fine thing and can be encyclopaedic (if it weren't, then WP would be largely unable to discuss philisophical schools or tendencies prior to the 19th century).
But the specific argument that has been made on this Talk page and elsewhere is, to paraphrase gently, "Cultural Marxism was already a recognized phenomenon that was then reinterpreted/misinterpreted by the conspiracy theorists". For this to be sourced, what matters is (post-hoc) sources for precisely this. The sourcing for this narrative is poor, and some of the better sources that have been marshalled in its support, such as Jamin, do not actually say this or support it directly.
If the post-hoc sourcing for "Cultural Marxism was already a recognized phenomenon" is weak, then what we would need is pre-conspiracy theory sources that would establish an intellectual tendency or school of thought known as "cultural Marxism" prior to the rise of the conspiracy theory. And these we do not have. Newimpartial (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I didn't say I didn't understand the significance of capitalization, rather that the putative signficance of capitalization isn't borne out by sources. It's not a reliable shibboleth. You can find conspiracists who don't capitalize it and scholars who do. The "two words together" interpretation just is special pleading for adjectives to somehow work differently in this topic area. The whole affair has been marked by mendacity from both ends of the political spectrum. You want a firewall between the topics, but sources are explicit that there is none. Ideas circulate between scholars and activists, mainstream and fringe. Not all of the cultural Marxists were disinterested ivy-tower academics like Adorno. A lot of them had and acted on strong political commitments, with influence that is still felt today. Right wing pundits have exaggerated the significance of this, but that does not justify overcorrecting and trying to bury this history.
I don't have a singular preferred outcome, but it has become clear to me that this page is a WP:POVFUNNEL that either excludes anything outside the LaRouche-Lind lineage or else sullies it by association. Frankfurt School doesn't need the baggage, Western Marxism is too broad (as you argued), Cultural studies doesn't encompass praxis, and Marxist cultural analysis is a POV fork that doesn't need to exist. I'm not committed to recreating a page called "Cultural Marxism", but that does appear to be the Goldilocks option at this point in time. Sennalen (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Your "Goldilocks option" appears to be a solution in search of a problem. I haven't seen any material identified about actually existing academic Marxism that wouldn't fit in one of the (non-conspiratorial) articles on those topics. Your inability to see this seems to be based in a failure to read Marxist cultural analysis as the article covering almost exactly the region of the Venn diagram you claim not to have been addressed.
Also, from your overall editing history, this curious case of Cultural Marxism seems simply to be one instance among many where you would prefer to restrict the scope of WP:FRINGE and present majority and small minority interpretations side by each, rather than differentiating between the WEIGHT to be given to mainstream scholarly views and the differential treatment given to perspectives that differ from the mainstream. Newimpartial (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
And now you see why I'm fucking tired of Sennalen dragging this out at every opportunity. It appears to just be a disruptive way to push a fringe viewpoint, which he stubbornly won't let go. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Sennalen has an essay which describes some of their approach, and goes against some of what they do here. For instance, the essay contains this line: "An article should only say that there is a consensus to accept or reject an idea if there is a secondary source that says this explicitly. Supporting this kind of claim just by stacking a large number of citations that agree with it is synthesis." Yet they seem to be doing a similar stacking above regardless of the fact that many sources say Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory with little to no correspondence to any existing movements.
The essay makes clear that Sennalen believes WP:FRINGE can "be mis-applied to censor valid information", and that wrong ideas shouldn't necessarily be excluded from Wikipedia. I believe they've adopted the Teach the Controversy approach, and are here trying to justify it, regardless of whether it's WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, or WP:SYNTH. 220.253.16.156 (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
You want a firewall between the topics, but sources are explicit that there is none. I'm sorry, I'll need a source for the statement that there's no firewall or difference between cultural Marxism as a topic referring to Frankfurt School thought, and as a topic referring to say The Situationalists (who operated in different country, and within a slightly different era/context), or say, Frankfurt School thought and post-modernism? Of course there's a firewall between these groups - they're different groups, different topics. The Situationalists are usually referred to as an avant garde movement of sloganism for instance, where as The Frankfurt School were establishment academics, who spoke against "reactionary machine-wrecking" (ie. they're from different schools and held different views, often opposing each other directly)... and these statements/groups are obviously all part of the left, if we look right - the problem is even more serious.
The rightwing makes obviously false statements regarding cultural Marxism/Cultural Marxism and The Frankfurt School, be it the claim that they're "Sabbatean Satanists practicing black Jewish Kabbalah magic", that "Adorno was trained by The Tavistock Institute in order to write the songs of The Beatles with the aim of producing 'environmental social turbulences'", or as right wing website Breitbart puts it "promoted degenerate atonal music to induce mental illness, including necrophilia, on a large scale" - even slightly less surreal claims like Michael Walsh's ideas that they were merely "doing the work of Satanists" or Lind's false claims that they "spent the war years in Hollywood, and are the reason gays are on TV" need a massive firewall. There absolutely needs to be a firewall between false conspiracy theorist views and established facts. Let's be clear about that.
However, let's also assume with good faith that you're only talking about the firewall between the cultural Marxism of The Frankfurt School - and later uses of the two words cultural Marxism that refer to either different schools/movements or a more general application of the phrase... doesn't that still sort of go against your opinion that it is one school of thought? So it seems like you're wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Either cultural Marxism is a specific defined school of thought that can be written about in the scope of a specific Wikipedia article, OR it's two words put together which change with context and time the term merely referring to something Marxist to do with cultural approaches, thinking, or activities. Which I think you might get away with in an article titled something along the lines of "The history of Marxist cultural thought" - but perhaps that sort of topic would be better written about in a book, rather than on Wikipedia.
Given that you're continuing with your desire to express the concept of cultural Marxism regardless of capitalization, time, group, locality or whether the right or left are discussing it - I can't really endorse such an approach, and I don't think you should work on any drafts to that effect. Because adopting such a position, where the right are allowed to define left wing movements (or vice versa on other topics), seems like an invitation to spreading inaccuracies and falsehoods. For me the topic should be less political than that; there are either reliable sources, or unreliable sources. Manufacturing 'cultural Marxism' into a specific school, when reliable sources are merely using the term to refer to a contextual, and largely undefined (or poorly defined) area of thought - which its self is usually more easily and readily described in terms of The Frankfurt School anyways, is, I believe Original Research. That there are works on cultural Marxism in sports, or featuring conversations about cultural Marxism, isn't proof that it's one singular concept worthy of a Wikipedia article, that is to say there are lots of cultural workers/movements who have had elements of Marxism in their thought, this doesn't mean they're operating from a unified school, or understanding. Coatracking a topic that was already struggling to find solid definition or notability, is a bit of a lost cause as far as I can tell. Good luck. 220.253.16.156 (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
How about 'Cultural Marxist Analysis'? 😁👍  Tewdar  15:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
You cannot refute an argument by refuting a misrepresentation of that argument.  Tewdar  10:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Considering we've gone in circles about this multiple times already, I don't see this going anywhere helpful. Do we really need to have this argument again? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
You are correct that this will go nowhere helpful. Time to get the old DiscussionCloser v 7.0 out...  Tewdar  12:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
We definitely don't need to rehash the discussion, especially because this page is for the Conspiracy Theory usage anyways. 27.33.205.234 (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, I closed it, but Sennalen reverted so... here we are. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Will someone please read Antonio Gramsci! This whole debate is horse manure. Antonio Gramsci was hard LEFT.Full on Marxist. He developed the idea of capitalists used culture to control the lower class, in order to break this the culture must be changed. 136.53.39.123 (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
You want Marxist cultural analysis a long standing leftist discourse which has referred to it's self as "cultural Marxism" in the past... lower case 'c' then Marxism... because it's not a proper noun or title of the discourse, just an informal combination of the words 'cultural' and 'Marxism' to describe the general topic area.
This talk page is for Wikipedia's article on the CONSPIRACY THEORY which uses the same two words as a proper noun, a name, Cultural Marxism, meaning a specific movement (or belief in a specific movement) conducting a serious conspiracy to take over and destroy America/Christianity. The article is about this conspiracy theory, hence the title "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory".
If you want the page about the non-conspiracy theory usage (where Marxists are focused on culturally critiquing Capitalism), it would be the Marxist cultural analysis page. But we also have articles on Gramsci, The Frankfurt School, and Western Marxism in general elsewhere. Hope you find what you need. Finally, it should go without saying that wanting to critique Capitalism is not the same thing as wanting to destroy America or Christianity - but as the conspiracy theory already exists, we have to deal with the fact that people mistake the two. Hence the two different articles. 194.223.9.146 (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Antisemitic?

Please don't attempt to re-start a conversation that's been dead for over a month. If you have new suggestions for improving the article, start a new section. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:07, 29 August 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.

The article claims it is anti-Semitic, (without really giving a good justification for the claim) then goes on to talk about Jewish supporters. If it is anti-semitic, how can it have Jewish supporters? BenW (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope that this section will not be closed for notaforum.
«without really giving a good justification for the claim» => Wikipedia goes from sources and the majority of reliable sources commenting about Cultural Marxism conspiracytheory during the first twenty years of reliable sources commenting about Cultural Marxism conspiracytheory claim that the Cultural Marxism conspiracytheory is antisemite. Please notice that scientific consensus can change.
«If it is anti-semitic, how can it have Jewish supporters?» => There is not logical link between the two half of this sentence. See a also
Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
"If it is anti-semitic, how can it have Jewish supporters?" Easily enough. We have an entire article on the self-hating Jew. Since the 19th century, multiple Jews have supported anti-semitic ideologies and policies. The article also includes several Jews who are vocal supporters of Holocaust trivialization, or who have supported anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. I am not certain why it also includes Jews who simply oppose Israel or who question its occupation of Palestinian territories. Dimadick (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
If it is anti-semitic, how can it have Jewish supporters?
The same way non-whites fall into white supremacy. They're feeling isolated and vulnerable, and the bigots slide up with "Wow, you're one of the good ones, not like those people." Giving them a community to join, one which heaps praise on them, while filling their head with conspiracy theories and targets to blame. Then, if the minority member ever questions the narrative, or simply is no longer useful as a token, they get thrown to the wolves.
See also: Quisling, Useful idiot, and many other examples of people falling for the lies & having it come back to bite them. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
You hit on IMO a serious problem with this article. The term is used by people who promote Henry-Ford-style anti-semitic conspiracy theories a-la International Jewish conspiracy to describe e.g. (the not-particularly-marxist) Critical Theory and adjacent ideas. See, the tactic is "marxism is bad, and these people are trying to use it to destroy our civilization for their own nefarious purposes/gains". It's also used by non-anti-semites to describe, usually negatively, those same ideas in a way that has nothing to do with any conspiracies. (The thinkers in the field are quite open about it and happy to sell you their books or enroll you in their classes! But IMO it's not a great term to use for these ideas, for a variety of reasons as some of the sources in the article describe.) This article tries to lump the two usages together, but in doing so a lot of content that is not about the anti-semitic conspiracy theory usage ends up in the article, leading to the disconnect you observe. There's a lot of discussion in the archives about trying to tease these apart, but you can see where that's gotten us. (extra confusion: the concept described has little to do with Marxist cultural analysis.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
This is a difficulty with dog whistles in general. Maybe some people really do just have a problem with 'international bankers' specifically, but there's really no way to tell them apart from the anti-semites. All we can do is follow the reliable sources rather than trying to work it out ourselves. MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I suppose we never know somoene's true motives. But unfortunately for us the frequency and usage of niche political rhetoric like this isn't something you'd expect to find good sources spending much time dissecting. Anti-semitism is arguably a far more important topic than "right wingers whining about identity politics" or whatever, so of course there are more sources discussing the anti-semitic usage. SPLC's articles, for example, focus on that, for obvious reasons – but don't seem to say things like, for example, "Ben Shapiro uses the phrase "cultural marxism" so he is therefore anti-semitic", like they might do if they actually thought that was a valid thing to say. As a result, wikipedia's articles on topics like this sometimes end up like this mess. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Anyway to OP's concern here: the article, in its defense, does say: "Apart from any conspiratorial usage, the phrase... is sometimes treated as synonymous with the 'Critical Theory'". And CT is not any kind of anti-semitic conspiracy thing, of course. Hopefully that clarifies. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
You can still find quite a few references to "Cultural Marxist Jews" if you simply look on popular search engines. The conspiracy theory version of the phrase "Cultural Marxism" was popularized early on by William S. Lind at a 2002 Holocaust Denial conference, and this led to it being spread on stormfront, and 4chan, and into the alt-right. Likewise you can still see many antisemitic memes on the "Cultural Marxism" know your meme page, and there are more standard antisemetic conspiracy theories about The Frankfurt School too. There's also a section of the article about this. It's a feature of the conspiracy theory. Not sure how much I'd put it in "Part of a series on Antisemetism" but I'm not really an expert on that part of Wikipedia (how articles get put into those series, and the requirements behind that process), but the term has certainly been used in Antisemetic spaces and discourses for the past decade or more, and is a quite well known Dogwhistle, Bête noire, or Boogieman among white supremacist groups. 194.223.9.146 (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Some of what you still see in the article, especially in the lede, is from an older version of the article that was disorganized and slanted towards a particular point of view. Clearly, there are some anti-Semites who take up the discourse of "cultural Marxism" in a way that is inseperable from their anti-Semitism. There are others who unquestionably talk about "cultural Marxism", but have no obvious connection to anti-Semitism. Then there are plenty in between whose positions are unclear or disuputed. The article should not oversimplify this spectrum. Sennalen (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Reliable sources do not necessarily spend much time in explaining the conclusions they report. A book on reports by people who claim to have been abducted by aliens for example may not explain how the authors concluded the stories are fake.
There is a lot of literature drawing a connection between conspiracism and anti-Semitism. See for example, "Recycled Bigotry: Antisemitic Conspiracy Theories Go Mainstream."
"Mainstream far-right politicians, media personalities, and other influencers often promote diluted versions of antisemitic conspiracy theories that do not explicitly name Jews but use dog whistles and historical anti-Jewish tropes." (Human Rights First June 2023.)
The article specifically mentions "cultural Marxism."
Cultural Marxism is a modern adaptation of a Nazi conspiracy theory which ascribes the conspiracy to a group of Jews adhering to an ideology the far right associates with Jews. The fact they don't explicitly mention the Jews are behind it doesn't mean it isn't anti-Semitic.
TFD (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
This is thoroughly cited in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If the theory is inherently antisemetic, then there should be a citation. After reviewing the article all I have found is guilt by association. "Several antisemites were seen wearing boots at a conference. Thus we conclude that boots are generally antisemetic."
This is an error of categorization. Faulty logic. Worse yet, it is the same abuse of logic bigots use to rationalize their deranged beliefs.
We can put aside the bit about "What about the Jewish proponents" as a red herring. Where are the actual citations describing how the theory is inherently antisemetic? If none can be produced, there is a problem. Simple as.
Thanks. 27.34.64.150 (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Does the article state that the theory is inherently antisemitic? If yes, then the citations need to say that but if not, they need simply state that the theory is antisemitic. For which purpose I think the sources in the article are more than sufficient. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
And therefore guilt by association is permissible? "We didn't say boots are inherently antisemetic, just antisemetic generally. After all, several antisemites are known to wear boots." 27.34.64.150 (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Drop the "boots" nonsense, that's not going to fly as an analogy. Our article cites several sources which identify the theory as antisemitic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Apologies if you find this nonsensical. FWIW the sentiment is mutual. As difficult as it may be, let us maintain a facade of good faith.
We can drop the analogy and move onto the meat of the issue. Although some antisemites may promote this "conspiracy theory", not all adherents are antisemetic. More directly, there's no mention of how this critiques of cultural marxism are antisemetic. There are only references to the theory being advanced by antisemites.
The theory itself is not antisemetic. The critiques of "cultural marxism" have nothing to say about Judaism or the Jewish people. If you have a source citing as much, please kindly put it front and center in that section. I could not find it at all. A direct quote would be helpful.
Arguing about the identity of the speakers, i.e. Jewish adherents of the "cultural marxist conspiracy theory" is illustrative. This is somewhat off-putting as in most contexts the identity of the speaker shouldn't be relevant. Above in this same talk page, the psychologizing starts. "Oh he may be self-hating" This is troublesome territory. Guilt by association is a favorite abuse of logic for bigots, but this is a further leap.
I won't use up more of your time, and it goes without saying that I wouldn't be editing 'your' page. Please take a few moments to consider the juncture where you have arrived. If possible, take a few steps back and try viewing this work from an outside perspective. I imagine that many people will read this article as more of the, "Everyone who disagrees with me is a racist" line of smearing.
A little distinction between antisemites who have associated themselves with this theory and the contents of the theory itself may help to resolve this.
Thank you for your consideration. 27.34.64.150 (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I imagine that many people will read this article as more of the, "Everyone who disagrees with me is a racist" line of smearing.
Those people have already made up their minds. I don't care to bash my head against the wall trying to convince them otherwise. It's the classic "You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into."
The theory itself is rooted in antisemitism. Individual proponents may not be antisemites, but they've latched onto an antisemitic conspiracy theory. This is not "guilt by association," as you keep parroting, as we are not branding all people who believe the theory as antisemites. That's an assumption you have made, with no merit. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that you have yet to provide a source explaining how the theory itself is antisemetic. It has nothing to say about Judaism or the Jewish people.
This is like claiming the Volkswagen beetle is rooted in antisemitism. 27.34.64.150 (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
There are many such sources in the article, helpfully collected in the section titled 'Antisemitism'. You may access them by clicking on the little numbers. MrOllie (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
(e-c) Do we have any articles on boots whose sources document an undisputed connection between boots and antisemitism? If not, your analogy does not hold - on enwiki, we are supposed follow the highest quality RS available on each topic, rather than inventing our own standards of Truth(tm). Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 8 August 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.

Unfair depiction

"which has captivated several alt-right figures including [Donald] Trump, Jordan Peterson"- I believe this is an unfair characterisation of both these figures. I would have searched the source for explanation, but it's paid content. I believe the term should be changed to right-wing rather than alt-right. 31.125.85.28 (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Please don't think that I am being rude by referring you to the FAQ. It is a frequently asked question.
DanielRigal (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Donald Trump and Jordan Peterson are both figures who are associated as being "alt-right". Jordan Peterson essentially emerged as an anti-leftist talking head, went on Joe Rogan to defend "The boys from kekistan" and is a member of the "intellectual dark web" (an alt-right group).
Donald Trump... I mean, he's basically the leader of the alt-right, isn't he?
But all of this is besides the point as the part of the article you have a problem with is a QUOTE. Wikipedia is just reporting someone's opinion/statement. It's not being said in Wikivoice as if it's fact, or from Wikipedia's perspective. We can't change what someone else has said or written. We simply report it if it qualifies as a reliable source on a topic.... and Stuart Jefferies is somewhat of an expert on The Frankfurt School conspiracy theory.. 220.235.234.196 (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a great point. And we have other analysis of Peterson's use of this or other terms in the article for balance. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Why is it an unfair characterization? Because it implies they're antisemites? We actually have other sources – used by the article! – that say e.g. Peterson isn't anti-semitic; see the "Popularization" section, where the article says something about Peterson that seems to conflict with the quote you're complaining about. *gasp* how can reliable sources conflict? Surely they must all be correct! It turns out a lot of sources like to use magical powers to determine beliefs that someone else has never endorsed or even outright repudiated. It's weird. But, here we are: this isn't the only WP article messed up by this. I'm not really sure how to address it; WP is just going to say what RS say – that's our brand, right? There's a broader problem here in this article wrt. RS: it's a lot more interesting to talk about anti-semitic use of this phrase than it is to talk about how tons of conservatives/etc use the phrase (imprecisely?) to talk about critical theory or whatever, so there are probably more RS that talk about how this phrase is used by anti-semitic conspiracy theorists even though the other meaning is probably far more common. (To its credit this article does mention the other meaning, but I seriously doubt the actual balance of usage justifies redirecting cultural marxism to this page – but like what else would we redirect it to? Western Marxism maybe? Critical theory? We have a lot of very similar articles, which I think is a related problem.)
Side note about the above: Peterson talks a *lot* about the topic described by this article as 'Cultural Marxism' is sometimes treated as synonymous with the 'Critical Theory' that originated in the Frankfurt School – but Peterson almost always calls it "postmodernism". (This is what the "Popularization" section discusses.)
Also consider that "alt-right" has a few different definitions, so e.g. saying Trump is alt-right may or may not be accurate depending on which definition you use. I think calling Trump and Peterson alt-right is using a quite unusual definition that has fallen out of favor, though. (Tons of "alt right" (as in, white supremacist/antisemitic) writers really don't like Peterson, FWIW.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
According to the alt-right Wikipedia article, not all members of the alt-right are automatically anti-semetic:

Some alt-rightists are antisemitic, promoting a conspiracy theory that there is a Jewish plot to bring about white genocide, although other alt-rightists view most Jews as members of the white race.

As noted above Jordan Peterson has previously affiliated himself with alt-right groups ("boys from kekistan", "Intellectual Dark Web"), as well as sharing stories which endorse a belief in the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, for instance he's shared the DailyCaller article "Cultural-Marxism is Destroying America, and the stated that Radical Feminism is "Marxism in yet another guise". More recently he's titled one of his podcast videos "How Marxism is Disguised as Woke Morality". So there's plenty of grounds for his inclusion in the article. 220.240.157.160 (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The fact that the far right has recast the conspiracy theory from overtly to implicitly anti-Semitic does not mean it is not anti-Semitic. As described by Human Rights First, it is a "diluted version" of an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that does not "explicitly name Jews but use dog whistles and historical anti-Jewish tropes."
Incidentally, the conspiracy theorists did not adopt the term "cultural Marxist" from critical theory literature, but merely updated the term "cultural Bolshevism," which had been used by the Nazis.
TFD (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
That's a whole lot of mind reading imo. 70.80.175.232 (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
There's a lot of that in articles like this. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
A whole lot of what? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory/Archive_23&oldid=1180697911"