Jump to content

Talk:Frankfurt School/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2018

The entire section labelled "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory" is political, dishonest, deliberately pejorative, emotionally-manipulative and wrong. Take this quote from the section (quoted with approval to back up the conspiracy theory claim):

The message is numbingly simplistic: all the ills of modern American culture, from feminism, affirmative action, sexual liberation and gay rights to the decay of traditional education and even environmentalism are ultimately attributable to the insidious influence of the members of the Institute for Social Research who came to America in the 1930's.

Believing that something is attributable to an insidious influence can in no way be equated with a conspiracy theory. I suppose it may be possible to find some oddballs out there who genuinely believe that the spread and success of Cultural Marxism is attributable to some kind of sinister conspiracy (by some weird Doctor Evil somewhere?), but I have never encountered anyone who thinks this, and that certainly is not what the great majority of Conservative critics of Cultural Marxism believe. Yes many of them do indeed talk about the insidious influence of ideas that originated at the Institute for Social Research, and may think that these ideas have spread like a virus or a plague. But that is completely different from believing in a conspiracy theory, which implies that the whole thing is controlled either by the government or by a small group of powerful actors.

This section should be relabelled as "Conservative Criticism of Cultural Marxism", and the content should be rewritten to describe the perfectly reasonable Conservative view of Cultural Marxism as a fundamentally anti-Western ideology. This should be articulated in moderate, unbiased and unemotive language. References to such ideas as "numbingly simplistic" (when quoted with approval) are also biased, inappropriate and dishonest (given that the Conservative critics are given no chance to develop their case) and should be removed. Simon3012 (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please feel free to join the discussions on Cultural Marxism which seem to take up pretty much this entire talk page (and the majority of the 13 archive pages that came before). ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


Believing that something is attributable to an insidious influence can in no way be equated with a conspiracy theory. Yes it can, it's almost the definition of a conspiracy theory. From the "Barkun's three types" section of the Conspiracy Theory page:
"Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. The goals are sweeping, whilst the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, Communism, or the Catholic Church."
The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is exactly this; the claim is that the insidious "communists" at The Frankfurt School infiltrated academia and Hollywood in order to subvert and destroy western civilization. They did not. In fact, The Frankfurt School's main statement (back in the 1940s when they were most active) was that human values, western values, and particularly the high arts were already being eroded by capitalism, mass production and pop-culture. Hence their concept "The Culture Industry".
"but I have never encountered anyone who thinks this" - your personal anecdotes and experiences are not reliable sources under Wikipedia's policies, rules and guidelines. Wikipedia is based on what's published, to express a notable authors viewpoint, and what's published in peer reviewed, editorial or reliable sources, in order to describe the facts of the matter (as determined by experts in related fields).
Yes many of them [conservatives] do indeed talk about the insidious influence of ideas that originated at the Institute for Social Research, and may think that these ideas have spread like a virus or a plague. - yes they would be the oddballs who do in fact think there's an insidious conspiracy theory afoot. However, if you actually read The Frankfurt School you can see that they were simply academic Sociologists, participating in the intellectual freedoms that have aided Western Civilization since formal educations inception. Their ideas are not particularly extreme, and aren't particularly linked to today's politics. For example, the 2nd generation Frankfurt School thinker Jurgen Habermas is well known for his critiques of Post Modernism... and the Frankfurt School influenced thinker Nancy Fraser is well known (in fact built her career on) critiquing Identity Politics. So this claim that The Frankfurt School's ideas are widespread or particularly influential in today's politics is pretty easy to debunk.
Yes many of them do indeed talk about the insidious influence of ideas that originated at the Institute for Social Research, and may think that these ideas have spread like a virus or a plague. But that is completely different from believing in a conspiracy theory, which implies that the whole thing is controlled either by the government or by a small group of powerful actors. Powerful actors, as they claim The Frankfurt School were. You keep contradicting yourself. First there are no believers in an insidious conspiracy theory, except for those odd balls who DO believe The Frankfurt School were like a virus or a plague. Now believing that is completely different than thinking a small group of powerful actors are spreading their influence like a virus or a plague? You keep denying the conspiracy theorist view then immediately providing it as if it were fact.
This section should be relabelled as "Conservative Criticism of Cultural Marxism", and the content should be rewritten to describe the perfectly reasonable Conservative view of Cultural Marxism as a fundamentally anti-Western ideology. For starters Cultural Marxism isn't an Ideology. More importantly I've not read a conservative who understands what the (incredibly rare) academic usage of "Cultural Marxism" IS. So let me clear it up: In short, "Cultural Marxism" is an element of Critical Marxism (that is to say, the sections of Marxism which critique capitalism as opposed to proposing alternatives/economic-utopias). It is instead specifically critical of the mass produced aspects of capitalist culture, claiming that a standardization of goods leads to a standardization of people. It's also critical of the qualities of culture created via mass production. In The Frankfurt School's case, this is reflected in Enlightenment as Mass Deception (1944), The Culture Industry, Horkheimer's attacks on the reductionism of humanity and humanism into numbers or scientific outcomes (which he claims forms a new kind of mythology of capitalism) - and any number of other ideas put forth by them. In the case of The Birmingham School, "Cultural Marxism" refers to ideas like massification, and cultural drift. In the case of Thompsonian Cultural Marxism, it mostly refers to the standardization of education causing the Labor history (discipline) to be marginalized (even though it's a valuable aspect for historical studies). As you can see, "Cultural Marxism" is a critical rejection of the mass production, and standardization of capitalist culture and The Culture Industry... I've not seen any conservatives critique this definition. This is what academics mean when they say "Cultural Marxism". But I have seen plenty of Conservatives critique a straw-man version of the academic meaning (and hence peddle a conspiracy theory).
the Conservative critics are given no chance to develop their case - it is not up to Wikipedia to give conservatives a safe space to develop their case, or to reflect it in a positive light if it doesn't line up with the facts of the matter. Doing so would in fact be against the rules, specifically against WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. Wikipedia is not a place to launch an ideological battle on behalf of conservatives. If conservatives did better research, they could make a better case - the fact that they fail at the basics is not Wikipedia's problem. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on WP:RS reliable sources. It is not a political WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Jobrot (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Equation of 'Insidious Influence' with 'conspiracy theory'

Jobrot asserts the following:
  • Believing that something is attributable to an insidious influence [is] almost the definition of a conspiracy theory
There’s a lot more I could say about Jobrot’s response, but this seems to me to be the nub of the matter so I won’t bother with the rest.
Forgive my ignorance of how Wikipedia works, but I presume that it isn’t just down to Jobrot to determine the contents of this Wikipedia article? And if others are involved, can I ask – are you OK with this? “Insidious influence” is almost the definition of a conspiracy theory?
For interest, this is how Wikipedia defines "conspiracy theory":
"A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors" (my emphasis). See Conspiracy Theory.
In other words, ideas alone can never in themselves constitute a conspiracy. “Conspiracy theory” implies conspirators – actual people conspiring and acting. It is true that the Wikipedia page identifies 5 kinds and 3 types of conspiracy theory. But all of them, including the systemic type that Jobrot refers to, require that there be conspirators (in the systemic case, Barkun talks about “a single evil organisation”).
If it be agreed that ideas, however influential, can never in themselves constitute a conspiracy, it takes considerably more evidence than the current Wikipedia article provides to show that anyone believes in a Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory – let alone the extraordinary (albeit implicit) claim that all critics of Cultural Marxism do so.
So, again, can I ask that everyone who has any role at all in the editorial control of this page, indicate whether they agree or disagree with Jobrot’s understanding of what a conspiracy theory is.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon3012 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not solely up to my determination. It's a combination of Wikipedian consensus, Wikipedia policy and reliable outside sourcing WP:RS, all of which have to relate to the topic (preferably explicitly, preferably from the field of Sociology). What do you think "Cultural Marxism" is by the way? You've already said you think it's an ideology - can you point to any self-described "Cultural Marxists"? Can you tell us what you think the ideology is? Any political parties or politicians who claim to be Cultural Marxists? I can show you sources for my point of view (as well as all the statements made in the current section), can you do the same? Is any of what you're claiming reflected in notable and reliable sources on the matter? --Jobrot (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The advocates of the conspiracy theory claim that "cultural Marxists" work together and therefore are conspirators. TFD (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Please vote now! Does 'insidious influence' equal 'conspiracy theory'?
Jobrot says that "insidious influence" equals "conspiracy theory". The whole justification for the "conspiracy theory" claim in the article hangs on this, because not one iota of evidence is produced to support anything other than a belief by some critics in the insidious influence of the ideas that came out of the Frankfurt School.
If, as Jobrot says, it is a matter of consensus, then everyone needs to state their view. Please do so. Do you or do you not agree with Jobrot that believing that something has had an "insidious influence", makes you a conspiracy theorist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon3012 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Consensus was already formed, first on page 5 of the archives, under the heading "Please make the section heading CM not CT" and then later re-affirmed on page 10. Also, there's no need to attack me personally - Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative effort based on the ideas and arguments, not based on attacking individual users. You should have an editorial goal in mind here, this page is not for general discussion or to enact grudges.
The whole justification for the "conspiracy theory" claim in the article hangs on this - no it doesn't. There are already numerous academic sources in the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" section which support describing it as a conspiracy theory. You might want to stop being so oppositional and ask some questions about how to do what you're attempting here. Maybe even try to answer some of my previous questions? --Jobrot (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"Cultural Marxism" is a term that is used by different people in different ways. Some people view it as a conspiracy; other people view it as an ideology comparable to ideologies such as neoliberalism, libertarianism, paleo-conservatism, etc. Such ideologies have their leading thinkers and their intention is for their ideologies to become broadly influential. The problem with this article is that it fails to recognize this simple fact. Teishin (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Probably because your assertion lacks evidence found in reliable sources. There is no organized ideology known as "Cultural Marxism" so there can be no intention to spread it. The false assertion that there is an organized or concerted movement to spread an ideology by that name is exactly what makes it a conspiracy theory. You can't just invent an ideology then invent the idea that there's a group intent on spreading it, without any evidence, and expect to be taken seriously. All the evidence points to it being a conspiracy theory. The people who come to this page to argue otherwise have consistently failed to provide any reliable evidence. The best you can do is fabrication; which (to repeat myself) is part of why it's a conspiracy theory. Because it's a theory which fabricates a conspiracy. --Jobrot (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
To my above point, I could propose that there's a common origin and ideology displayed by people who come to this page and argue with me. I could label it "Fabtology" - I could use the term to describe the values of the people who come here. Constructing an ideology around those values. I could come up with some grand theory about how it unifies you all, about its origins, and about how it's responsible for your "brainwashed" behaviours. But that doesn't make it so. That doesn't mean it's real, or reliably evidenced. It just makes it a weird little conspiracy theory that has a specific label, and that I have conceived of it as being "true". But it's not accurate or real in terms of your intent, or of the outside world beyond my little, newly formed and biased, viewpoint... and Wikipedia is not a catalogue of unsourced opinions, biased viewpoints or fictional ideologies. It's an encyclopedia of facts from reliable sources... so try to re-write and re-label history, and the intentions and politics of public figures all you like; it will not be allowed here. No more than "Fabtology" will be. This is nothing personal. It's just how Wikipedia is intended to work. The policies and guidelines are here to protect Wikipedia's credibility as a reliable and unbiased source of information. --Jobrot (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


"Cultural Marxism" is a synonym for neo-Marxism—of which the disgusting and sinister postmodern garbage ideologies of Critical Race Theory, "intersectionality," sociology, third-wave feminism, gender ideology, Islamo-Leftism, left-wing anti-Zionism, and many other "progressive" ideologies are members. It is quite obvious they are all connected. The postmodernism article even says it is derived from neo-Marxism; the neo-Marxism article says Frankfurt School is neo-Marxist; the CRT and gender studies articles say they are heavily influenced by postmodernism; most academics of these garbage far-left propaganda ideologies self-identify as Marxists; the leading theorists and adherents of third-wave feminism and gender studies overlap and many are raving mad anti-Semitic bigots; all of these related ideologies claim to be anti-racist yet openly discriminate against Jews and white people. They indeed have infiltrated universities, academia, most left-wing political parties in the West, and are actively working to destroy Western civilization (does the absurd postmodernist notion that there are infinite genders and a man with a penis can magically become a woman if he thinks it ring any bells?). It's not exactly a conspiracy because it is out in the open and obvious to all. They are working to actively advance and transform/destroy society with their neo-Marxist ideology the same way religious groups and political organizations work to advance and transform society with their respective ideologies, yet criticism of those movements aren't labeled as conspiracy theories.
Jordan Peterson is a prominent critic of neo-Marxism, postmodernism, and their powerful and disturbing grip on the social sciences in recent years, yet he is not mentioned in the cultural Marxism section of this article. A pity. You should take a look at his work.—2606:6000:FD0A:FB00:F1FE:3779:9231:134A (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
We already have pages for Neo-Marxism, Postmodernism, Critical Race Theory, intersectionality, sociology ect... Cultural Marxism is none of these, and is a specific academic designation only applied to three groups/theorists; 1) The Frankfurt School, 2) The Birmingham School, and 3) E.P. Thompson. It is applied to these three specifically because they all made critiques of mass-production and standardization as elements of capitalism's effects on culture and society. The Frankfurt School critiqued this standardization via The Culture Industry, The Birmingham School critiqued massification and cultural drift, and E.P. Thompson critiqued the standardization of history as a subject taught in the mass education system, offering his own unique valorization of Labor History as an antidote. So to make it as clear as possible; "Cultural Marxism" in terms of the academic sources and usages, refers to these specific critiques of the effects of capitalism's standardized modes of production on culture. Critiques made by these specific theorists.
As far as my research on the academic usage goes, it has only been applied to these three specific groups. So your claims that it's a synonym for much wider or later movements has no academic merit or sources. You've presented no WP:RS evidence for your claims having any merit (political diatribes do not count as evidence on Wikipedia, see WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RS).
Further more your describing of the above linked subjects as "disgusting and sinister" or "garbage" makes it very unlikely that you have any chance of serious input into the subject - as it shows you're incapable of separating your feelings from the facts, and probably unfamiliar with the subject at hand (or how to research it to Wikipedia's standards). Someone not well versed in correct reliable sourcing WP:RS, or interested in these subjects (particularly the subject of Sociology, the greater container subject for The Frankfurt School) - should not be editing these pages. Indeed, your view of Western civilization as "at risk" from ideas alone, shows a censorious and ideologically motivated approach which will do you no good here. You clearly fear open and well researched discussion, and are unaware that open and free intellectual discussion of ideas is in fact a KEY ELEMENT OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION'S DEVELOPMENT. Not something to be afraid of.
...and that's not even touching on the fact that Jurgen Habermas of The Frankfurt School is actually THE key academic critic of post-modernism, or that Nancy Fraser (a Frankfurt School aligned Critical Theorist) is a key and longstanding critic of Identity Politics and of third wave feminism.
I am entirely familiar with Jordan Peterson, and his Jungian approach of starting with the end result, only to then work back to make theoretical conclusions about a subject's subconscious or "true" intent - and it has no place here, nor in any other research based or fact based discussion. It's completely (and purposefully) illogical, backwards, and subjective as an approach. Jungian approaches such as JP adopts should be confined to psychological commentary and narrative analysis, and even there the approach is still entirely subjective, and dependent on the analysts assumptions/worldview/framing, as well as the subject's post-hoc (hindsight) agreement.
In short, your approach, your viewpoint, your wanton display of ignorance and disrespect, will get you no where. Wikipedia is not here to describe inaccurate and false conspiracy theories/terms as if they are fact. It is not here to describe neologisms (Seriously, see WP:NEO). YOUR personal beliefs about the term are not important here, in fact, they are specifically to be eschewed under WP:OR. Wikipedia is to present the most accurate possible viewpoint on a subject, in accordance with expert and reliable sources. Not to parrot biased sources as if factual, or to replicate the views of pop-psychologists. I suggest you mature your viewpoint on the subject if you wish to participate here. You can start by reading this, do you know anything about Adorno? A pity. You should take a look at his work. --Jobrot (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Jobrot, I admire your eloquency, but you are wasting your time. The anonymous is not Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. Dimadick (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, think I'll retire now anyways. Bye everyone! --Jobrot (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Jobrot, what I was trying to convey is that the term "cultural Marxism" used by most conservatives refers to a somewhat different but related subject than what far-left academics use. Most aren't even referring to the Frankfurt School when they use the term. In short, "cultural Marxism" has different meanings just like many words in the dictionary because English is an evolving language. Furthermore, you appear to be offended by my descriptions of neo-Marxism and ideologies which reject biological facts and logic as "garbage" and "insidious." Would you also be offended if someone were to describe neo-Nazism in similar harsh terms? For neo-Nazism and neo-Marxism are equally evil, racist, nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voleedams (talk • contribs) 21:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times opinion piece, and moving the section

I saw this come up. To provide some background, last September, I initiated a deletion review per newer sources about the conspiracy theory as seen here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 6. The discussion closed with no consensus to overturn deletion, but the closing admin stated there could be further discussion elsewhere. I believe the above link strengthens the case for a standalone article about the conspiracy theory, especially in addition to the fact that this article's related section is bloated and mixes the academic concept and the conspiracy theory into a muddled mess. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are generally not considered reliable sources, hence they do not establish notablity. Furhermore, all the author says about cultural Marxism is that it is a modern revision of the Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory and quotes a number of right-wing people who apparently believe in it. TFD (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The point of sharing the link is to show that the conspiracy theory is being discussed in the mainstream. I do not find the arguments against a standalone article to be very convincing. It is clear to me that such an article can be more than a stub and be covered on its own. As I've said elsewhere, the process will indeed be messy, but we should not avoid covering it directly. If anything, it does this article a disservice to have so much fringe-type material under it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Moving (be it via editing redirect or not) the Cultural Marxism section to a new article so it can be re-written to have a clearer distinction between Cultural Marxism (the serious left wing political philosophies/philosophers involving The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, Richard Hoggart, and E.P. Thompson), and (and as opposed to) the Right Wing conspiracy theory (and its related history/birth on the scene). Please note; no one has suggested legitimizing the right wing theory, so the tone of the section shouldn't be changed at this crucial junction. I have in fact tried to make this distinction more clearly before, but now I believe there are WP:COATRACK policy grounds for doing so.
I believe there are grounds for doing so because the term "Cultural Marxism" has since become a series of news events... and one thing Wikipedia does is document news events. We can either have these crop up and be added (if important enough) ending up with a WP:COATRACK, or we can nip it in the bud now, and just have a better page. Here's my limited pre-existing attempt to document sources of how this term has entered the news media over time... and of course there have been larger and more recent stories, like the NYT op-ed, the Ron Paul cartoon tweet and the Rich Higgins NSA memo/firing. I think the earliest valid news story is about the alt-right claiming that new Star Wars is Cultural Marxist propaganda back in 2015. Anyways, it's had lots of media coverage, so I'm in favour of the topic having its own article. I believe we're all looking for further clarity. Have good faith and work together, and that's what can happen. Good luck! --Jobrot (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I could potentially see a "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory" article, but I feel that given the treatment by reliable sources, any article spun off absolutely must have "Conspiracy Theory" in the title, and I would strenuously oppose the creation of any article that doesn't as violating WP:FRINGE, or any article addressing the term in a different context. We have enough sources to support an article on the conspiracy theory, as a conspiracy theory; but not for anything else. --Aquillion (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The problem is that Cultural Marxism is both a legitimate term and a conspiracy theory. It's original use was by a sympathetic scholar, and it has continued use by scholars independent of any conspiracy theory. It is a complicated issue, involving a term in wide use, and I believe it needs own article. For example: [1][2]Periander6 (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Blackford, Russell. "Cultural Marxism and our current culture wars". theconversation.com. Retrieved 7 January 2019.
  2. ^ Zubatov, Alexander. "Just Because Anti-Semites Talk About 'Cultural Marxism' Doesn't Mean It Isn't Real". Tablet Magazine. Retrieved 7 January 2019.

The lists and layout for the Theorists

Really dislike the layout for the lists of Theorists. Is it just me -- I used to do layout for a newspaper and graphic arts. Would be nice to remove some of the whitespace. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

A reply

Dear Raquel Baranow, please, do create a balanced layout. The imbalanced white space does make for difficult reading.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Did my best, I'm not too good at Wikimarkup, Chas. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey congrats

You guys are really making it easier for the right to construct their own free and unhindered ideas around the term "Cultural Marxism": https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2019/01/cultural-marxism-is-real/ ....it's all over their intellectual homes:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/cultural-marxism-in-education-a-real-thing/

https://lockerroom.johnlocke.org/2019/01/04/martin-center-column-explores-cultural-marxism/

So yeah; congrats you lot. They'll redefine it, and you guys will let The Frankfurt School be defamed into what it opposed. Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.129.66 (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to take sides. Whether an article benefits the Left or the Right should, in theory, be irrelevant. Unfortunately, most Wikipedia editors are hardcore leftists, so this results in the encyclopedia having a far-left bias. So someone like you should have nothing to complain about. The article is clearly already biased in your favor by referring to the conservative viewpoint as an "alt-right/far-right conspiracy theory." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voleedams (talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the conservative viewpoint is a conspiracy theory - because it doesn't match up to either the facts of the matter, or the academic standpoint. The facts of the matter are currently in the section, the academic standpoint within Sociology its self, is not. Which is why so many leftists come at conservatives with "That's not a thing" - when actually it is, and right now; both sides are incorrect. I'd actually say that currently, the conservative viewpoint is actually LESS incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.129.66 (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
often getting alot of the facts right, but not the spin. Or any of what the F.S. actually said. But the timeline of the facts, the conservatives get more correct than most of the left (who say it just doesn't exist as a term). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.129.66 (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is not "hardcore leftist". If you find most media and ideas outside your immediate political demographic far-left, that may say more about your own stance on the specteum. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Frankfort School.

Yo, what is going on with the Frankfurt School page? I left all of your recent drastic edits up and made a few copy edits. Like how was correcting the publishing date of a book from "(0000)" to "(1994)" not an improvement? And I changed Kulturbolshewismus to Cultural Bolshevism, but why do you think it should be written in German? Pokerplayer513 (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@User:Chas. Caltrop is this a response? I made other edits as well. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
A reply

Dear Colleague Pokerplayer513:

You have deliberately deleted substantiated text and the reliable sources, by blanking the section. Why? Don't you like facts? What is your pretence? Your exaggerated language about my contributions indicates edit-war prep, because you mentioned edit war . . . ahead of time. The other text, the right-wing text of opinions, weasel words, and racist innuendo about "The Jews", is factually incorrect and misrepresents the facts of the matter, by deliberately misquoting the sources. The full quotations of the anti-Cultural Marxism people (e.g. Lind and Breivik) indicate otherwise, i.e. that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory. You need not believe me, re-read the archives, you are re-visiting a dead-end argument that is approximately a decade-long in the tooth, and remains false.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Chas. Caltrop Then there's been a misunderstanding. I know that "cultural marxism" is nothing more than a conspiracy theory peddled by the far right. Having looked more thoroughly at your past edits on this page I can tell you've drastically improved the article. My only suggestion is that you add a bit more content description into your edit summaries to make things easier going forward. I'm guilty of this too, but more participation on the talk page would probably help us and future editors as well. Now onto some edit suggestions I have
1. Changing "In contemporary usage, the term Cultural Marxism..." to "The term cultural marxism..." because by removing "In contemporary usage" we eliminate the potential that someone can suggest there is also a "non-contemporary usage" (at has been done in the past).
2a I also removed things like "The anti–Marxism of Lind and Weyrich advocates" because like we both agree, their critiques aren't anti-Marxist, just anti-feminist, anti-LGBT rights, etc. The way you phrased it (imo) is not only OR, but strengthens the argument of the "cultural marxist conspiracy."
2b And generally speaking I think sometimes you phrase things as if from the perspective of the far right such as "Michael Minnicino communicated the anti–Western conspiracy of Cultural Marxism...". "Anti-western" should either be in quotes or removed just like "anti-marxist" because the Frankfurt School is only "anti-western" if you are a proponent of the conspiracy.
Let me know what you think of these edits and then we can proceed. Cheers -Pokerplayer513 (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Pardon me for intruding, but isn't Marxism itself a western ideology, purely European in origin? How could it be anti-western? Dimadick (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
^Karl Marx born in Germany, lived in France and England. A trifecta of western countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.3.179 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Dimadick, exactly. You pretty much have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe it's "anti-western" which imo doesn't even really exist.Pokerplayer513 (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The Sole Accurate description of events:

Is here (if you can look past the Peterson bashing): https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2019/03/25/39717444/jordan-petersons-idea-of-cultural-marxism-is-totally-intellectually-empty

It explains that no one can find what's meant by "genuine cultural marxism" because it never existed. It was a dust cloud left when Post-Structuralism came to be formed. The real question is; what the hell is meant by structuralism and is the 'genuine' goal to be 'post' structuralism? Habermas says no. Deleuze says yes. Marx remains long dead. --194.193.162.213 (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

In terms of the history of philosophy, he's on about the continental vs the analytic divide. French vs American, Humanities and culture vs logical postivism and science, Kantianism vs The Industrial Revolution. Gary Edwards mentions that's the division here. It's not about "the failure of Marxism" it's about the evolution of discourse in the humanities. "Cultural Marxism" was but a stage in this wider, longer academic and social discourse. --194.223.17.78 (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

See main article structuralism: "the belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure" Dimadick (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, cultural Marxism was never a real thing although references can be found where the two words are juxtaposed. But the conspiracy theory is a real thing a cultural Marxism exists in the minds of the conspiracy theorists. TFD (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Non-Antisemitic Usage

There is a longstanding use of "cultural Marxism" in American and British humanities departments:

  • “cultural Marxism” was in common use in British and American humanities departments in the 1980s and 1990s, not for anything conspiratorial but merely as a term for a certain approach to what is still called “cultural studies”. Numerous examples of that usage can be found by searching the phrase on the academic database Jstor. For instance, Ioan Davies’s history of “British cultural Marxism” in the spring 1991 issue of the International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society. The term also appears in this academic context in The Cambridge Companion to Critical Theory, published in 2004 by Cambridge University Press.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/29/how-the-term-cultural-marxism-has-been-co-opted-by-the-alt-right

Surely this should be referenced? -2a02:c7f:8ed6:3700:c17d:351:fef6:5c51 (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jobrot/sandbox/Cultural_Marxism_(culture_studies) --194.193.162.213 (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The term has received coverage several times including here or here, but it seems that every mainstream outlet links CM strictly to its conspiracy variant. You won't find non-biased editors here who are willing to build an article away from the conspirational variant, and any willing one will be pushed away. 71.197.186.255 (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

This is what I was getting at with my comments in the section above. If we are talking about what cultural marxism CONNOTES today (as appropriated by right-wing fringe groups) then shouldn't this be made clear in that it is separate from what the term, historically DENOTES? Krakaet (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The term does not historically denote anything, which is why it is a conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theorists claim something existed—an evil school of Jewish Marxists who aimed to destroy western civilization—but that thing does not and did not ever exist, which is why it is a conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.231.12 (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is sad that the guardians of this article appear to have no interest in creating an actual encyclopedia entry and are using it to attack their political opponents instead of providing a helpful, neutral overview. I don't know if there is anything we can do about it though? Too many Wikipedia articles only have enthusiasts controlling them, instead of people with a variety of views on the topic or no pre-conceived notion at all (which would be ideal). Rmm413 (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and actual encyclopedia entry is needed here. "Cultural Marxism" is now a widely used term, and its meaning varies depending on the user. Some think it is a conspiracy; others are using it broadly to refer to a collection of political and social concepts, much like how the term "neoliberalism" gets used. Teishin (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I've seen the term used in academic text books. But I don't think it's an ideology, like the right wing say it is. I've seen it used to refer to "Marxist Humanism" - but not in a formal sense. It's not "another name" for Marxist humanism, it was a brief dalliance with Marxist humanism which most in The Frankfurt School didn't explicitly agree to, or seek to move into. In fact; Fromm was kind of kicked out for pushing Marxist Humanism as the best direction for the school. The Birmingham "Cultural Marxists" are much more Marxist humanists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.236.19 (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic?

"In contemporary usage, the term Cultural Marxism refers to an anti-semitic conspiracy theory (...)".

That strikes me as rather tendentious and biased. The fact that apparently certain anti-Semitic groups or persons view cultural marxism as an insidious Jewish movement or school of thought doesn't mean that criticising it or being wary of it is per se anti-Semitic. By way of comparison: the fact that Hitler, the anti-Semite par excellence, abstained from eating meat doesn't make vegetarianism an intrinsically anti-Semitic diet.

Also, the sources quoted to back up the allegation appear to follow a dubious line of argument: cultural marxism is an off-shoot of the Frankfurt School − most of the members of this school were Jewish − criticism of cultural marxism is therefore anti-Semitic.

Do we know of any quotes from some of the most prominent critics of cultural marxism (like Jordan Peterson) where they resort to explicit anti-Semitic slurs in crticising the 'movement'? Those quotes would seem a minimum requirement to uphold the claim that "the term Cultural Marxism refers to an anti-semitic conspiracy theory". Marrakech (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the sources are more nuanced. The description is that it has anti-Semitic undertones. But then so do all conspiracy theories. TFD (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
If the sources are in fact more nuanced, then the text should reflect that, avoiding the blunt statement that "Cultural Marxism refers to an anti-semitic conspiracy theory". And also the claim about the anti-Semitic undertones, which still is quite an allegation, should be underpinned with direct quotes. Marrakech (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think Peterson ever talked about cultural Marxism, but about postmodern Marxism. Seems that he stayed out of the CM terminology specifically to avoid this mess. 71.197.186.255 (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The term Cultural Marxism is generally used by critics of the left, referring to the idea of Marxist class theory extended to include more general oppressed groups and privileged groups (women, minorities, etc), a generalization of economic oppression and privilege. I've never seen it associated with antisemitism.

I looked into some of the citations for that statement in the article, and they do not all support the claim that it is either antisemitic or even a conspiracy theory. Jackson and Shethovtsov's book merely presents the definition and discusses the push back against political correctness.

This needs attention so Wikipedia does not become too littered with politically biased propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9500:3180:4597:B5D2:FF4F:86E0 (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Since noone seems to want to do it, I just made the edit and will take the heat if anyone wants to pile it on me. It seems like the consensus here is that calling it an anti-semitic conspiracy theory is out of bounds even for the sources that are cited. I haven't seen any dissenting voices here to support the "anti-semitic conspiracy theory" language, so if someone wants to chime in (and not just auto-revert the edit), I'd love to hear your argument. Krakaet (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Richardson says "Cultural Marxism was eagerly grasped as a way of unifying and euphemising a conspiratorial, anti-Semitic political history and reformulating it as an established political history..."; Jay summarizes it by saying that 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: ...followed by a quote that unambiguously describes the term as intended to be anti-Semitic (and Jay's summary afterwards makes it clear that this is his reading.) Given that these are reasonably high-profile experts on the topic and that no reliable sources seem to disagree with them, I think it's WP:WEASEL to just say "some people say" that - things that are uncontested facts among reliable sources need to be presented that way in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Black Kite and Aquillion:Two recent sources.[1] [2]] Doug Weller talk 10:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
And so the revert war begins. Indeed, this is this person's read in his own article about the topic. Also "intended" to be anti-semitic is, indeed, an opinion. Aren't we supposed to deal with fact? Or at least what can be provable by reliable sources? Also the idea that no reliable source disagrees with them is a bit of a nonsequiter. Because someone doesn't respond to a conspiracy theory (in this case, the idea that cultural marxism is intended to be anti-semitic) doesn't mean that the conspiracy theory is true. Like I have said on other articles regarding other topics, I think it's important that if a Wikipedia article is going to define something as anything in specific, there should be a number of good sources to verify that this is true. . . not one or two persons' 'read' on a topic dependent on groups like Storm Front appropriating the term for their own usage. This is the same logic which says that because Neo-Nazis showed up at a rally to protest the removal of statues representing confederate heritage, this means that it was a Neo-Nazi rally. Dubious, at best.
To summarize: Aren't we supposed to talk about what cultural marxism is rather than what some people appropriate it to be? If the anti-semitic usage is an appropriation by fringe groups, then shouldn't this be labelled as such? Or, to put it more simply, are we talking about what the term connotes or what the term denotes? Because it seems like we are talking about the former as opposed to the latter. Krakaet (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
We determine what Cultural Marxism is using reliable sources. If you don't think those sources are right, point to ones that disagree. But the ones we have describe it as an antisemitic conspiracy theory, not one that was "appropriated" by fringe groups - again, Jay describes its overtly anti-Semitic usage by Stormfront as them "boldly expressing what had hitherto only been insinuated", and Richardson likewise explicitly describes it as intended to repackage antisemitism. These are experts on the topic, and their descriptions match how it's described in news sources today. --Aquillion (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
No, we do not determine what Cultural Marxism "is"; we explain what the term "Cultural Marxism" refers to. The term is used in different ways by different people. Only the speakers are authoritative sources of what they mean when they use the term. Teishin (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
These quotes from Richardson and Jay in no way support or justify the language actually used currently in the article. It is a true leap of logic to go from saying that some anti-Semites use the term and claiming that the use of the term is itself anti-Semitic and solely used as a made-up conspiracy theory. As it is, the article is currently skating on shaky factual ground and is rather obviously and aggressively biased in its wording and claims. Even the use of the term "conspiracy theory" is highly charged in what should be an unbiased article. For use of such a weighted term in an encyclopedia, agreement should be nearly universal and explicitly stated in a wide variety of sources from many different viewpoints. That was clearly not the case here. And really, terms like that are typically used to bludgeon people with unpopular views and probably shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia even if there were much more widespread acceptance of it as such. By phrasing the article in this manner, one also runs the risk of appearing to infer that all who oppose the Frankfurt School are anti-Semites, which would be highly politicized and totally unacceptable. I understand the temptation of some to write an article like this as if it were an academic article arguing a thesis and to use only one-sided sources that fit their own views, but this is simply not appropriate on Wikipedia. Rmm413 (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that that entire sub-section of this article, but especially this quote, makes a mockery of the idea that this is an encyclopedia article and not a biased exercise in cheerleading the Frankfurt School and slandering those in opposition. No discussion of political topics should only use one-sided sources (academic or not), interpret them in the most extreme and unjustified way, and be marshalled in a way to make obvious political statements. That's not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. What we have here is an attempt to use Wikipedia as a political blog, instead of treating this topic in a legitimately neutral manner as is supposed to be the case. No one, whatever their political stance, should find this acceptable. Rmm413 (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2019

After the first paragraph of the section defining "Cultural Marxism," add the following:

"This is a new definition of 'cultural marxism,' which is very different from its historical definition. The historical meaning of 'Cultural Marxism' is 'Marxism applied to cultural goals.' 'This is distinguished from the classical Marxism applied to economics or class goals. It is Marxist theory affixed to culture.'

This newer 'contemporary' definition of 'Cultural Marxism' ignores the fact that almost all cultural Marxists are not Jewish; therefore, to criticize their work of cultural Marxism cannot qualify as anti-Semitism."

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page)."Cultural Marxism and Its Conspirators" by Paul Kengor, The American Spectator, April 3, 2019. https://spectator.org/cultural-marxism-and-its-conspirators/ Briankorale (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources, as opposed to the Spectator's partisan take? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
So you offer an op-ed by a right-wing columnist for Rupert Murdoch's The Times? I said reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Orangemike, be careful not to conflate partisanship and reliability. WP:BIASED states that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Both The American Spectator and The Times are well-established publications that are generally fine for factual reporting. The issue here is weight, not reliability. Let's not send the wrong message to editors. We don't want Wikipedia to be perceived as a left-biased piece of work. feminist (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
They can be treated as reliable sources for much of their reporting; that does not make their editorials or op-eds reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Which means, your point is that they are not reliable not because of their political bias, but because they are opinion pieces. Even so, opinion pieces can be cited as opinion if the source is well-established and significant. A better way to express this argument would have been to emphasise WP:DUE weight, how the view expressed in these particular opinion pieces do not form a significant viewpoint for this particular topic, even though opinion pieces from these sources can be used in other articles as sources depending on context. feminist (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
But this issue isn't about reporting versus editorials; it is about what is meant by the term. Teishin (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but it is not about what random YouTubers (for example) mean by the term, it is about what reliable sources say the term means. The reliable sources indicate that it is a conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
There are plenty of usages in widely read media that use the term in senses different from the conspiracy theory sense. The problem is that there's this circular definition of excluding any usage different from the conspiracy theory usage by declaring it not from a reliable source, and the reason the source is deemed unreliable is because it uses the term in a different sense. Teishin (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Do you have any such reliable sources, Teishin? I for one would like to see them. My own position is not that the sense in which the term is used determines reliability, only that so far I have only ever seen the term either used to refer explicitly to the conspiracy theory, or used by believers in the conspiracy theory to describe what they believe exists (viz. Bolsonaro). It would take a reliable source - something more than Jordan Peterson speaking from his nether regions outside of his academic specialization, to convince me that there is actually some other use of the term in play. But I am willing to be convinced. Newimpartial (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Here are a bunch of recent articles, from various perspectives, explicitly debating what should be understood by the term "cultural marxism" in contemporary usage.
https://spectator.org/cultural-marxism-and-its-conspirators/
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/tory-mp-suella-braverma-not-in-any-way-antisemitic-says-board-after-productive-meeting-1.482524
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/04/01/whos-afraid-of-cultural-marxism/
https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2019/04/chloe-westley-is-it-right-to-describe-and-denounce-cultural-marxism.html
https://quillette.com/2018/06/23/cultural-marxism-explained-and-re-evaluated/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/31/stop-looking-for-gotacha-moment-in-public-debate
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Jews-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-Wests-lethal-culture-wars-585119
https://unherd.com/2019/03/is-cultural-marxism-a-myth/
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/cultural-marxism-suella-braverman-conservative-mp-antisemitism-a8842806.html
Teishin (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that whatever "cultural marxism" might happen to "be", it is just two words strung together that mean different things depending on the user. Wikipedia is not a prescriptive resource; it is a descriptive resource. This phrase is being used by many different people now and they appear to mean different things by it and have different opinions about what this abstract concept is. Teishin (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
No, the problem is that Wikipedia is ignoring actual academic uses of the term (because it's not JUST a Frankfurt School term - others have used it) in favour of beating up on a specific element of right wing politics who are INCREDIBLY incorrect (and that's the meaning you seem to be pushing; that it's leftists causing "degenerate culture"). So for now; certain nuances are lost - because Wikipedia doesn't want to "feed the trolls". This isn't a Jordan Peterson forum; it's not about to invite Nazis in. But it should probably at least mention The Birmingham School, and the fact that they both had a version of "Cultural Marxism" which was/is (academically speaking): A CRITIQUE OF CAPITALISM BECAUSE THAT'S HALF OF MARXISM. The point is Cultural Marxism is two things: A conspiracy theory. And a crique of Capitalism's mass culture.
Teishin - you want to make it into a 3rd thing it's not: Leftists Identity Politics. It's not. It's an old neomarxist critique. Stop lying about it. --194.193.49.24 (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
194.193.49.24 This is one of the most difficult pages on Wikipedia to edit. You appear to have made no editing contributions to Wikipedia, just comments about this page. Why should anyone listen to you about this matter?Teishin (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Er... because it's true. --203.220.213.230 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
All your sources prove is that there are people who believe in the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Paul Kengor teaches at a religious school, and is writing for a political outlet. This positions his commentary on the right. The topic at hand is left-wing, and is about theory, political origins, history and ideology. You don't go to the right for leftwing theory. You don't go to the left for rightwing theory. That's just not how fair description is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.236.19 (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Still nothing about the fact it was an attack on progressive politics, queer theory, and trans people?

It seems more like a deconstruction of a conspiracy theory.

It wasn't - it was a right wing cultural weapon used against vulnerable people.

Thank you. --220.245.209.8 (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

President of Brazil talks about Cultural Marxism

And this article doesn't even bother to mock him:

I am surprised nobody has decided to add this info to the article yet. 71.197.186.255 (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

How is this article STILL not discussing how a president of a major country mentioned this term? 71.197.186.255 (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Bolsonaro also calls himself a Christian, but I wouldn't add his name to the article on Jesus. You need to show that his belief in the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is significant to this topic, but all the sources are about Bolsonaro. It's not even mentioned in his article by the way. The other problem is that we do not even know if Bolsonaro is talking about the same thing as the topic of this article. Does he even know what he is talking about? TFD (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Against all reasons given for having a separate Cultural Marxism article, editors with a specific agenda have pushed for merging it here and making it sure that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory. Meanwhile, whenever prominent people talk about the term Cultural Marxism in a different context than Jews taking the West down, other people like you say that they are not talking about the same thing. Wikipedia currently blatantly implies that the term refers to a specific conspiracy theory and completely ignores the broader meanings, like the one implied by the President of Brazil. First a group of agenda-pushers define the term, then other, possibly clueless editors, come and defend that meaning even when neutral sources like Reuters talk about it. 71.197.186.255 (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
IDK what you're talking about, IP. I've read the coverage of Bolsonaro's speech, and it sounds like the same old conspiracy theory to me. Newimpartial (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what Bolsonaro was talking about and I doubt he does either. Do you know if he has written any articles or books about the subject? TFD (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Wait, now you are implying that the president of a country as large as Brazil, talking about this exact topic, is not deemed notable enough to be mentioned in the article? You are saying that using references of "scholars" with little to no peers citing them on this topic is more appropriate because they somehow got on an academic track, while a person getting 50M votes talking about this same subject is not appropriate to be covered here? 71.197.186.255 (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". ... "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." ... "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." Jair Bolsonaro has no reputation for fact-checking, nor an academic background. He used to be a military officer, serving in the artillery and as a parachutist. That gives him no expertise on the subject. He ranks well-bellow scholars as a source and his word should not be trusted. Dimadick (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Dude, half of the citations used in the conspiracy theory section are from l=journals with impact factor under 1, that means an article there almsot never gets cited. That is not peer-reviewed publication. 71.197.186.255 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
This is the humanities; they don't work like that. The differences shouldn't have to be explained to you. --203.220.213.230 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The lack of citations may reflect the lack of interest in the subject. Even Bolsonaro has said little about it. But peer-review is carried before publication, that is, before the articles can be cited. You need to familiarize yourself with Reliable sources. Or you could contribute to wikis that don't have the same content policies. TFD (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Interesting that you consider Reuters not a reliable source, but a low impact factor on a journal has no relevance to you. Keep on policing the wrongthink out of wikipedia under the pretense of content policies. /s 71.197.186.255 (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Reuters is a reliable source but that does not mean that every opinion they report is reliable. For example, in the Reuters article, "Apple, YouTube, and others drop conspiracy theorist Alex Jones", it says, "Jones has also promoted a theory that the 2012 Sandy Hook school massacre was faked by left-wing forces to promote gun control." That does not mean that according to Reuters, it was a fake massacre. TFD (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Right, but "cultural marxism" isn't a physical thing, like a massacre; it is a term applied to a concept. Different users of that term have different conceptions about what it means. Teishin (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but the Sandy Hook conspiracy theory is not a physical thing either but it is a concept. Some concepts, like the Sandy Hook conspiracy theory and cultural Marxism, exist solely within the imagination. The fact that reliable sources may report on these beliefs does not mean that the objects of belief are real. TFD (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's right, but what underlies the Sandy Hook conspiracy theory is that it is about something physical which can be determined to not have taken place. Our problem in dealing with "cultural marxism" is that speakers are using it to mean different things regarding an abstract concept. People are now using the term oblivious to and disconnected from the idea that it might have anything to do with a conspiracy or anything anti-semitic. Teishin (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
But is there any such usage that doesn't refer (implicitly if ignorantly) to the conspiracy theory? I haven't seen any. Newimpartial (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Newimpartial, did you look at the list I supplied a few days ago, above? Teishin (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Teishin, yes I have, and what I have seen is a Tory MP and some non-RS Op-eds (such as the "commie watch" columnist) arguing that their conspiracy theory is not actually a conspiracy theory, along with a little bit of both-sidesism from the broadsheets. Certainly no "evidence" that the term Cultural Marxism refers to something other than the CT (dog-whistling the CT isn't any different than explicit reference IMO). The only thing I did see was a more effective working-in of Gramscians into the conspiracy theory itself, which ought to be mentioned in the CT section of this article IMO if properly sourced. Alternatively, we could try reframing the whole "Cultural Marxism" CT around "Western Marxism", if that could be sourced: it would actually offer a more logical target for the CT than the Frankfurt School narrowly defined (c.f. Gramsci), but the conspiracy theorists themselves seem to have difficulty articulating and sourcing this argument. Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Newimpartial, based on your response it seems we're making progress towards addressing the issue I've been working to point out. If you think these references show cases of "dog-whistling" then you are expressing agreement with my fundamental point. As our colleagues who edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics point out "Dog-whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different, or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup." A term that means one thing to one group and another thing to another group has at least two meanings. The existence of more than one meaning of "cultural marxism" is exactly the point I've been making. Teishin (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
But Cultural Marxism doesn't actually have two meanings, any more than the Great Replacement has two meanings. In both cases, the difference in resonance is based on whether the singular term is understood as depicting an actual phenomenon or a CT. Newimpartial (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Teishin, I agree, there are two meanings, and should be two separate areas of Wikipedia. One for each. Cultural Marxism should have its own page, because it's essentially just an early critical theory term for new psuedo-marxist cultural critiques of the Birmingham School, Some members of The Frankfurt School (its self not coherent in philosophy) and the works of E.P Thompson. Later theorists discussed their own idea and interests in "Cultural Marxism" but really just as the term was fading from interest... so yeah. This makes the problem become one of notability WP:NN for the Critical Theory term "Cultural Marxism".
The best way to work this out, would be to look at Trent Schroyer's original intended usage, and go from there. Work for a long long time on Multiple revisions of a well sourced, well edited draft making the term and its distinctions all clarified and legitimate (including each perspective of CM under different headings). Try to mimick neoliberalism or Trickle-down economics (similar neologisms that ARE allowed). Take the final version of your draft (the best version in terms of accepted sourcing) to the deletion review board, and contact the admin Black Kite (who salted the previous article) - argue that you (and the topic) deserve a fair trial and set "conditions of fact" namely that when you meet certain proof-criteria they will allow you to at least create an imperfect draft of the new article (aka moving your draft into namespace, which they can do for you). That's the best advice I can give you as someone who understands the rules here. --Jobrot (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


The Guardian article says, "Jair Bolsonaro has chosen a new foreign minister who believes climate change is part of a plot by “cultural Marxists” to stifle western economies and promote the growth of China."[3] That's a conspiracy theory. Of course not every mention will be that explicit, but may be implicit. TFD (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:NEO--Jobrot (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frankfurt_School/Archive_16&oldid=1083513400"