Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

Cultural Marxism

'Cultural Marxism refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory'

Response:

The characterization of 'Cultural Marxism' as a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory serves as a means to discredit & cancel legitimate criticisms of Marxist ideology.

While Antonio Gramsci never explicitly coined the term 'Cultural Marxism,' it accurately represents principles within his neo-Marxist philosophy.

This characterization mirrors the approach often taken towards critiques of Critical Race Theory, whereby dissenting voices are categorized as racism. GaryI1965 (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I there any argument, evidence or source supporting those claims? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Are any of the supporting citations from credible sources? You want to electric fence criticism of criticism based on criticism... and need us to critique your criticism of our criticism of your criticism?96.59.79.27 (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

«The characterization of 'Cultural Marxism' as a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory serves as a means to discredit & cancel legitimate criticisms of Marxist ideology.» => Because you say so? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Are articles from The Atlantic, The Telegraph, BBC News, Huff Post, The Conversation, SPLC, the Tab, The Jewish Chronicles, VICE, Rewire News Group, the New York Times, the Guardian reliable academic sources? Proconsul74 (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

You should know how to figure that out by reading Wikipedia policies (eg. WP:RS), not by asking others. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:3DBC:CC54:C7EC:7FDE (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not an answer to my question. You misplaced your comment or you try to move the discussion away from GaryI1965's «source: trust me bro» statement. As for your question: No, articles from The Atlantic, The Telegraph, BBC News, Huff Post, The Conversation, SPLC, the Tab, The Jewish Chronicles, VICE, Rewire News Group, the New York Times, the Guardian are not reliable academic sources because those are not academic sources. Here the academic sources about the Cultural Marxism narrative (in no specific order):

• Jérôme Jamin, Anders Breivik et le marxisme culturel : Etats-Unis/Europe, Amnis, https://journals.openedition.org/amnis/2004
• Jérôme Jamin, Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right, The Post-War Anglo-American Far Right, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137396211_4
• Jérôme Jamin, Cultural Marxism: A survey, Religion Compass, https://doi.org/10.1111/rec3.12258
• Tanner Mirrlees, The Alt-right's Discourse on "Cultural Marxism": A Political Instrument of Intersectional Hate, Atlantis, https://journals.msvu.ca/index.php/atlantis/article/view/5403
• Martin Jay, Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment: The Frankfurt School as Scapegoat of the Lunatic Fringe, Salmagundi, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41638676
• Andrew Woods, Cultural Marxism and the Cathedral: Two Alt-Right Perspectives on Critical Theory, Critical Theory and the Humanities in the Age of the Alt-Right, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-18753-8_3
• Rachel Busbridge, Cultural Marxism: far-right conspiracy theory in Australia’s culture wars, Social Identities, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504630.2020.1787822
• Joan Braune, Who's Afraid of the Frankfurt School? 'Cultural Marxism' as an Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory, Journal of Social Justice, http://transformativestudies.org/publications/journal-of-social-justice/past-issues-jsj/journal-of-social-justice-volume-9-2019/
• Andrew Lynn, Cultural Marxism, The Hedgehog Review, https://hedgehogreview.com/issues/the-evening-of-life/articles/cultural-marxism
• John Richardson, 'Cultural Marxism' and the British National Party, Cultures of Post-War British Fascism, https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/10.4324/9781315727257-12
• Robles & Berrocal, Conspiración y meme en la alt-right. Notas sobre el mito del marxismo cultural / Conspiracy and Meme on the Alt-right: Notes on the Myth of Cultural Marxism, Re-visiones, https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=7211207

As far as i know, this list is complete until 2023. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that list.

Not one of those academic sources refer to it as an "antisemitic conspiracy theory". Not one of them even mentions antisemitism, at least in their abstracts. Even if we assume these 10 papers with only a few citations each are the only valid sources and represent a meaningful academic consensus, they contradict the opening paragraph.

Basically, it appears even the academic sources agree with the wall of text below when he says C. It cannot be stated with any definitive authority that the present-day controversy on “cultural marxism” is inherently anti-semtitic, as the subject of discussion is in no way inherently related to Judaism, is not hostile towards Jewish people, and is not hostile towards Jewish beliefs. The subject of controversy in "cultural marxism" debates is Marxism, not Judaism. See Sources 5, 7, and 10."

Even the two sources for the opening paragraph that mention antisemitism don't state it definitively. There's a Journal of Social Justice article which starts (emphasis mine): "This article argues that “Cultural Marxism” is an antisemitic conspiracy theory...", and the Jay Martin Salmagundi magazine column alleging dog-whistles in a 1999 documentary he interviewed for: "Although there is scarcely any direct reference to the ethnic origins of the School's members, subtle hints allow the listener to draw his own conclusions about the provenance of foreigners who tried to combine Marx and Freud, those giants of critical Jewish intelligence. .... One can even quite innocently mention that the Frankfurt Schoolers had to leave Germany in 1933 because "they were to a man, Jewish," as William S. Lind does." Perhaps these would be good in-text citations in the Antisemitism section.

But even in the academic sources, there is no justification for the "antisemitic conspiracy theory" characterization in the lede, nor this article's inclusion in Category:Antisemitism. Though I'm open to hear what I'm missing, I really think this is a nail on the coffin & we should make these changes immediately. ParanoidAltoid (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You are making entirely unsubstantiated claims here, apparently without reading the sources in question. Each of these sources presents the "Cultural Marxism" trope as antisemitic and/or a conspiracy theory, and most of them depict it as both. Your suggestion that Braune and Jay somehow do not give evidence for the antisemitism they plainly attribute to the CMCT - well, that is a level of quibbling, or rather original research, that is discouraged by English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, Each of these sources presents the "Cultural Marxism" trope as antisemitic and/or a conspiracy theory yes to conspiracy theory, no to antisemitic. I'm taking issue with the latter, sorry my wording made that unclear, please reread my comment with that clarified.

To state it clearly: The lede definitively states that it is antisemitic, despite none of the sources doing so. Those 10 articles above don't even present it as antisemitic, eg Busbridge starts with

"As a conspiracy promoted by the far-right, Cultural Marxism has gained ground...". It presents it as a conspiracy theory, it presents it as far-right, but like all 10 of those sources, antisemitism isn't even mentioned in the abstracts. The closest thing we have is an article that "argues" it is an antisemitic conspiracy theory, still stopping short of the opening sentence's wording, even if we pretend that a single <10 citation Journal of Social Justice article should dictate our presentation, in contradiction to every other source.

And, to offer some original research, this article should mention the antisemitic associations of proponents of the conspiracy theory. In its extreme forms, it alleges that a cabal of powerful subversive elites successfully conspired to change society in order to undermine Christian values. It dubs the culprits "Marxists" instead of just "Jews", yet this extreme form is structurally identical to Jewish conspiracy theories and would of course appeal to a similar crowd, as some academics have noted. Antisemites trying to launder their conspiracy theory would especially be drawn to this, as Jay Martin eloquently describes in his magazine article.

This is why there's an Antisemitism section. But it's just definitionally untrue to call it "an antisemitic conspiracy theory", even the most partisan academic sources don't call it "an antisemitic conspiracy theory". Neither should we. 2001:56A:F903:9100:A520:A7B3:78ED:E5D8 (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are you using the content of the abstract as a criterion for the sources? What matters is the content of the source as a whole. And in the Jay and Braune sources, for example, it is abundantly clear that the CMCT is antisemitic.

Also note that the "far right" in the United States is generally antisemitic by definition, so it should be unsurprising that sources describing the theory as "far-right" in the abstract go on to identify antisemitic tropes in the article body text.

Further, your distinction between sources presenting the CMCT as antisemitic and arguing that it is antisemitic is, as I said before, a level of OR quibbling (or hair-splitting) that enwiki P&Gs just doesn't allow us to do, much less use to make article content decisions. It isn't really helpful to discuss such personal theories on article Talk pages. Newimpartial (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Your suggestion that Braune and Jay somehow do not give evidence for the antisemitism they plainly attribute to the CMCT - well, that is a level of quibbling, or rather original research This just isn't what I claimed. They do give some evidence of antisemitic beliefs among some CMCT proponents, which can be included in the Antisemitism section. They don't dub it as "antisemitic." What you'd have to argue is that the articles didn't go far enough in straightforwardly dubbing it as an "antisemitic conspiracy theory", and Wikipedia should rectify that. This is OR.

Why are you using the content of the abstract as a criterion for the sources? The lede's verbiage is just not found in the sources, abstract or body.

Ty for taking the time to engage, this is obviously a sensitive issue & it should be hashed out. I focused on the 10 abstracts Visite fortuitement prolongée posted, because I found it pretty appalling: He argued we should throw out The Atlantic, The Telegraph, BBC News, Huff Post, The Conversation, SPLC, the Tab, The Jewish Chronicles, VICE, Rewire News Group, the New York Times, the Guardian, and instead trust his academic sources, *none of which even mentioned antisemtism*, and hoped no one would notice.

This behavior doesn't engender trust. If anyone can directly address my claims, please do so. If not, I'll submit the changes I've proposed. ParanoidAltoid (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You have not shown that these academic sources don't mention antisemitism, you have merely stated that they don't mention it in their abstracts - which is irrelevant.

You then concede that some of these sources do discuss antisemitism, but you state that they don't use the phrase "antisemitic conspiracy theory" - but this is also irrelevant.

The relevant question is, do these sources establish that the CMCT is antisemitic in its origin and meaning, which is what an "antisemitic conspiracy theory" is in this context. The consensus on this Talk page, from those who have read these sources (not only their abstracts) is that they do. If you wish to contest this consensus, the first thing you need to do is read the sources (not only their abstracts). Until and unless you do that, I'm not convinced this discussion can make any progress. Newimpartial (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I second Newimpartial's advice. For better or worse there is currently only a dozen academic articles fully dedicated to the Cultural Marxism narrative, so it is not very long to read all of them in full. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not argue that we should throw out The Atlantic, The Telegraph, BBC News, Huff Post, The Conversation, SPLC, the Tab, The Jewish Chronicles, VICE, Rewire News Group, the New York Times, the Guardian, and instead trust academic sources. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Except it isnt a recent far right Conspiracy from the 2000s because Sources PREDATING the sources quoted using a plethora of MARXIST historians ,academics and social scientists refer to "Cultural Marxism" including in the Title of a book which has chapters from many of them Dworkin, Dennis. Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies. 1 ed., Durham: Duke University Press, 1997

I tried to puit this AND a Dictiobnarty definition into the article

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/cultural-marxism_n?tab=meaning_and_use#1340965340

and it was reverted

"Cultuiral Marxism" was a widely used academic term ( including it being used by LEFT WING academics who were NOT fascists or anti semetic ) in the 1990s and this article is at pains to hide that history! This seems to be the only conspiracy theory at work here. Isaw (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

From the contributions of Eric Hobsbawm, Christopher Hill, Rodney Hilton, Sheila Rowbotham, Catherine Hall, and E. P. Thompson to those of Perry Anderson, Barbara Taylor, Raymond Williams, Dick Hebdige, and Stuart Hall, Dworkin examines the debates over issues of culture and society, structure and agency, experience and ideology, and theory and practice. The rise, demise, and reorganization of journals such as The Reasoner, The New Reasoner, Universities and Left Review, New Left Review, Past and Present, are also part of the history told in this volume.

Dworkin, Dennis. Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies. 1 ed., Durham: Duke University Press, 1997.

THey and more are cited in the opening pages of the introduction, after the preface. they are neitherRight Wing nor a conspiracy! Why are you blocking references to their published work on "Cultural Marxism" ? Isaw (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Isaw, I'm not surely how carefully you read that definition, Used depreciatively, chiefly among right-wing commentators: a political agenda advocating radical social reform, said to be promoted within western cultural institutions by liberal or left-wing ideologues intent on eroding traditional social values and imposing a dogmatic form of progressivism on society. That is the conspiracy theory/alt-right trope; it is not some competing meaning of "Cultural Marxism".

As far as your comments on Dworkin are concerned, this source has been discussed extensively (see the archives of this Talk page). Dworkin's scholarship has not been observed to be connected to the trope of the conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

But the article is redirecting from "Cultural Marxism" and presenting £Cultutasl Marxism" as ONLY being the trope of the conspiracy theory and not as the academic field in marxist history which predates anyone claiming that the ONLY and unique decinition of "Cultural Marxism" is as that of a far right conspiracy theory! It isnt! It is and was a valid established academic field of study from a long time before any modern 21st century references to the conspiract theory trope existed! Isaw (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Dworkins BOOK and the plethora of others reliable sources I provided is an accepted reliable source as to the existence of "Cultural Marxism" as a valid academic field PRIOR TO any of the later suggestions suggesting "Cultural Marxism" was a modern conspiracy theory! You can now have the Wikipedia Article having the entry "Cultural Marxism" seen as ONLY a 21st century right wing conspiracy when it was in fact a left wing academic field! Isaw (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Only a small minority of sources - either before the conspiracy theory or since - refer to any actual trend in Marxist scholarship as "Cultural Marxism" (or as "cultural Marxism", which is perhaps more clear as not being a label for a movement, but which is the main way these words are juxtaposed before the conspiracy theory). Most sources refer to other things, like "Western Marxism" or "Critical Theory" or "Marxist humanism" - or to "the cultural turn in Marxism".

According to the highest quality, recent reliable sources on the topic, references to "Cultural Marxism" in the 21st century are to the conspiracy theory/alt-right trope; they are not referring to any actual trend in 20th century (or 21st century) Marxism. This article has to follow the best sources available on its topic, and not the beliefs of editors that are not based in recent, high quality sources. Newimpartial (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

WRONG! A large number of sources over decades discussed Cultural Marxism. I have posted some of them from peer reviewed sources and academic publications covering at least a dozen widely known acvademics. Isaw (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The "highest quality" how so? and the fact you say they are "recent" actually works against your point! If the sources are recent this proves the conspiracy theory is a recent development and the original "Cultural Marxism" as an established academic field populated among others by Marxist and left leaning academics pre existed the recent conspiracy theory which seeks to circumvent and reference to the true history of "Cultural Marxism" Isaw (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, the "highest-quality sources available" are usually academic sources, as they are in this case. And the general consensus of those sources (the mainstream view) is that "Cultural Marxism" refers to the conspiracy, not the 1980s/90s minority term for "Marxist cultural analysis". Wikipedia has to reflect and follow its sources. Newimpartial (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

«A large number of sources over decades discussed Cultural Marxism.» => Correct.

It is obvious but still worth to say: During the last 10 or 20 years the mentions of the term «Cultural Marxism» by human beings have been several orders of magnitude more often referring to the conspiracytheory than to the academic field of work. During this period, from time to time a mainstream newspaper (such The New York Times or or El Pais) will mention the conspiracytheory (because a mass murder in Norway, a book by Ronald DeSantis or Project 2025) but will never mention the academic field of work. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

«Except it isnt a recent far right Conspiracy from the 2000s» => Correct. The Cultural Marxism narrative was not coined in the 2000s but in the 1990s, as explained in Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory#Origins. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

You can search the talk page archives for the various reasons and sources as to why it's classified as an Antisemitic conspiracy theory. Searching for "Antisem" should come up with plenty for you, and the section titled "Better justification needed for why this is part of the "antisemitism" series" more specifically. RecardedByzantian (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

e cultural Marxist conspiracy theory is not a legitimate criticism of Marxism, which is why it is a conspiracy theory. Unlike rational criticisms, it relies on false claims. TFD (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not a correct response to @GaryI1965, who definitely did not argue that cultural Marxism would be a criticism of Marxism. On the contrary, it is a prolongation of Marxism with other means - a softer, culturally oriented approach towards the kind of utopian equity that Marxism was projecting. Cultural Marxism is linked with Critical Theory in that it is a critical approach to liberalism (read: the West), which has in more recent decades delivered Critical Race Theory ('reverse racism' would be a good term for it too, as 'toxic Whiteness' is one of its many irrational component ideas - simply positing that the West can be entirely defined by its colonial past).

It does indeed show a strong anti-Semitic tendency, but that does not make it a conspiracy theory. Anti-Semitism was not originally as obvious within cultural Marxism as it is today, Israel being deliberately projected as an example of Western colonialism (with Jews now being 'White' too, by definition - a reversal of earlier anti-Semitic depictions of Jews).

To call cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory should therefore be suspect, as it obviously delegitimizes serious critique against it as a full-blown argumentative ideology rooted in an undeniable Marxist idealist sub-layer. It is indeed an anti-realist ideology, but anti-realist ideology is no conspiracy theory either, it is a position at the opposite end of empiricism and must be dealt with through proper argumentation. And this is being done: in fact all serious writers against 'wokism' (such as Caroline Fourest, Douglas Murray, Glenn Loury, Greg Lukianoff, Helen Joyce, Helen Puckrose, James A. Lindsay, Jonathan Haidt, Jordan B. Peterson, Susan Neiman, Thomas Sowell, and many others) are obviously serious critics of Critical Race Theory, Critical Social Justice, Intersectionality Theory, DEI, and all other related idioms - these authors are by no means dismantling a 'conspiracy theory'. Western institutions, academia, established media, cultural organisations, are largely imbued with woke ideology which has indeed some roots in Cultural Marxism (even while an anti-realist position does not need to rely on anything Marxist in order to push its political hyper-progressive agenda). Bernard.Libbrecht (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see my response to Bernard's comments below. Concerning this Comment, it consists almost entirely of original research that, according to enwiki policy, should not be allowed to affect the content of any article.

Equating "Cultural Marxism" with reverse racism and toxic whiteness is simply not documented in any reliable sources I've seen on this topic. If "Cultural Marxism" were, as Bernard alleges, a full-blown argumentative ideology, presumably some reliable sources would describe it as such and explain how it is the underlying framework for "wokism" and Critical Race Theory, Critical Social Justice, Intersectionality Theory, DEI, and all other related idioms.

To the best of my knowledge to date, such sources simply do not exist, and Bernard's anti-realist ideology uniting progressives against something ("Western values"?) is simply an original rephrasing, intentional or otherwise, of the conspiracy theory described in this article.

(As an aside, I find the anti-realist label deeply ironic in this context since the main advocates of philosophical realism in the social sciences, over the last 30 years or so, have been Marxists and post-Marxists along with many varieties of feminists). Newimpartial (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Critical Race Theory doesn't come from Critical Theory exactly, it comes from Critical Legal Studies, which comes from American Legal Realism.

"It does indeed show a strong anti-Semitic tendency, but that does not make it a conspiracy theory." - no the fact it makes a bunch of false claims about The Frankfurt School and Identity Politics is what makes it a conspiracy theory. The fact allows a myriad of unrelated movements and groups to be labelled "Marxsts!" without them necessarily stating that's their belief is what makes it a conspiracy theory. There's a bunch of things about it that makes it a conspiracy theory.

"To call cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory should therefore be suspect, as it obviously delegitimizes serious critique against" creating a strawman to knock down is never legitimate. The conservatives should have argued againt progressive politics, third and fourth wave feminism, identity politics, and the black lives matters movement if that's who they wanted to critique... but you don't just get to say "all these are now one thing with a single history and all came from The Frankfurt School - when they didn't.... then pretend like that's a reasonable or legitimate approach to critique. It's not. You can go research those various movements if you want to find out where they came from. None of them have a direct origin from the Frankfurt School, and the Frankfurt School were the progenitors of none of those movements.

Ahh yes, James A. Lindsay the social critique whose areas of academic credential are massage, and mathematics? Neither of which have anything to do with Sociology, or the history of The Frankfurt School. All you names are like that unfortunately. Many are little more than political talking heads... and a lot of them plain and simply don't mention and have never referenced "Cultural Marxism".... but I can understand you might think they have if you're perfectly happy to smear ideas, groups, and people together without checking into the facts of the matter. But that approach isn't going to work on Wikipedia. We check sources here. 2405:6E00:22EE:E12C:4535:AFEF:5286:4223 (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI WP:SIGNUP. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

«This is not a correct response to GaryI1965, who definitely did not argue that cultural Marxism would be a criticism of Marxism. On the contrary, it is a prolongation of Marxism with other means - a softer, culturally oriented approach towards the kind of utopian equity that Marxism was projecting.» => This is not a correct response to TFD, who did not argue that Cultural Marxism is not a criticism of Marxism, but that «[the] cultural Marxist conspiracy theory is not a legitimate criticism of Marxism». Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

«It does indeed show a strong anti-Semitic tendency, but that does not make it a conspiracy theory. Anti-Semitism was not originally as obvious within cultural Marxism as it is today, Israel being deliberately projected as an example of Western colonialism» => Again you are conflating and confusing the Cultural Marxism movement (the alleged conspiracy to take over the West) and the Cultural Marxism narrative, what the Cultural Marxism narrative say and the Cultural Marxism narrative itself, the in-universe perspective and the out-of-universe perspective, the signified and signifier, the the map and the territory. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

«these authors are by no means dismantling a 'conspiracy theory'.» => Of course. They are not dismantling a conspiracytheory but building a conspiracytheory. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

«Western institutions, academia, established media, cultural organisations, are largely imbued with woke ideology which has indeed some roots in Cultural Marxism» => I there any argument, evidence or source supporting those claims? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Critical theory is not a "culturally oriented approach towards the kind of utopian equity that Marxism was projecting." Instead, it is an analysis of capitalist culture from a Marxist perspective. We rightly call Cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory because it makes false claims against practitioners of critical theory.

So while critical theory ascribes pornography to capitalist exploitation, the conspiracy theorists ascribe it to a plot by critical theorists to overthrow capitalism. Of course no such plot exists except in the mind of the Nazis who invented it and people today who continue to believe it. TFD (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

ok, if "cultural Marxism" doesn't usually mean any kind of conspiracy (I agree, FWIW), what do you want to change about this article? This article is about the meaning of the term, not the non-conspiratorial meaning of it. It says so right in the title. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

If it is not a conspiracy and it is not antisemitic, it should notbe labeled as such. Tparaiso601 (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

A coordinated plan to overthrow Western civilization by corrupting its culture and replacing its citizens with foreigners is by definition a conspiracy. What else would you call it? TFD (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

What about it is antisemitic, Since you only want to answer half the question? Tparaiso601 (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

References documenting the antisemitism of the CT are already cited in the article. Perhaps start with Martin Jay. Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

ParanoidAltoid has legitimate arguements against the claim that the "conspiracy theory" is rooted in antisemitism. Tparaiso601 (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither ParanoidAltoid nor any other editor has produced evidence based in reliable sources that the conspiracy theory is not antisemitic. Only such evidence matters in deciding on article content on Wikipedia. Newimpartial (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Calling yourself impartial is, quite frankly, hysterical. Your labeling of this theory definitively a far-right, anti-semitic conspiracy theory is incredibly subjective. Tparaiso601 (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

What reliable academic sources have produced evidence that the culutural marxist theory is inherently anti-semitic? Tparaiso601 (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I have already answered this question, but - again - I would start with Martin Jay. Newimpartial (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Someone who believes those whom they label as being "alt-right" should change their thoughts and behaviors is unable to be subjective about this topic.

Keep bludgeoning though, you're quite fond of it from what I understand. Tparaiso601 (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I wopuld call it "an extension of the economic theory of Marxism into the social and cultural realm" AS I tried to usind Oxford dictionary and it and the definition was reverted

It was a term used by MARXIST academics and left wing academics back in the 1980s and 90s probably before the plethora of "conspiracy theory" publishers were even born! If it was used by left wing academics then one can not claim it is a creation of the far right!

works such as Dworkin, Dennis. Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies. 1 ed., Durham: Duke University Press, 1997.

Supported by academics such as Eric Hobsbawm, Christopher Hill, Rodney Hilton, Sheila Rowbotham, Catherine Hall, and E. P. Thompson , Perry Anderson, Barbara Taylor, Raymond Williams, Dick Hebdige, and Stuart Hall. NOT right wing academics!

and ironically from 1986 no less in the journal Sociological Perspectives

The Sociology of Sporta: Structural Marxist and Cultural Marxist Approaches

T. R. Young at that time referred to as " Professor of Sociology at Colorado State University and Director of The Red Feather Institute. His interests are in the knowledge process and the structural distortions of that process. This interest is located in a larger work in cultural Marxism:... Isaw (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

When American conspiracy theorists started writing about cultural Marxism, they were unaware the term had been used before. Whether this is because you'd have to search very hard to find any use of the term in Marxist literature or because the they had little or no knowledge of Marxist theory, I don't know. It was only later they discovered these scattered references. In fact, they named their theory as a update of cultural Bolshevism, which is what their fellow Nazi predecessors called it. TFD (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Rubbish! I posted several sources . One from the 1980s predating your LATER claims of the conspiracy theory! Publiushed in an ACADEMIC JOURNAL Sociological Persepetioves which took less than 30 seconds to find in a search. There is apple other evidence of the existance of "Cultural Marxism" in widespread academic use worldwide prior to any claims about a conspiracy theory DECADES LATER!

I even posted a book on Cultural Marxism in 1997 which drrew on academics in Australis and the US. At least a dozen of them! and if you actually read the book you would be aware these are feminist history, marxist history, and sociology scholars of a marxist leaning from BEFORE 1997 ( and that isnt MY opinion it is how they are describle in the overview to their individual publications on "Cultural Marxism" Isaw (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You posted a collection of times that the word 'cultural' appeared next to 'marxism' in print. But those are not discussions of the subject of this article. MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Rubbish! I posted a book about Cultural Marxism the term is used in the title! It isnt about hpw many times it appearewd in print! It is about the ORIGIUN of the academic field of study! Both in the book itself ( you must not have read it) and in the review in The American Historical Review, Volume 105, Issue 5, December 2000, Pages 1695–1696, https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/105.5.1695

The Author of the Book Dworkin uses the term and refers to ALL the contributors under this term and both the reviewer Chris waters and Dworkin refer to "Cultural Marxism as a coherent intellectual tradition" p. 1695 . The book itself and the WIDESPREAD academic contributions from several continents attest to the PREEXISTANT recognition of an intellectual field of Cultural Marxism which is NOT a decades later far Right Conspiracy theory! Isaw (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

In 1823, Robert Woodhouse published A Treatise on Astronomy, Theoretical and Practical. In it, he used the term 'vector' to refer to a set of scalar distances used in the calculation of orbits. But Vector (mathematics and physics) is still considered to be coined by William Rowan Hamilton, which he used as part of his discovery of the algebra of quaternions in 1843. Sometimes people use the same words to refer to a different concept. You have confused the subjects of these older books (various topics of minimal importance) with the subject of this Wikipedia article - which is the right wing conspiracy theory. Your 'sources' are simply about the wrong topics. MrOllie (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Dont be silly! If you search for the term "Cultural Marxism" in Wikipedia it redirects to THIS PAGE i.e. the ONLY reference to "Cultural Marxism" is to this Conspiracy Theory. Ironically I have worked in places where Hamilton Worked and know the Bridge on which he wrote his equations. Imagine removing Hamiltons references from history?

But we are not talking about the original use of a phrase here so much as the actual existance of an academic field! People are attempting to remove the field of "Cultural Marxism" from history and pretend it onl;y refers to a right wing conspiracy Theory. Go on then if you are so correct. Show me the Wikipedia reference pager to "Cultural Marxism as a coherent intellectual tradition"?

Where is it? Isaw (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

That some other article does not exist does not mean _this_ article should be dragged off topic. You seem very focused on particular combinations of words, but perhaps you are really looking for Marxist cultural analysis. MrOllie (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

When Dworkin talks about "Cultural Marxism as a coherent intellectual tradition" he is referring to Marxist analysis of culture, which is discussed at Marxist cultural analysis - which is disambiguated from this page. The primary designation for this field of study was never "Cultural Marxism", and there was never more than an trivial and accidental relationship between that field and the alt-right trope, "Cultural Marxism". Newimpartial (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

But... there is an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. this article is about that thing, specifically. It says so right in the title. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

No, there are antisemites that prescribe to the theory. That does not make the theory inherently antisemitic. Tparaiso601 (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It's anti-Semitic because the the conspiracy is either implicitly or explicitly ascribed to the Jews. Who else do you think is behind it? TFD (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation's 45 page report "How Cultural Marxism Threatens the United States—and How Americans Can Fight It" does not once implicitly or explicitly ascribe cultural marxism to Jews.

https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/report/how-cultural-marxism-threatens-the-united-states-and-how-americans-can-fight Tparaiso601 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Gonzales and Gorka write, "Universities today have almost completely succumbed to the ideology imposed by those who have followed the cultural Marxist pioneers of the 1980s." "The sexual revolution, of which critical theorist Herbert Marcuse was also a guru, has been clearly part of the strategy." "America’s wars over climate are also a part of a Marxist strategy." "It is important to take a look, albeit briefly, at what exactly the cultural Marxists are in the process of trying to destroy." I could go on.

All of this implies that some puppet-masters are behind this. While Nazis and neo-Nazis were explicit in who they were, modern proponents of the theory usually leave it blank. But it is obvious they are "the Jews." If not, who are they? TFD (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"It is obvious that its is the Jews" is subjective. It's an opinion. Tparaiso601 (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Experts can identify implicit statements without it being subjective opinion. I mean, if not the Jews, then who are they accusing? TFD (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Elitists? "New world order"? Tparaiso601 (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"New world order" itself refers to an antisemitic conspiracy theory. MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Another subjective take. Why is this article not labeling the NWO as a "far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory" then? Go do your dirty work. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_conspiracy_theory Tparaiso601 (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

If you read the whole article, it does a good job of explaining it. I am satisfied with it as it stands now. MrOllie (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Who are the elitists behind the New World Order? TFD (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

elitists Tparaiso601 (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Who are they? TFD (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

but This article is the ONLY Wikipedia article on "Cultural Marxism" which redirects to here and the talk page of "Cultural Marxism" redirects discussion of the subject to here! Isaw (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

there are plenty of journal and academic book sources PREDATING the "Conspiracy theory" claim which is NOT RELIABLE!

Reliable measurements may also be wrong! A thermometer which is ALWAYS three degrees off is reliable but it is not giving VALID information.

Here are some left leaning sources on "Cultural Marxism from left leaning ( certainly NOT extreme right ) sources from decades before the more cecent "Conspiracy theory" sources used in the article

Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies

a Book published in 1997 and using the Term "Cultural Marxism " in the Title

Dennis Dworkin

1997

Published by: Duke University Press

And citing Eric Hobsbawm, Christopher Hill, Rodney Hilton, Sheila Rowbotham, Catherine Hall, and E. P. Thompson as well as Perry Anderson, Barbara Taylor, Raymond Williams, Dick Hebdige, and Stuart Hall' Hardly "far Right" sources?

Dworkin examines the debates over issues of culture and society, structure and agency, experience and ideology, and theory and practice with respect to CULTURAL MARXISM in journals such as The Reasoner, The New Reasoner, Universities and Left Review, New Left Review, Past and Present, are also part of the history told in this volume.

T. R. Young in an Earlier Journal REference a " cultural-Marxist dimension" and uses the term "Cultural Marxist Approaches " in the Title Vol.9 ISsue 1 of the Journal Sociological P{rerspectives published in Jan 1986 ...decades BEFORE "Extreme Right" conspiracy theory that "Cultural Marxism " was invented and promulgated by the Extreme Right and by a left leaning academic T R YOung Isaw (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The relevance of these sources to the topic of this article - the conspiracy theory and alt-right trope - has not been established. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It is 100% directly relevant. The topic of the Article on "Cultural Marxism" claims ( and this claim ios from the 21st century) is it a Right wing Conspiracy theory created by extreme right in the post WWII second half of the 2oth Century. WROMG! The sources I provided clear;ly show that pre 21st century "Cultural Marxism" is referred to in PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS and peer reviewed books on the subject of "Cultural Marxism" written by left wing people! Lots of them ! Worldwide! The American Historical Review in The American Historical Review, Volume 105, Issue 5, December 2000, Pages 1695–1696, https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/105.5.1695

Refers to Dworkins "Cultural Marxism" on page 1695 as existing between the post WWII late 1940s to the late 1970! He was around then as was I! Most of the sources in this Wikipedia joke reference were not even born! Not alone that Dworkin states he was "Not the first to study this" field of cultural Marxism which he describes as an "academic work of the British left" and cites Harvey Kaye's work (1984) The British Marxist Historians and Patrick Brantlinger's (1990) US work Crusoe's Footprints: Cultural Studies in Britian and America .The irony of the metaphor of Crusoes Footprints may be lost on you? It points to someone EARLIER having trodden the same path!

In addition both Chriss Waters the reviewer and Dworkin does regard his book as" the first intellectual history to study British Cultural Marxism as an coherent intellectual tradition"! It is absolutely clear that

1. Cultural Marxism was an academic subject in Leftwing British Labour Industrial feminist and sociaolgical history which you copuld not argue against if you had read this book!

and 2. Point 1. was known WORLDWIDE before the start of the 21st Century! Isaw (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not what the conspiracy theorists are talking about, though. This article is about the conspiracy theory. MrOllie (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No the Article is about "Cultural Marxism" and any and ALL references or searches for "Cultural Marxism" ( Cultural Marxism as an coherent intellectual tradition) in Wikipedia directs to this page which asserts is is ONLY and ALWAYS WAS a conspiracy theory! Isaw (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism&redirect=no

There is NO OTHER Wikipedia entry on Cultural Marxism! Isaw (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I can tell this article is about the 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory' because it says so right at the top of this page. Again, that some other article does not exist does not mean _this_ article should be dragged off topic. You seem very focused on particular combinations of words, but perhaps you are really looking for Marxist cultural analysis. MrOllie (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Care to Please show me where the Wikipedia Aeticle on "Cultural Marxism" is ? It redirects HERE! Any discussion of "Cultural Marxism" on the talk page of "Cultural Marxism" redirects HERE! This article has circumvented any possibility of having a Wikipedia article on "Cultural Marxism" and replaces any search about "Cultural Marxism" with and only with this Conspiracy theory page! How ironic. Isaw (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community has repeatedly examined the sources and determined that there is not a notable topic under the name of "Cultural Marxism" apart from the conspiracy theory. The fact that a minority of sources, before and after the advent of the conspiracy theory, have used "cultural Marxism" as shorthand for Western Marxism, or Marxist humanism, or the Birmingham achool of cultural studies or Marxist cultural analysis as a field - or several of the above - has not convinced most editors that there is a "real Cultural Marxism" apart from the conspiracy theory. Periodically, new editors come to this page (or the redirect page) under the impression that there is a notable "Cultural Marxism", distinct from the above, that deserves all or half of an article, but so far the consensus has not changed. Newimpartial (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

No I'm not looking for Marxist Cultural Analysis! I'm looking for the Wikipedia Article on "Cultural Marxism" Where is it? Isaw (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Asked and answered. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT style behavior is not well regarded on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism is a term that a very small number of writers used to describe Marxist cultural analysis. The name of the conspiracy theory is not taken from these sources, but is an update of Cultural Bolshevism. They were unaware that the term had ever been used in Marxist cultural analysis. TFD (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

TR Young's opinions on sport and how it fits into the culture industry can be found via the DOI number listed here [1]. Young's work is about the profit driven aspects of sports culture so fits into the definition found on the Marxist cultural analysis page.

Dennis Dworkin's Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies - is as the title suggests, about the origins of Cultural Studies, on page 3 it states "My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline" - so the source you've brought up reaffirms Wikipedia's finding that there is not enough of a defined group, movement, ideology, or discipline going under the title "Cultural Marxism" (or in this case "British cultural Marxism"). Dworkin's book is about "British cultural Marxism" and specifically The Birmingham School's role in the formation of Cultural Studies (as you can see, we already have pages for both those topics).

You'll have to be more specific on what you mean by Cultural Marxism, we have pages for Marxist cultural analysis, The Birmingham School, and Cultural Studies. This would seem to service all the sources you've raised, as those are the subjects those sources are about. RecardedByzantian (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

"the profit driven aspects of sports culture" I was not aware that there were aspects of sport culture that did not involve seeking profit. Dimadick (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Antonio Gramsci’s discussed the effect of traditional culture on a proletariat revolution. Steven1991 (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

What should be very clear at this point of the discussion, is that the current article overemphasizes antisemitic aspects of the theory. It the thread were to be finally hatted soon, this relatively non-invasive plea should still be acknowledged.

To expand on that: especially troubling are parallels that are immediately drawn from Nazi conceptions to this more recent account. There is no obvious/dominant continuity here, certaintly not one that couldn't be relegated to a latter section and be properly contextualized there. Biohistorian15 (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

That's neither true nor accurate to the reliable academic sources, or the current page content. Observe: The Joan Braune source covers the fact that William S Lind spread the Cultural Marxism conspiracy at a holocaust denial conference in 2002. [2]

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

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

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

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

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

I think the latter half of the above quote really gets to the point of the matter - that the conspiracy theory has had wide usage on stormfront since at least 2010. However the first half does seem to be referencing the SPLC source (whose author is Bill Berkowitz). But that latter half seems viable.

Martin Jay mentioned that The Frankfurt School is often used as a stand in for The Jewish Conspiracy in his "Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment: The Frankfurt School as Scapegoat of the Lunatic Fringe" [5], Skidmore College, NY.

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

Talking about the Frankfurt School is ideal for not naming the Jews as a group (which often leads to a panicky rejection, a stubborn refusal to listening anymore and even a "shut up") but naming the Jew by proper names. People will make their generalizations by themselves - in the privacy of their own minds. At least it worked like that with me. It was my lightbulb moment, when confusing pieces of an alarming puzzle suddenly grouped to a visible picture. Learn by heart the most important proper names of the Frankfurt Schoolers - they are (except for a handful of minor members and female "groupies") ALL Jews. One can even quite innocently mention that the Frankfurt Schoolers had to leave Germany in 1933 because "they were to a man, Jewish," as William S. Lind does.[9]

Of less relevance, but perhaps more forward looking are these two references, linking to the wider diffusion of the concept into the conservative right:

Sven Lütticken, writing in "Cultural Marxists Like Us" for the journal "Afterall: A Journal of Art, Context and Enquiry" (2018) (DOI 10.1086/700248):

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

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

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

So again, it is noted in academic literature that the term is used as either next to, synonymous with, or a placeholder for "Jews" and that it has had widely acknowledged usage on the neo-nazi websites such as stormfront, as well as having been promoted at White Natioanlist meetings, and media. I Hope that's enough reliable sources to prove my point - and also why there's been a consistent and long term consensus on this. 101.115.156.105 (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

In more casual, talk page based, and direct terms, it's a conspiracy theory about a small group of foreign Jews who aim to destroy American culture (because you know, they control Hollywood) - there's still direct mention of it on Stormfront dating back to the 2000s 1, 2, 3. It was shared at a holocaust denial conference, run by a known antisemite white supremacist, for his holocaust denial magazine, by his friends (yes, Lind, Weyrich, and Carto were all good friends), for their organization (the Free Congress Foundation) which had a literal WW2 Nazi Collaborator working for it - Lazlo Pasztor (as mentioned in the current version of the article) - who went on to appear in a documentary this team of antisemites made about it.

It's a very thinly veiled riff about wealthy elite "Globalist Jews" controlling Hollywood (which is why all those academic papers say exactly that). It was spread from Stromfront onto 4chan, then into the alt-right, which is why all the antisemitic memes about it on its know your meme page are so... antisemitic - because it is, and that's exactly how it has always been depicted BY THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.

....and that's why it veers into other tropes like, that this group of foreign jews were actually Satanists! Which is not just done in the small conspiracy press 1, but also in published books and The National Review 2.

They're also cast as sexual perverts or up to satanic adjacent activities, like necrophilia! Or wanting to chop up children (as per the anti-trans panic on the right 1, a modern version of blood libel), or that they're trying to turn the races against white people.1

These all show a strong strain of antisemitism from the very inception and beginnings of the conspiracy theory. We're not choosing to frame it this way, it's been framed this way by how its developed, by the history of the conspiracy theory. This is just how the conspiracy theory has been used, where it's been presented, who has been involved, and what its actual proponents have said about it... and that's not even getting into the comparisons to Cultural Bolshevism, Jewish Bolshevism, or Degenerate art.

So yeah, there's both solid concrete evidence, circumstantial evidence, a strong consensus, reliable sources and academic evidence, as well as direct ties to white nationalist groups, and even a Nazi collaborator. 101.115.156.105 (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

This is strikingly exaggerated and you're cherrypicking.

Besides, regarding your "consensus proven" edit summary etc.: I merely stated in the above that - much like your assertion here - the article currently overemphasizes this component, not that it is entirely untrue. Biohistorian15 (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

But sincerely thank you for the sources, IP! I'm sure these can be of use either way. Biohistorian15 (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

are the sources correct

I don't quite understand. There is information that claims that 87% of the Frankfurt members are Jews. They are probably false, it's just hard for me to believe that people really think that philosophical teachings can consist entirely of any ethnic group. 178.187.59.202 (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

When people talk about "The Frankfurt School" they're generally referring to the first generation of The Frankfurt School (arguably, each generation has been less impactful). Of them, Jürgen Habermas was the only non-Jewish member - and he's often more considered the start of the Second Generation.

However, I don't believe many/any of The Frankfurt School were practicing Jews, but it was their ethnic background all the same (as Judaism is both an ethnicity and a religious practice).

We don't actually cite a percentage number in the article, and that would probably not be Wikipedia's approach. 117.102.138.0 (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Separate article for cultural Marxism

As the FAQ notes, this article only covers the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory dating to the 1990s:

Q3: Dworkin (1997) has the term in the title of his book, so the field clearly must exist.

A3: Not if he's the first one to talk about it. Dworkin said (on page 3) that "My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline". If he's the first, then either it's not a preexisting field, or no one has discovered or named it before him. Either way, that would be a different topic; this article is about the conspiracy theory dating to the 1990s.

My question is, does the more general concept of cultural Marxism meet the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY to have its own article? It would appear so, as there are quite a few reliable sources that discuss the general concept (without the conspiracy theories):

• Dworkin's Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain
• Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology by Richard Weiner
• Trent Schroyer's use of the term in his The Critique of Domination
• Davies, I. "British cultural Marxism". Int J Polit Cult Soc (1991)[7]
• Oittinen's discussion of the term in The Encyclopedia of Political Thought (2014)
• Jamin, J. "Cultural Marxism: A survey". Religion Compass (2018)[8]

This article[9] in Tablet magazine also speaks directly to the fact that cultural Marxism is a notable concept beyond just the conspiracy theory.

I understand that there used to be a standalone article for cultural Marxism that was deleted at some point, but I'm not sure why. Was it due to a perceived lack of notability, or some other reason? Does someone have the link to that discussion? Stonkaments (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I think there are only two topics and hence no need for a third article. Marxist cultural analysis covers all the real Marxist stuff and this article covers all the conspiracy stuff. I don't think there is anything else. I'll wager that everything on that list refers to one or the other.

The conspiracy theory use of the term may date to the 1990s but it is not limited to that time period. In fact it only exploded in popularity well afterwards and continues to this day. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cultural_Marxism_(2nd_nomination)

Google books says this of Richard Weiner's Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology (as per its blurb):

A thorough examination and analysis of the tensions between political sociology and the culturally oriented Marxism that emerged in the 60s and 70s is presented in this volume. In order to create a strikingly original synthesis, Weiner considers the work of theorists as diverse as Jurgen Habermas, Claus Offe, Alain Touraine, Anthony Giddens and Alvin Gouldner, many of whom fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement.

Due to that it can't be considered a rigorous source, it seems to be discussing a "culturally oriented Marxism" (as a general concept) rather than a solid definition of a unified group/movement going under the name "Cultural Marxism" (note the capitalization, indicating a proper noun).

Trent Schroyer uses lower case "cultural Marxism" also indicating he's talking about a more general concept, and not a set or well defined idea... this seems to be the case for Davies, and Oittinen too.

The Jamin source (perhaps because it's the most recent, and so more familiar with the conspiracy theory usage) actually makes Wikipedia's position a bit clearer, the term is used for both a Conspiracy Theory, as well as a type of analysis associated with a specific set of thinkers (The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School aka British Cultural Marxism, and E.P Thompson). This page is for the conspiracy theory. For other usages, you should check out Marxist cultural analysis (as the other responder suggests).

As a final point, Tablet Magazine wouldn't be a suitable source for this topic, as it's a conservative magazine. It's also been suggested that they're fairly friendly to the Alt-right who are affiliated with the conspiracy theory, search the talk page archives for the authors surname "Zubatov" for further details. 117.102.135.76 (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

All those sources, except Jamin's 2018 article, were mentioned in a Wikipedia editor's 2015 article defending the existence of cultural Marxism as a topic.[10]

None of the original sources define the term and there is no evidence they mean the same thing. Only three of them are writing about the topic in general, rather than cultural Marxism in the UK. They also seem to be using the term interchangeably with cultural analysis.

Notice also that the first use of the term was in 1973, long after the school's heyday. None of the main characters, or their critics, used the term or were even aware of it.

In order to write an article, you would have to begin by saying what the topic was. But there are not sources for this. TFD (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• There is also David Auerbach's 2014 Slate article found in the Press section of this talk page that illuminates the issue. link 87.116.178.252 (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It only uses the term in passing, without enough context to determine whether the author is bemoaning the loss of a page on the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (but believes some aspects of the theory have merit to it and therefore shouldn't be described as one), bemoaning the loss of what is now our page on Marxist cultural analysis, bemoaning the fact that we now have only one page on Critical theory, or bemoaning the loss of a page on some third thing. Realistically everything of value on that page was distributed over those three. --Aquillion (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

To quote from the Slate article:

Recently, an adequate and fairly neutral page on “Cultural Marxism,” which traced the history of Marxist critical theory from Lukács to Adorno to Jameson, simply disappeared thanks to the efforts of a single editor. Rather than folding it into the narrower but deeper “Critical theory” page, the editor replaced the page with one on the “Frankfurt school conspiracy theory,” which obsessively and somewhat offensively dwells on the Jewish presence in these schools of thought and the right-wing and borderline anti-Semitic conspiracy theories around them. (The reason the editor dwelled on these irrelevant conspiracy theories instead of the thinkers themselves is unknown, but the changes are certainly troubling.) After bewildered complaints, Wales restored the original page and asked for an extra week’s debate on the sudden and drastic shift, sparking outrage from a cabal of editors who favored the change. Whether the change will win out will be determined less by truth and more by the stubbornness and comparative popularity of the editors and the administrators backing them.

87.116.178.252 (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but note that not only does that quote contradict what happened (there were extended discussions on the initial deletion; no single editor could do such a thing), it also contradicts itself. In that paragraph alone, they state that the page simply disappeared thanks to the efforts of a single editor, yet a few sentences later Wales' decision to unilaterally restore it sparked outrage from a cabal of editors who favored the change - so apparently even the author realized it wasn't just one editor? In any case, it reads to me like an opinion piece; and given that it's by a non-expert it's not useful for much. My advice is to read better sources. --Aquillion (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Something deeply ironic about David Auerbach suggesting there's a conspiracy theory to take over Wikipedia headed by a lone editor backed by administrators. That's just more conspiracy mongering. In actual fact you can find the talk page of the deletion discussion quite easily - and you can review the accounts of the administrators who closed the discussion - and check whether they were impartial as per WP:UNINVOLVED and WP:COI. Wikipedia has these policies to ensure there's not collusion or a conspiracy. Wikipedia also operates on facts, and requires people to do proper research - it doesn't operate on opinions, hearsay, and conspiracy theories. David Auerbach should put some research in if he wants to prove there's a conspiracy going on here. 117.102.157.210 (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Auerbach has a BA in computer science and is not an expert. The problem remains that the few sources that the conspiracy theorists were able to find are insufficient to establish it is a notable topic. TFD (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Slate is generally regarded as RS, but setting that aside, I hope you’re not implying that anyone supporting the CM disambiguation is a conspiracy theorist. 87.116.178.252 (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Slate might be generally regarded as RS, but Auerbach has a personal involvement with Wikipedia (stemming from his involvement in GamerGate) and ought not to be used as a source on anything Wikipedia-related. MrOllie (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Sort of? The 2014 dispute you're talking about (when an article that functionally endorsed the conspiracy theory was deleted and eventually replaced with this one) was related to Gamergate (harassment campaign); modern sources are extremely clear that the use of "cultural marxism" in that context was part of the conspiracy theory described on this page - see the relevant section here and its sources. That doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who got caught up in some part of that campaign saw the whole thing, or endorsed the entire conspiracy theory with all of its twists and turns, or were even fully aware that they were being fed a conspiracy theory; but the sources in the article are clear that the term, as it was used in the context of that campaign, was used to invoke the conspiracy theory in order to try and recruit people deeper into the radical movements that believe in it. So if your position is "hey I heard a bunch of stuff about Cultural Marxism in 2014, why isn't there an article about that, why is there this article about a conspiracy theory instead?", the answer is that this article is the article about what people were telling you back then. --Aquillion (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a source that Slate is generally reliable. It isn't listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Similar publications listed are reliable "for news."

Please see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The nature of the publication determines whether it is reliable for specific claims.

Imagine you were writing a chapter about a philosophical school for an encyclopedia. Are you going to consult books and articles written by experts with PhDs and university professorships and published by academic publishers, or are you going to base it on a computer scientist writing in a magazine?

Similarly, would you base an article about nuclear physics on something written by someone with a BA in hotel management? Or would you decide on what medical treatment you needed based on an article by someone with a BA in architecture? TFD (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• In 2014, the AfD deleted the page "Cultural Marxism" and redirected it to...? The article "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" was created in 2017, while this Talk page was created in 2020. Could someone clarify the gaps between these events? This talk page is generating significant engagement, and I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation for both gaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.178.252 (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hey, I suspect you're new to Wikipedia, so: Welcome to Wikipedia! I believe this is what you're looking for: [11] - you can click the history button and see the history of the page (eg. where it's been redirected to) since the closing admin of the AfD wiped it. Looks like the first place it redirected to was Frankfurt School#conspiracy theory

  If I recall correctly, it was eventually decided that the conspiracy theory section of that page, didn't really relate to what The Frankfurt School actually said, or did, or was about in any way (it was also getting too expansive). The conspiracy theory proposes that they took over the media, culture and society, to control it as political propaganda... but in actual fact they were vehemently against propaganda, and believed that cultures should be localized, and have lots of different humanistic voices, perspectives, debates, poetry, and art (even Avant-garde art that's clearly not going to be popular with everyone, which was a theme of Adorno's music - his point was that it didn't have to be commercially viable to be valuable or meaningful to the artist/human experience).

  Likewise, Marcuse's theory of the One Dimensional Man is that making culture into a profit driven, or political apparatus, inevitably led to a mechanical system of Capitalist hegemony that was impossible to escape - because all attempts at escaping would be folded back in if/when they become popular enough (this is perhaps evidence in the fact that all Youtube videos ultimately contribute to Google's profits, same for other social media cites, we can't help but feed them in click/view profits so the mechanical reproduction of culture on an industrial level serves the Capitalist system in total). So there was really not much of a path for value systems to escape that.

  Perhaps tangentially, the conspiracy theory doesn't just get those facts/viewpoints wrong, but it also doesn't mention other schools of Marxist cultural analysis that have been discussed as "cultural" forms of Marxism - such as those of The Birmingham School, or Labor theorist E.P. Thompson. For instance, where the conspiracy theory claims The Frankfurt School totally dominates society, The Birmingham School theorists had a much more hopeful idea that modern viewers (circa, 1973) could encode and decode the meanings within mass media, to produce new versions and understandings of the messages within it. They could modify, subvert, make fun of, respond to it (again, you probably recognize this on Youtube).

  Finally there's E.P. Thompson, and his work in Labor history and books like The Making of the English Working Class where his practice of a Marxist approach to culture is involved with tracking down historical records of a hidden history, a hidden social consciousness that is outside of popular culture and exists in a more traditional mode, discussions in pubs, in union meetings, in human interactions, in certain families, in cultures which aren't commercial - but still worth documenting.

  All of which stems from Gramsci - who is complicated and expansive, but was vitally saying; we need a working class hegemony, a place to preserve and hold our human values in the face of a culture which is manufactured and pushed and propagandized. In his era, this was a reference to Fascist propaganda (keep in mind, he was writing from prison, put there by Italian fascists). Lots of these authors are responding to fascism... where as the conspiracy theory selects out just The Frankfurt School, and claims they were the fascists, and that they're the ones trying to construct an authoritarian mono-culture. To anyone whose actually familiar with what The Frankfurt School actually wrote, said, did, this makes absolutely no sense - and is in many ways the opposite of them. They were trying to preserve and provide their ideas on a more humanist and varied type of culture, where a hegemony (and its causes) could be pointed out, and voices of criticism could be heard. This is why they were against fascism, because it silences people. So the one voice they thought should be stopped, was the fascist voice - this is because they'd experienced fascism first hand in Germany and Italy.

  Anyways, hopefully that redirect link will help you investigate whatever it is you're trying to find out further. 117.102.157.210 (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  The AfD references two previous RfCs, but I can't find them since "Talk:Cultural Marxism" prior to 2014 is inaccessible. To make matters worse, the Internet Archive is also down today. Perhaps history doesn't matter after all.😒 87.116.178.252 (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  An RfC is just a "Request for Comment" and is usually just one editor asking the opinions of other editors to get a consensus on a change to be made to an article. That's not likely to be a deletion discussion, just a change someone is uncertain about. There is apparently 2 AfDs (article for deletion discussions) for this page - but the first one was a clerical error. An editor accidentally nominated the talk page to be deleted, rather than the actual article. That discussion (which is very short as it was a misfiling) can be reviewed here: [12]. 101.115.139.171 (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  I couldn't find these references in the AfD.[13] In any case, it has little relevance to re-creating an article about cultural Marxism. You need to show that sufficient sources exist.

  Also, how is cutural Marxism different from Marxist cultural analysis? TFD (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  There was originally a ‘Cultural Marxism’ page with a section for the ‘CM conspiracy theory.’ Due to disagreements, this page was formed, and I guess at some point the cultural marxism page itself was moved/deleted. 2601:547:B00:483D:9463:B657:DCFC:9665 (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a good idea to have a separate article for cultural Marxism Steven1991 (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You're looking for Marxist cultural analysis, there's a hatnote about it atbthe top of the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Rather than a separate article, should we make a disambiguation page for cultural Marxism? Both pages have significant usage and long-term significance, so I don't think there is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for cultural Marxism, and therefore it seems the base page should be the disambiguation page. Stonkaments (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The pageview stats are clear, this is the primary topic. - MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the primary topic because there is no disambiguation and because the original cultural marxism page has since been deleted. Suggestions for a disambiguation page date back at least to November 2023.

There should be a disambiguation page now if the academy is increasingly using the term Western Marxism in the way Dworkin was using the term Cultural Marxism. I am a Leaf (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Given that there's only two pages to disambig, and that they're related in an abstract sense - the current hatnote on the article is probably enough. It directs users to Marxist cultural analysis if that's what people were looking for, and likewise that page has a section on the conspiracy theory, if that should be their interest. Wikipedia is doing a good job of respecting both viewpoints, and keeping them separate due to their opposing content. Obviously (and as mentioned in my longer comment above) these two pages are saying opposite things, with only one being rational, and as a consequence, truer to what the Marxist cultural theorists accused of being part of the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy were actually on about (again this is further discussed in my long comment above this one). 101.115.139.171 (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the primary topic, and it includes a hatnote to Marxist cultural analysis if that is what readers are looking for. It's just unfortunate that most readers will have heard of the term in relation to the conspiracy theory rather than the fairly boring real nature of cultural analysis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)