Misplaced Pages

Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:23, 24 May 2023 editThe Four Deuces (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,510 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2023← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:07, 26 December 2024 edit undoNewimpartial (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users24,787 edits →Post-AfD Hatnote Poll: old typo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skip to bottom}}
{{Talk header|search=no}} {{Talk header|search=no}}
{{Canvass warning|short=yes}}
{{Round in circles}}
{{Controversial}} {{Controversial}}
{{Round in circles}}
{{recruiting}}
{{faq|collapsed=no}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Socialism |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Low|American=yes|American-importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Judaism |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views |importance=Low}}
}}
{{press
|author = David Auerbach
|title = Encyclopedia Frown
|date = 2014-12-11
|org = ]
|url = https://slate.com/technology/2014/12/wikipedia-editing-disputes-the-crowdsourced-encyclopedia-has-become-a-rancorous-sexist-mess.html
|quote = 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.

|author2 = ]
|title2 = Cultural Marxism and our current culture wars: Part 1
|date2 = 2015-07-27
|org2 = ]
|url2 = https://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-1-45299
|quote2 =

|author3 = ]
|title3 = Cultural Marxism and our current culture wars: Part 2
|date3 = 2015-08-02
|org3 = ]
|url3 = https://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-2-45562
|quote3 =

|author4 = McKinney, Kara
|date4 = 2021-11-29
|title4 = Tipping Point
|org4 = ]
|author5 = Alexander Riley
|title5 = On Cultural Marxism, the Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory? Woke Deception at Misplaced Pages
|date5 = 2022-05-12
|org5 = ]
|url5 = https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2022/05/12/on-cultural-marxism-the-antisemitic-conspiracy-theory-woke-deception-at-wikipedia/
|author6 = Shuichi Tezuka
|title6 = Introducing Justapedia
|date6 = 2023-12-11
|org6 = ]
|url6 = https://quillette.com/2023/12/11/introducing-justapedia/
}}
{{tmbox {{tmbox
|image = ] |image = ]
|text = {{strong|A warning about certain sources}}: There are two sources on the subject of "Cultural Marxism" that represent a ] or ] risk to Misplaced Pages as they plagiarize verbatim directly from an outdated draft that came from Misplaced Pages, which can be found ] (2006 revision ]). The sources are '''N.D. Arora's ''Political Science for Civil Services Main Examination'' (2013)''' and '''A.S. Kharbe's ''English Language And Literary Criticism'' (2009)'''; both are from publishers located in ] and should be avoided to prevent a ]. |text = {{strong|A warning about certain sources}}: There are two sources on the subject of "Cultural Marxism" that represent a ] or ] risk to Misplaced Pages as they plagiarize verbatim directly from an outdated draft that came from Misplaced Pages, which can be found ] (2006 revision ]). The sources are '''N.D. Arora's ''Political Science for Civil Services Main Examination'' (2013)''' and '''A.S. Kharbe's ''English Language And Literary Criticism'' (2009)'''; both are from publishers located in ] and should be avoided to prevent a ].
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |collapsed=yes |1=
{{WikiProject United States |class=B |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism |class=B |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=B|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=Low|American=yes|American-importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination|class=B|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=B|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=B|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=B|importance=Low}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(30d) | algo=old(30d)
| archive=Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive %(counter)d | archive=Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=20 | counter=35
| maxarchivesize=75K | maxarchivesize=75K
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} | archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
Line 26: Line 67:
| minthreadstoarchive=1 | minthreadstoarchive=1
}} }}

{{annual readership}} {{annual readership}}
{{press|author=McKinney, Kara|date=2021-11-29|title=Tipping Point|org=]
|author2 = David Auerbach
|title2 = Encyclopedia Frown
|date2 = 11 December 2014
|org2 = ]
|url2 = https://slate.com/technology/2014/12/wikipedia-editing-disputes-the-crowdsourced-encyclopedia-has-become-a-rancorous-sexist-mess.html
|quote2 = <!--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.-->
|author3 = Alexander Riley
|title3 = On Cultural Marxism, the Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory? Woke Deception at Misplaced Pages
|date3 = 2022-05-12
|org3 = ]
|url3 = https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2022/05/12/on-cultural-marxism-the-antisemitic-conspiracy-theory-woke-deception-at-wikipedia/
}}
__TOC__


== Cultural Marxism DAB ==
== Question: Is “Cultural Marxism” inherently far right? ==
<!-- ] 11:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1734346875}}
As a leftist I am unsure why “cultural Marxism” is labelled as far-right when it is possible for one to claim that there is a “culture of Marxism” without inherently advocating against any specific group. I am extremely sorry but could someone please fill in the details for me? ] (]) 22:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Should the hatnote be changed to <code><nowiki>{{redirects|Cultural Marxism|other uses}}</nowiki></code>, which links to the ] page? 10:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


===Discussion===
:This article is about a specific conspiracy theory. That you could make some related but different claim isn't really germane to what the conspiracy theorists actually do claim. ] (]) 23:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
* To be clear, we are '''not discussing''' the redirect from ''Cultural Marxism'' to the conspiracy theory article. If you're unfamiliar with that debate, refer to this ]. ] (]) 10:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:If you want the details filled in for you, you might begin by reading the article. ] (]) 00:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
:For the leftist version, see ]. This is mentioned in the first sentence on the ] page. ] (]) 08:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC) * The ] page was recently created by {{u|Howard Alexander}} (the same editor who created the ] page) and has since been updated by {{u|JMF}}, {{u|Firefangledfeathers}}, and myself. Feel free to make further improvements. ] (]) 10:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*:The ] page was patched together from this editor's sandbox and still contains elements of it. ] (]) 12:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:Cultural marxism can be an unencumbered synonym for ]. This page is about a conspiracy theory that is about cultural Marxism. The conspiracy theories are typically far-right, but sources say there have been communist and neoliberal iterations too. ] (]) 15:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
*] makes a strong case against using the dab page, but there are exceptions to the guideline worth considering. Having a Wiktionary link on the dab page is a valuable enhancement that wouldn't be possible without it. Including the link allows us to acknowledge the right-wing of the term 'cultural Marxism' -- without compromising Misplaced Pages’s standards -- which helps reduce disruptive edits and repetitive discussions. The 34 pages of archived Talk discussions clearly demonstrate how much time this issue has consumed. A simple hatnote and a prominent Wiktionary link on the dab page would address concerns from a significant portion of the readership, making this a more user-friendly solution, while also saving valuable time for editors by reducing repetitive debates. ] (]) 17:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::"Can be", but seldom is. The vast majority of references to "Cultural Marxism" are in relation to the conspiracy theory. ] (]) 16:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
::Sennalen, no, the whole of Western Marxism doesn't boil down to a cultural phenomena or cultural analysis - and the idea that it does is a very idiosyncratic viewpoint, which I've only ever seen you express. Your views on the topic are very specific to you. ] (]) 12:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC) *The current hatnote reads: {{tq|"Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For the Marxist approach to social theory and cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis.}} Does anyone else find this a bit cumbersome? A casual reader without a social science background might struggle to understand. ] (]) 15:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Honestly it seems very clear and direct. Do you have a suggestion? -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I didn't say that. Anyway, here are some views that are not specific to me:
*:I think it'd be fine to drop "social theory and" for brevity. Casual readers without a social science/philosophical/historical background are going to have a bad time at that article anyway. ] (] / ]) 15:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|western Marxists were drawn to dissident ideas on philosophy, politics, sociology or aesthetics from Gramsci, Lukacs or Korsch, ignoring equally challenging economic ideas from the likes of Grossman or Rosdolsky. ‘Cultural Marxism’ took this to extremes, freeing aesthetic criticism from its allegedly mechanical materialist trappings. Its roots lie in the Institute for Social Research,}}
*::That's a good start. To make it even clearer, I'd suggest one of these:
:::{{tq|Lukács is a foundational thinker of the Frankfurt School and of cultural Marxism in general.}}
*:::For the Marxist view of culture, see Marxist cultural analysis.
:::{{tq|Adorno, Marcuse, and Sartre, in particular – tended to be silent on the issues that had given Marxism its initial impetus, namely the study of economics, the analysis of political machinery, revolutionary strategy, and so on. It was under these conditions that so-called ‘cultural Marxism’ emerged and with it the dominance of philosophy as the primary area of interest}}
*:::For the Marxist theory of culture, see Marxist cultural analysis.
:::{{tq|The importance attached in Western Marxism to issues of culture and ideology is of course by no means just a matter of theory. What Trent Shroyer (1973) called 'cultural Marxism' was an important element, though more in Europe than in North America, in the 'counter-culture' of the 1960s (Roszak, 1970).}}
*::] (]) 18:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|It has also been commonly used as a conversational shorthand for decades and, in all likelihood, even before the term initially appeared in print in 1973 in Trent Schroyer's The Critique of Domination: The Origins and Development of Critical Theory. That a collection of interviews on North America's leading Marxist literary theorist, Frederic Jameson, edited by Ian Buchanan in 2007, could appear under the name Jameson on Jameson: Conversations on Cultural Marxism, should confirm what anyone who has watched its evolution knows: that the term was not originally a perjorative term, it was purely descriptive, and was used rather loosely to refer to cover a common approach to literary and cultural studies of the sort pioneered in Critical Theory by the Frankfurt School, but also in British Marxist literary studies as found in Raymond Williams and his students.}}
*::I would support dropping the "social theory and", removing cultural studies may be a bit to far. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Moreover, while the standard account of the relationship has it that “British cultural studies has tended either to disregard or caricature in a hostile manner the critique of mass culture developed by the Frankfurt School” (Kellner 31), the connection between cultural studies and Cultural Marxism has not always been so straightforward or so antagonistic. This is especially true in relation to the work of Raymond Williams, who writes of the “excitement of contact with more new Marxist work” in the 1970s and who, upon reading Marcuse’s Negations, celebrated a “sense of meeting, after a long separation”}}
*:::Who knows, maybe ] will be merged with ] one day, since they overlap to a large extent. ] (]) 20:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|‘British cultural Marxism’, Dworkin argued, shares three common themes with the Frankfurt School: both were shaped by the failure of the revolutionary movements in the West; both saw themselves as philosophical alternatives to Marxist economism and Leninist vanguardism; and both stressed the autonomy of culture and ideology in social life.}}
*::::If I thought I could pull it off I'd nominate Cultural studies for AFD because it is an extremely badly written article that probably violates ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Post-modernism cultural Marxism, a Western Marxist trend of thought that has emerged and had extensive influence under the new historical conditions where significant change has taken place in contemporary capitalism, has quickly become a critical cultural trend that questions the mainstream values of Western modern society.}}
*:Pinging {{u|ActivelyDisinterested}}, {{u|Firefangledfeathers}}, and {{u|TarnishedPath}} in case you want to participate in the poll below. Thanks for your earlier input. ] (]) 21:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|There has remained a vexing problem, which may be described as follows: the philosophical justification of the revolutionary program in a way that captures the loyalties of a significant portion of the intelligentsia. The attempt to solve this problem has created 'Western Marxism', and an extraordinary intellectual stew with something to suit every taste — a Hegelianized Marx, a de-Hegelianized Marx; Marx-with-Kant, Marx-with-Spinoza, Marx-with-Freud; Marx romanticized ('the young Marx'), Marx de-mystified, Marx re-mystified; emancipatory Marxism, cultural Marxism, Marxism as 'method'. A sceptical observer might easily conclude that this protracted ferment is less a testimony to intellectual vigour than a massive effort to 'save the appearances'. In the last analysis, however, what matters to dedicated Communists is not intellectual considerations, but political power.}}
:::{{tq|Cultural Marxism, most prevalent in the late 1970s and early 1980s, represents a stage when Marxists had grown disenchanted with organizations such as trade unions and labor parties (Crouch 1982). These Marxists turned their sights toward the daily practices of workers for the genuine insurgent potential they felt had been stifled in formal political institutions. Cultural Marxists thus probed the earthy mores and sociable interactions of workers and their communities for buried signs of incipient radicalism.}}
:::{{tq|it is precisely this blindness to socialist class struggles that provides the crucial opening for the neocapitalist interests that now seek to complement their state power with a new, better fitting mantle of legitimacy. Viewed from this standpoint, in which the relation of the political, ideological existence of class conflict to its economic basis is conceived as strictly mechanical and unilateral, “Western” or cultural Marxism in fact converges on its “Eastern” counterpart. True, the former typically repudiates the latter’s “vulgar” base superstructure determinism, with the facile assertion that base and superstructure are now entirely outmoded as analytical categories. Among a preponderance of contemporary Marxist and “post-Marxist” intellectuals from Aronowitz and Laclau and Mouffe to Bowles and Gintis, the superstructure, often rebaptized as “discourse” or simply “culture,” inflates itself into the newly and uniquely pertinent category for a left politics.}} ] (]) 15:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
:::: doesn't seem to think very highly of Misplaced Pages: {{tq|in December 2014 the Misplaced Pages entry on “Cultural Marxism,” which, though brief, and uncontentious, was deleted The arguments in favor of deleting the entry were passionate, but grossly methodologically deficient in appraising what counts as “evidence” for the meaning of any term, or existence of a practice.}} 😂 ] 20:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::That source is a non-specialist diatribe by Beaudelairean literary critics without notable expertise in Marxist theory, intended to defend their choice of title for their book. And I don't find their evaluation of the "methodological deficicncies" of the 2014 AfD to be of other than entertainment value. ] (]) 11:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Sennalen, which two of these oddly assembled sources do you think are using "C/cultural Marxism" to refer to the same thing, and what do you think they are referring to? More specifically, do you think you have found two sources that are referring to an intellectual movement rather than an activity? Because on first glance, I'm not seeing that at all. ] (]) 11:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::We also have Ian Buchanan's which, as you know, states that Western Marxism is also known as cultural Marxism. Hence, the claim that {{tq|Cultural marxism can be an unencumbered synonym for Western Marxism}} is not unsupported by sources. ] 11:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::If "known as" isn't mentioned in Misplaced Pages's writings on Weasel Words, it should be. ] (]) 09:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::It is not, but use 'also known as' in their lead sentence definition of the term. Why don't you use your famed powers of persuasion and charm to get them to add it to ]? ] 09:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::They are all referring to the same thing broadly construed, excepting minor shades of emphasis. I am not aware of any source that corroborates the importance you place on the movement/activity distinction or on the capitalization of the 'c' in 'cultural'. ] (]) 01:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::Re: {{tq|They are all referring to the same thing broadly construed, excepting minor shades of emphasis}} - I believe here we come (at last?) to the heart of the matter. You apparently believe that a large number of writers - inside and outside the conspiracy theory - are referring to broadly the same thing as "cultural Marxism". I haven't seen textual evidence for this, though - it seems to be a preconception you bring to these texts (]) rather than something they actually say. When it is pointed out by others that some of these texts actually distinguish one meaning or usage of "Cultural Marxism" from another, and that references to Britiah humanist Marxism or to the Frankfurt School do not represent "minor shades of emphasis", you lean into this idea of yours about the "same thing broadly construed". In the absence of good sources that do what you do, this becomes a recurring motif of mutual incomprehension. ] (]) 11:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Some if not all of these examples have been provided in discussion before and can be found in the archives. Indeed there are a few isolated examples of writers describing Marxist cultural analysis as "cultural Marxism." But the conspiracy theorists who first wrote about their version of cultural Marxism were unaware of this and instead merely altered the name of the Nazi conspiracy theory "cultural Bolshevism," which itself derived from "]." Eventually, they found a handful of examples of the term cultural Marxism in writings of the Frankfurt School and use this as "proof" that the object of their conspiracy theory actually exists.
::::The main premise of the conspiracy theorists that Marxists are trying to corrupt Western culture in order to undermine Western civilization is bogus and has nothing to do with whatever any Marxist writer meant by cultural Marxism. Instead they were referring to a method of analysing culture in capitalist society. ] (]) 11:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|But the conspiracy theorists who first wrote about their version of cultural Marxism were unaware of this and instead merely altered the name of the Nazi conspiracy theory "cultural Bolshevism," which itself derived from "Jewish Bolshevism."}} - please can you provide a source for this, which you must have repeated at least 50 times by now, so that we can add it to the article. ] 11:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|The main premise of the conspiracy theorists that Marxists are trying to corrupt Western culture in order to undermine Western civilization is bogus and has nothing to do with whatever any Marxist writer meant by cultural Marxism.}} - good job ], then. ] 11:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Okay, let's first quote exactly what you said: {{tq|"Cultural marxism can be an unencumbered '''synonym '''for Western Marxism."}} - synonym, meaning ''"a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close."'' None of your sources are using the terms in this interchangeable way, most are using the connection between the two as more of a segue into talking about cultural Marxism, rather than as a synonym.
::::They might be synonymous, but they're not synonyms, and there's a myriad of individuals counted as "western Marxists" who would not generally be considered to be cultural Marxists in the majority of writings about them. ''Henri Lefebvre'' for instance is a western Marxist, but is generally considered a philosopher and sociologist, and NOT a cultural Marxist, likewise, ''Jean-Paul Sartre'' is a western Marxist, but is seen as a philosopher and existentialist, NOT a cultural Marxist, the western Marxist ''Maurice Merleau-Ponty'' was seen as a phenomenologist and public intellectual, NOT a cultural Marxist. Louis Althusser, Galvano Della Volpe, Nicos Poulantzas, do I need to go on?
::::Pretty much any list of western Marxists is going to span outside of The Birmingham and Frankfurt Schools. Your trying to conflate the two terms as synonyms doesn't make it so, nor does presenting a large, but irrelevant set of quotes from sources that simply; don't back up your position. This is just your particular spin on ], it's not a compelling argument, but more expression of your desire to shoehorn the terms into being synonyms when they're not used as such.
::::Ironically, had you said "Western Marxism can be an unencumbered synonym for cultural Marxism" you would be - just ever so slightly more correct - but the statement still isn't really worth while including - especially if as you claimed recently on ], you're still in favour of keeping them separate. ] (]) 08:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::Don't forget specialist expert critically acclaimed published by the world-renowned ], which states that {{tq|(Western Marxism) also started to focus more on cultural rather than economic problems and it is for this reason also known as cultural Marxism.}} Anyway, all of this is entirely off topic for this section. This was all discussed back in February. Feel free to start a new section. ] 09:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::Yes '''''"known as"''''' is a very subjective phrasing. ] (]) 09:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::By the way Sennalen, I have noted elsewhere that your project on Misplaced Pages is often focused on merging all articles on Marxism into one. As some may be aware, to your mind all ], and all ]. This goes along with your essay statement to ]... and even along with what some right wing propagandists would love to have people think about Marxism that it's a single demonic entity - but in actual fact there are distinctions to be made, and Misplaced Pages is better for keeping such distinctions separate. ] (]) 09:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|They might be synonymous, but they're not synonyms}} sorry, you're going to have to explain that for me. Please, use as much detail as you feel necessary. ] 09:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::As I pointed out before, Minnicino, whose 1992 essay "New Dark Age: The Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'" is seen as the starting point of the conspiracy theory, never used the term cultural Marxism. Lind, who first used the term "cultural Marxism" in his 2000 speech "Origins of Political Correctness," never claimed that the conspirators had used the term themselves. So it's entirely OR to say that Minnicino and Lind were talking about a concept in Marxist critical theory. As some writers have suggested, the term used by Lind is merely an update of the term cultural Bolshevism, rather than anything he found in the literature about Marxist cultural anaysis. ] (]) 10:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|So it's entirely OR to say that Minnicino and Lind were talking about a concept in Marxist critical theory}} - please point out any ] remaining in the article so that I can exterminate it. I effing *hate* ], I do. ] 11:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::We can never be sure who or what Minnicino was talking about when he wrote {{tq|The single, most important organizational component of this conspiracy was a Communist thinktank called the Institute for Social Research (I.S.R.), but popularly known as the Frankfurt School.}} This will forever remain an impenetrable mystery. 😏 ] (]) 15:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::I'm saying they're synonymous by association, not as having the exact meaning that synonyms would. Western Marxism of course having a much wider reach, meaning and discourse around it as a term than cultural Marxism does as a usage. Hence my listing western Marxists who aren't generally considered or described as cultural Marxists, in an earlier reply to this thread. To quote the second listed meaning of 'synonymous' from the Oxford Online English Dictionary: ''closely associated with or suggestive of something. "his deeds had made his name '''''synonymous''''' with victory"'' - that's how I'm using the term. Is this fairly common usage in the English language now clearer for you Tewdar? Hence saying cultural Marxism might be synonymous, but they're not synonyms. ] (]) 11:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, this is much clearer now, thank you. I think 'also known as', also a very common phrase in the English language, is probably even clearer, and fortunately agrees with the language used in the source that we currently cite in the article. ] 11:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::It doesn't have to always be a synonym to say it can be a synonym. Some writers say explicitly that Western Marxism and cultural Marxism are the same thing. Misplaced Pages shouldn't do that without qualifications, since other writers say that cultural Marxism is just part of Western Marxism. The point at this stage is not which of those views is correct. This is about unsticking editors from the increasingly untenable position that the phrase "cultural Marxism" isn't used in scholarship, or that it somehow gets used without meaning anything at all. No one should need me to teach them how synecdoche works.
:::::Let me put a question to all of you. Imagine that the block of quotes I posted above were transformed directly into article text. What is the name of the article in which it appears? ] (]) 14:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::"Sennalen is dragging out an argument for no good reason". &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 00:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|This is about unsticking editors from the increasingly untenable position that the phrase "cultural Marxism" isn't used in scholarship}}
::::::I think you're failing to ] here, as you've been told several times that the name of that article would be ], which it was decided was less controversial, and less of an open neologism than having a title of "Cultural Marxism" but was created with the intention of storing information about the schools in question that related to the term.
::::::I think you should stop pussy footing around, and state your grand plan to revive an article under the title of Cultural Marxism, or to divide the current article into two topics; legitimate usages, and conspiracy theory related usages, or whatever else your wider vision may be (perhaps in a new discussion somewhere appropriate).
::::::You mentioned earlier that you didn't understand the difference between the capitalised version of Cultural Marxism, which is more often than not how proponents of the conspiracy theory typed it at the time of the 2nd AfD, and the lower case version cultural Marxism, which is a version more often written by leftwing theorists and researchers. The observation goes that cultural Marxism is simply the word 'cultural' followed by Marxism, to indicate the general discussion of cultural approaches to Marxism, rather than a set school of approach (which whilst having key subjects of discussion, has never really been well defined in terms of mode, perhaps due to the development of cultural studies, hence multiple groups generally being referenced by the term but no solid answer on what's required to 'join the club') - where as conspiracy theorists (at the time of the AfD) had turned their ideas into somewhat of a proper name; ''''C'''ultural '''M'''arxism', to make their theory seem more definitive and singular. A singular, intentional, organized project known as Cultural Marxism (or at least, a conspiracy about such). This was discussed at the time of the AfD and is only a general rule of thumb.
::::::It may surprise you that I'm not necessarily against having Misplaced Pages eat its words, and further acknowledge the usages of cultural Marxism which predated the conspiracy theory usage. Because I agree with you, that the position will become more untenable as interest in the ideas of said theorists have gained popularity (perhaps due to being subject to the types of repression involved when conservatives construct such a targeted conspiracy theory take-over of left-wing language). But it's also important to acknowledge that the conspiracy theory version has become the more prevalent understanding of the term in main stream public discourse. With the lower case version cultural Marxism of the understanding being more niche to Marxist and humanist academics of Marxism.
::::::There would be certain key elements and requirements needed for any such revamping of the content. It would have to some what counter the functions of the conspiracy theory, that is to say it would have to go to extra special lengths to make clear that the groups of theorists described as cultural Marxists, were not unified, and do not create a directed or intentional line to today's politics. That there were and have been, many different schools of thought, and changes of mode in popular cultural theory between The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, and E.P. Thompson (as well as others) - between those theorists/groups - and ''today's'' politics.
:::::: is a fairly good example I'm going to use for some of the distancing and ideas that may be required (although I can't speak to the contents of the book its self). The write up does things like, 1) indicating that the so called cultural Marxists were performing ''analysis'' of the mechanical reproduction of culture, rather than being a unified project aiming to control that reproduction, 2) it situates the movement as an early fore-runner to ] without making it seem like the cultural Marxists intentionally created or control ], 3) it names movements that were influenced yet came after said theorists, like the situationalists, and structualists, stating them as sort of road blocks, landmarks, or points of distinction in terms of how discourses change, as a means to make the cultural Marxists historically distinct from later ideas they either would, or did, disagree with, such as Post-modernism (Jurgen Habermas famously being a key critic of Post-modernism). These are the sorts of built-in premises and features needed for any responsible discussion of the topic (which as stated earlier, has been somewhat eclipsed from mainstream view by the conspiracy theory usage).
::::::So here's the problem, you've now, on countless occasions appeared to desire a melding of, and interlacing of topics in this area, making multiple fairly unwanted attempts to lump pages together, and to combine articles and topics in a fashion that somewhat defies consensus understandings. You've expressed a desire to make topics seem less distinct from one another, not more. So you've given yourself a reputation that runs counter to what would be required to responsibly make the distinctions between the conspiracy theory usage, and the original left wing usage now housed at ] - and that's not to say you've got a bad reputation (indeed, you work very hard at improving Misplaced Pages in terms of what you think it requires). Merging articles, and disbanding coat-racks is indeed a valuable asset that has many use-cases. You are a useful Wikipedian and content writer, trying to do good here.
::::::But there are some topics that are controversial, that have lots of fringe material attached, that have a history and various consensus viewpoints formed and discussed around them, that require a different, more sensitive, and more community consensus based approach. So whilst I have no doubt, that as a content writer, individual researcher, and contributor to Misplaced Pages, you'd be perfectly capable of performing the due diligence and depth of research required to construct a fairly good article on the original usage; that's simply not the sole concern here. Drawing clear distinctions and barriers between the two usages is.
::::::For this reason - I would suggest working on a draft aiming to update ] as best you can to the point it can reasonably be read as an article on the original, leftwing use of cultural Marxism. In doing so, you would have to make sure there's not even a chance that it could later be converted to a right-wing trojan horse designed to support the conspiracy theory. It should be invulnerable to such vandalism. Then you'd have to communicate that built in distance and distinctness to the community here, and get help in requesting a deletion review - building that consensus (assuming that you'd still want to change the name from ] to ]) - and you'd probably have to give assurances that the separation between that new article and the conspiracy theory usage not only intends to remain, but would be difficult to dissolve (due to how the new article would be written).
::::::At that point you're cooking with gas, until then, this whole cultural Marxism is western Marxism, is whatever else - doesn't seem to be going anywhere useful. You know, maybe you're right and all of western Marxism has been dissolved into cultural analysis. In my opinion that erases any number of existing youth groups, union groups, activist groups, co-ops, study groups, academics, and other political individuals in the west, but really all that is moot unless it's also made distinct in the ways described above. No one wants to load the gun when it doesn't even have a handle yet - let alone try to pull the trigger. Anyways, before I create any other metaphors or start writing my own page here, I'll end this comment. Feel free to create a more specific discussion where you see fit - but really, is there any editorial discussion you still want to have here? ] (]) 03:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::It's also worth noting that short write up is more focused on Cultural studies and Marxist views of culture in general, rather than anything called cultural Marxism (not even mentioning The Frankfurt School beyond citing Walter Benjamin). I'm just using it as an example for the clarity of the distinctions being made there in. ] (]) 04:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::::This is a large wall of text, some of which might be helpful, but I would like to underline and problematize the reference above, to {{tq|the original, leftwing use of cultural Marxism}}, which rather assumes the thing to be demonstrated. I haven't seen any scholarship presented - by Sennalen, or Tewdar, or anyone else - that would establish an intellectual tendency or school of thought known as "cultural Marxism" prior to the rise of the conspiracy theory. There was certainly a domain or activity, which Misplaced Pages calls "Marxist cultural analysis", that some scholars referred to as "cultural Marxism" as opposed, e.g., to "political Marxism" or "economic Marxism". But that isn't the school of thought usage that editors like Sennalen assume (without relevant evidence) was already always intended when those two words are brought together. ] (]) 16:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::As far as I am aware, only our favourite Belgian scholar, Jérôme Jamin, describes cultural Marxism as literally a school of thought. TBH, I wouldn't even describe the Frankfurt 'School' as a school of thought. But I suppose that is another debate for a different article... ] 16:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq|...prior to the rise of the conspiracy theory}} - that's an odd rider. It's perfectly acceptable for future scholars to come up with post-hoc terminology to describe what was not recognised at the time as a discrete school of thought or whatever. ] 16:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Post-hoc terminology is certainly a fine thing and can be encyclopaedic (if it weren't, then WP would be largely unable to discuss philisophical schools or tendencies prior to the 19th century).
::::::::::But the specific argument that has been made on this Talk page and elsewhere is, to paraphrase gently, "Cultural Marxism was already a recognized phenomenon that was then reinterpreted/misinterpreted by the conspiracy theorists". For this to be sourced, what matters is (post-hoc) sources for precisely this. The sourcing for this narrative is poor, and some of the better sources that have been marshalled in its support, such as Jamin, do not actually say this or support it directly.
::::::::::If the post-hoc sourcing for "Cultural Marxism was already a recognized phenomenon" is weak, then what we would need is pre-conspiracy theory sources {{tq|that would establish an intellectual tendency or school of thought known as "cultural Marxism" prior to the rise of the conspiracy theory}}. And these we do not have. ] (]) 17:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I didn't say I didn't understand the significance of capitalization, rather that the putative signficance of capitalization isn't borne out by sources. It's not a reliable shibboleth. You can find conspiracists who don't capitalize it and scholars who do. The "two words together" interpretation just is special pleading for adjectives to somehow work differently in this topic area. The whole affair has been marked by mendacity from both ends of the political spectrum. You want a firewall between the topics, but sources are explicit that there is none. Ideas circulate between scholars and activists, mainstream and fringe. Not all of the cultural Marxists were disinterested ivy-tower academics like Adorno. A lot of them had and acted on strong political commitments, with influence that is still felt today. Right wing pundits have exaggerated the significance of this, but that does not justify overcorrecting and trying to bury this history.
:::::::I don't have a singular preferred outcome, but it has become clear to me that this page is a ] that either excludes anything outside the LaRouche-Lind lineage or else sullies it by association. ] doesn't need the baggage, ] is too broad (as you argued), ] doesn't encompass praxis, and ] is a POV fork that doesn't need to exist. I'm not committed to recreating a page called "Cultural Marxism", but that does appear to be the Goldilocks option at this point in time. ] (]) 15:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Your "Goldilocks option" appears to be a solution in search of a problem. I haven't seen any material identified about actually existing academic Marxism that wouldn't fit in one of the (non-conspiratorial) articles on those topics. Your inability to see this seems to be based in a failure to read ] as the article covering almost exactly the region of the Venn diagram you claim not to have been addressed.
:::::::: Also, from your overall editing history, this curious case of ] seems simply to be one instance among many where you would prefer to restrict the scope of ] and present majority and small minority interpretations side by each, rather than differentiating between the WEIGHT to be given to mainstream scholarly views and the differential treatment given to perspectives that differ from the mainstream. ] (]) 15:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::And now you see why I'm fucking tired of Sennalen dragging this out at every opportunity. It appears to just be a ] way to push a fringe viewpoint, which he stubbornly won't let go. &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Sennalen has an which describes some of their approach, and goes against some of what they do here. For instance, the essay contains this line: {{tq|"An article should only say that there is a consensus to accept or reject an idea if there is a secondary source that says this explicitly. Supporting this kind of claim just by stacking a large number of citations that agree with it is synthesis."}} Yet they seem to be doing a similar stacking above regardless of the fact that many sources say Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory with little to no correspondence to any existing movements.
:::::::::The essay makes clear that Sennalen believes ] can {{tq|"be mis-applied to censor valid information"}}, and that wrong ideas shouldn't necessarily be excluded from Misplaced Pages. I believe they've adopted the ] approach, and are here trying to justify it, regardless of whether it's ], ], ], or ]. ] (]) 04:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|You want a firewall between the topics, but sources are explicit that there is none.}} I'm sorry, I'll need a source for the statement that there's no firewall or difference between cultural Marxism as a topic referring to Frankfurt School thought, and as a topic referring to say The Situationalists (who operated in different country, and within a slightly different era/context), or say, Frankfurt School thought and post-modernism? Of course there's a firewall between these groups - they're different groups, different topics. The Situationalists are usually referred to as an avant garde movement of sloganism for instance, where as The Frankfurt School were establishment academics, who spoke against "reactionary machine-wrecking" (ie. they're from different schools and held different views, often opposing each other directly)... and these statements/groups are obviously all part of the left, if we look right - the problem is even more serious.
::::::::The rightwing makes obviously false statements regarding cultural Marxism/Cultural Marxism and The Frankfurt School, be it the claim that they're , that "", or as right wing website Breitbart puts it - even slightly less surreal claims like Michael Walsh's ideas that they were merely "" or Lind's false claims that they "" need a massive firewall. There absolutely needs to be a firewall between false conspiracy theorist views and established facts. Let's be clear about that.
::::::::However, let's also assume with good faith that you're only talking about the firewall between the cultural Marxism of The Frankfurt School - and later uses of the two words cultural Marxism that refer to either different schools/movements or a more general application of the phrase... doesn't that still sort of go against your opinion that it is '''one''' school of thought? So it seems like you're wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Either cultural Marxism is a specific defined school of thought that can be written about in the scope of a specific Misplaced Pages article, OR it's two words put together which change with context and time the term merely referring to something Marxist to do with cultural approaches, thinking, or activities. Which I think you might get away with in an article titled something along the lines of "The history of Marxist cultural thought" - but perhaps that sort of topic would be better written about in a book, rather than on Misplaced Pages.
::::::::Given that you're continuing with your desire to express the ''concept'' of cultural Marxism regardless of capitalization, time, group, locality or whether the right or left are discussing it - I can't really endorse such an approach, and I don't think you should work on any drafts to that effect. Because adopting such a position, where the right are allowed to define left wing movements (or vice versa on other topics), seems like an invitation to spreading inaccuracies and falsehoods. For me the topic should be less political than that; there are either reliable sources, or unreliable sources. Manufacturing 'cultural Marxism' into a specific school, when reliable sources are merely using the term to refer to a contextual, and largely undefined (or poorly defined) area of thought - which its self is usually more easily and readily described in terms of The Frankfurt School anyways, is, I believe Original Research. That there are works on cultural Marxism in sports, or featuring conversations about cultural Marxism, isn't proof that it's one singular concept worthy of a Misplaced Pages article, that is to say there are lots of cultural workers/movements who have had elements of Marxism in their thought, this doesn't mean they're operating from a unified school, or understanding. Coatracking a topic that was already struggling to find solid definition or notability, is a bit of a lost cause as far as I can tell. Good luck. ] (]) 03:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::How about 'Cultural Marxist Analysis'? 😁👍 ] 15:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:::You ] refute an argument by ]. ] 10:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Considering we've gone in circles about this multiple times already, I don't see this going anywhere helpful. Do we '''really''' need to have this argument again? &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 11:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::You are correct that this will go nowhere helpful. Time to get the old DiscussionCloser v 7.0 out... ] 12:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::We definitely don't need to rehash the discussion, especially because this page is for the Conspiracy Theory usage anyways. ] (]) 09:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::Well, I closed it, but so... here we are. &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 14:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


===Survey===
== ] ==
{{atop|result=Withdrawn as moot, disambiguation page had been deleted at AfD. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)}}
* No that disambiguation page should be removed, as per my comment on the poll on the disambiguation talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*:The disambiguation should remain.
*:This article literally has YEARS of argument about whether the topic sentence is too contentious, and whether this article is appropriately neutral. The disambiguation page accurately covers basically anything which the term “cultural marxism” may mean, and to deny that the term is used in the ways presented on the disambiguation page is demonstrably false and there is a decade worth of edits on this page (including the fact that this article was created using the nonconspiratorial title ‘cultural marxism’) displaying as much.
*:All nonfrivolous arguments about the content and POV of this page are made null and all complaints are rectified by a disambiguation page. I have not seen a bona fide argument against it. It simply is a solution which works for everyone. ] (]) 23:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*::No the dab page is solely a solution for those on one side of the argument. Quite obviously therefore it is not an acceptable compromise. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::What do you mean one side of the argument? The side of the argument that recognizes that the term's use very well is ambiguous?
*:::This should be the only side of the argument, as stated, because there is well over a decade of people complaining about how the conspiracy is not the only way to use the term. ] (]) 00:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::And what is a good "compromise?" Because as stated in my reply, no argument has been made against the disambiguation page aside from people who are plainly ignoring the use of the term outside the conspiracy theory context.
*:::Is the solution not to compromise at all and to delegitimize the ambiguous nature of the term because anyone who disagrees is part of the ravenous revisionist horde? That seems to be the position you are taking, and that is a position which is plainly called bigotry. ] (]) 00:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::A good compromise would be the current setup, where readers are not misinformed. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 08:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*::A disambiguation page is a list of extant Misplaced Pages articles. Even if it were to be kept, it it's not going to be turned into a ] covering {{Tq|basically anything which the term “cultural marxism” may mean}} - that is not the function of a disambiguation page. ] (]) 23:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::The disambiguation page as it remains is perfect. ] (]) 00:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::It is disambiguates to exactly two articles. There's nothing perfect about that. Per ] a DAB page is not needed. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Hahaha what do you MEAN??? A term can be ambiguous due to only two different uses of the term. What would you recommend changing? ] (]) 01:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I see, my response to WP:ONEOTHER is that the two topics which are being disambiguated are so different as to not be subtopics of a main topic.
*:::::That is, either the conspiracy theory is a subtopic of the western marxism or marxist cultural analysis page, or marxist cultural analysis is couched as a subtopic of the conspiracy.
*:::::NEITHER of these are adequate solutions, and therefore WP:ONEOTHER is not the correct issue to be bringing up here. ] (]) 01:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::] has nothing to do with 'subtopics' or 'main topics'. It's a navigation page, so readers can find articles when names are similar. If there are only two articles we don't need a navigational page. Perhaps you've been confused by the page's reference to 'primary topics' - ] just means that most incoming web traffic should be routed to one of the articles. It is purely about page views and what the readers are expected to be looking for. ] (]) 01:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::In this case all a disambiguation page would be is an extra click. Someone ends up on this article, but they wanted ], so they would have to click on the hat link to the disambiguation page, and then from there there is only one other option they would be headed to. We should just send them to their final destination right away and save the extra click. ] (]) 01:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::This is a frivolous argument.
*::::::::: You think it would be worse that people are presented with an overview of what a term might mean, instead of immediately being presented with the most pejorative and conspiratorial possible use of the term?
*:::::::::How exactly is the conspiracy theory being presented first better?
*:::::::::Would it be best if, when someone searched “moon landing” that they were immediately presented with “moon landing conspiracy theory” page?
*:::::::::To respond to another criticism from another in this thread - From the WP:ONEOTHER page:
*:::::::::Disambiguation helps readers quickly find a desired article in cases when a term could reasonably apply to more than one article.
*::::::::In this case, we have
*:::::::::: 1. a now nonexistent page called ‘Cultural Marxism’ which was about Marxist cultural analysis, and has since become “cultural marxism conspiracy theory”
*:::::::::: 2. a decade worth of people saying that “cultural marxism” as used in the lede is unreasonable, contentious, revionist, and so on. If you’ve been here long enough you’ve seen probably hundreds of arguments to this tune.
*:::::::::: 3. Evidence of academics (Dworkin, legal scholars like Kevin Roberts, and yes, even the hack psychologist cultural critic Peterson) using the term to generally mean Marxist cultural analysis, post structuralism, Frankfurt School and so on and so forth.
*::::::::: Is it that you think that all these people do not ~reasonably~ use this term? Or is it that you think that this use of the term “cultural marxism” could not ~reasonably~ apply to more than one article? It must be one or the other, if not, the disambiguation is entirely appropriate.
*::::::::] (]) 01:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::You're arguing about stuff that is simply irrelevant. Perhaps the term could apply to some hypothetical third article, but since we do not have an '''actual''' third article to list, the topic doesn't need a disambiguation page. ] (]) 01:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::It is irrelevant that the term Cultural Marxism was the page under which this page was originally created, and that the topic of the page was Marxist cultural analysis? It is irrelevant that many academics use the term cultural marxism in a non conspiracy theory way? This argument is not simply handwoven away. I am not speaking in hypotheticals. ] (]) 01:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Since this discussion is about a hatnote and a disambiguation page, yes, that is all irrelevant. We have two pages to link, no more and no less. ] (]) 02:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::What is your issue with the disambiguation page? There is no rule stating that if there are only two that the disambiguation page must not exist. This is a grossly strict reading of WP:DISAMBIG and is not supported by the text of the article. ] (]) 02:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Yes, there is. It was linked for you earlier in this thread. ] (]) 02:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::And I quoted the language in the article which supported my position, and you did not. ] (]) 02:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::No, ] is directly on point. You came up with some irrelevant stuff about 'subtopics' that in no way undercuts the obvious point of that guideline. If you want to stick with irrelevant arguments, be my guest. We're just repeating ourselves, so it seems useful conversation is at an end. Feel free to take the last word in this sub thread if you need it, I won't reply here again. ] (]) 02:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::WP:ONEOTHER is literally about the distinction between primary topics and other (if you will, sub-) topics.
*::::::::::::::::Do you read these articles? Or do you just cite them fervently in the hope that the person challenging your ideas does not read them too?
*::::::::::::::::In addition WP:DISAMBIG states plainly
*::::::::::::::::{{Nutshell|Disambiguation helps readers quickly find a desired article in cases when a term could reasonably apply to '''more than one''' article.}}
*::::::::::::::::You suggest only one article is insufficient for a disambiguation page, yet the WP:DISAMBIG page and WP:ONEOTHERboth plainly state that that is not such a strict rule as you suggest. ] (]) 02:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
* No. This RFC shouldn't have been opened in the first place, and the disambiguation page should go to AfD. - ] (]) 12:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' {{summoned by bot}} Cultural Marxism refers to the conspiracy theory. Readers should be directed to ] if they are interested in reading about that subject. '']''<sup>]</sup> 13:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No'''. This RfC is inappropriate, and the bogus dab page should be in AfD by now. --] &#124; ] 13:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*:@], it certainly is. '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' if we keep the dab, and '''No''' if it's deleted per the afd; isn't that straightforward? What MrOllie said, I guess. ]. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 16:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*:The AfD was initiated immediately after the RfC started, presumably because the nominator wanted to shorten the discussion from 30 days to 7. However, this resulted in the discussion being split between two locations, which is far from ideal. Speaking of split discussions, see my WP:ONEOTHER comment in the ''Discussion ''section above; it relates to your comment in the AfD. ] (]) 21:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*::Presumably it was initiated because the nominator thought that the page should be deleted, something the RFC process does not do. ] (]) 21:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::Correct. RFCs and AFDs are entirely different discussions. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::Given the consensus that the conspiracy theory article is ] for the term ''Cultural Marxism'', the only permissible use for the disambiguation page is via the hatnote in this article. In other words, updating the hatnote is a prerequisite for using the dab page. This is why it's appropriate to address the hatnote discussion first, and why that discussion should take place on this talk page. Additionally, since the dab page was created only a few days ago and no other articles link to it, making it effectively invisible to readers, there is no compelling reason to rush its deletion. Using the AfD to influence the outcome of the RfC doesn't seem like the most constructive approach. ] (]) 07:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::7 days is more than enough time to demonstrate that it is needed per ] and ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 07:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::By simple logic deciding if the page should exist should happen before deciding how to use the page. If the page doesn't exist then deciding how to use it is nonsensical, only if the page is exists does discussing how it's used make any sense.
*:::::That's not using AfD to influence the RFC, that's doing things in their logical order. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 10:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment.''' Because this DAB has only two pages, I lean towards deleting it. However, I've seen an increasing tendency among conservatives to use "Cultural Marxism" for its plain meaning of "Marxism in culture" (or at the very least, aspects of culture they perceive as downstream of Marxism). This terminology is now reflected in secondary and tertiary sources, e.g. (which notes its roots in the original antisemitic conspiracy theory, but also notes the way it's taken on a broader meaning). My suggestions would be to split this into two pages (maybe ] and something like ]), which could both be included in a DAB. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
*'''Yes''', I support simplifying the hatnote and linking to the disambiguation page. Some editors argue that the "See also" articles are irrelevant or merely padding, but I respectfully disagree. ] is historically and topically related to the ], as both articles explain, and similarly, ] and ] are closely linked to ], with all three overlapping to a significant degree. One unique link, which isn't available in the other articles, is the Wiktionary entry, which is particularly important given that the term ''cultural Marxism'' has over time become a . None of the articles directly address this aspect (nor should they, as this is the role of Wiktionary). Including both the Wiktionary link and the "See also" articles not only aids navigation but offers readers valuable context that isn't provided elsewhere, making this a reasonable exception to the ] guideline. As with any guideline, {{tq|exceptions may apply}}, and in this case, I believe it's necessary to help ensure that Misplaced Pages remains accessible for all readers, regardless of their political views. ] (]) 13:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
*As the original poster, I am '''withdrawing the RfC''' because the issue is now moot following the deletion of the ] page during ] process. For reference, here is the that was deleted. I will also add a subsection below to address an outstanding question about the hatnote that a few of us discussed earlier, and welcome any additional input from others. Thanks to everybody for participating in the RfC. ] (]) 21:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


=== Post-AfD Hatnote Poll ===
I created this as a redirect to ]. It now redirects to...well, click it yourself... 😂 ] 19:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


The current hatnote reads:
:{{tq|This is a redirect from a title that contains a non-neutral, pejorative, controversial, or offensive word, phrase, or name.}} - I'd probably better not contribute any more, but the ] is thataway if anyone wants to join in... ] 20:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
{{tq|"Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For the Marxist approach to social theory and cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis.}}
::I boldly redirected it to here, so let's have the discussion here whether the Centre is primary topic or this page with the UK section. ] (] • ]) 20:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
::Otherwise I could bring it up to RFD. ] (] • ]) 20:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:Dennis Dworkin wrote a book called ''Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies'' (Duke University Press 1997). The best target for the re-direct would therefore be ]. But there is no reason for a re-direct since AFAIK, Dworkin was the only person who used this expression. Dworkin does not have an article and I suggest that since Tewdar finds Marxist cultural analysis in the UK an area of interest, they create an article about Dworkin. ] (]) 04:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
:: results, if anyone's interested. Dworkin may have originated the term, but it was and is used by quite a few others (there are even a couple of GS results for this year), and is probably fairly notable. As ip says, ], perhaps a more appropriate target, already redirects to the CCCS, which is why I sent it there. The idea that 'British cultural Marxism' should be redirected to 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory in the UK', complete with a greeting from Suella Braverman, is utterly preposterous and the right side of my body is still in pain this morning from laughing so much last night. Does anyone think that an actual article called 'British cultural Marxism' (note the capitalization, ] fans) would be viable? Or should we call it 'Marxist cultural analysis in the UK' 😐, as TFD calls it above? 😭 ( on Google scholar, but that never stopped us before, right?) ] 07:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
:: has some useful commentary. And predates Dworkin's book, although it may not be "the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual tradition", as Dworkin and some others have described ''Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain''. ] 09:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
:: an even earlier source from 1991. Perhaps this is British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual tradition. Or perhaps not. Who knows. ] 09:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
:::A great footnote from this: {{tq|There was, of course, cultural marxism (sic) in Britain before Cultural Marxism (sic)}}, along with a shout out to one of my personal favourites, ]. Perhaps soneone can do some eo-reudian apitalization nalysis on that sentence, or indeed the entire article, which by and large seems to be quite uninterested in distinguishing upper and lower case. ] 15:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
:So Richard Hoggart, Raymond Williams and Stuart Hall, were intellectually known as 'The Birmingham School' of sociology - and they founded an academic institute by a similar name. That academic institute went on to be renamed to the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies. However, it was closed down in 2002.
:I believe Dworkin is refering to the intellectual movement of the three founders, attempting to write it up, and he in fact states in his book that it's ''"the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual tradition"'' - so having a redirect is probably over-preparing for his terminology to become noteworthy. It is however, unfortunate that Misplaced Pages doesn't have a page for The Birmingham School as an intellectual grouping, as that would probably be the correct redirect. As we don't have such an article, the redirect is probably unnecessary. ] (]) 05:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
::] already redirects to ], that much supports Tewdar's approach. But I really don't think it's going to come up all that often, and it's not noteworthy enough as a term to figure out a user's intention when typing in the term, they could mean either. ] (]) 05:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Perhaps we should send it to RfD, where we can get some more diverse input. ] 07:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
::::That sounds like the best option. &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::Actually I've changed my mind. Sennalen's suggestion that it gets redirected to ] is now my preferred option. ] 21:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::I've updated the redirect for ] accordingly. ] (]) 02:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::In your opinion, are 'British cultural studies' and 'British cultural Marxism' synonyms, and if so, which one would you say is the most commonly used? ] 07:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::::'British cultural studies' would be far, far, far more common. I think there's an argument that British cultural Marxism is synonymous with British cultural studies, but that British cultural studies isn't really synonymous with British cultural Marxism - which might seem counter intuitive at first, but that's just how seldom British cultural Marxism is used as a term, and how far beyond and removed British cultural studies has become from Marxism. It's a wider discourse. Frankly it wasn't all that Marxist to begin with, Richard Hoggart specifically had somewhat of an aversion to Marxism (article available on Sci hub). Hoggart and Williams both faught in WW2, Hall was probably the most actively Marxist of the three, but is considered more of a pioneer in analysing racial politics than Marxist politics - all in all I think they're much better described as sociologists, cultural theorists and intellectuals rather than as activists. Hence establishing The New Left, not something the group would likely have done had Marxism suited their views just fine. That said they are 'Marxist influenced' thinkers - for what that's worth. I'm sure they had a lot of other influences too, as people (especially academics and intellectuals) tend to. ] (]) 08:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::So, would you support 'British cultural Marxism' redirecting to ] then? In the absence of a ] article (which probably also needs a redirect)? ] 08:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I really don't think that 'British cultural Marxism' is all that rare. Not as common as British cultural studies, but hardly difficult to find in the wild... ] 08:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I think it's fine for now, but that status as being fine may change if British cultural Studies and The Birmingham School are further roped into the conspiracy theory's rhetoric... and it wouldn't surprise me if that starts to happen. At that point, the re-direct may need to be re-considered. ] (]) 09:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::What? You think it's fine that 'British cultural Marxism' redirects to ]? ] 09:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Or... fine that British cultural Marxism should redirect to ], at least for now..? ] 10:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Yeah, I'm fine with that. I don't really have an opinion on whether it ''should'' exactly - more just an opinion on when it shouldn't, or may need to be reconsidered. But for now searches for "British cultural Marxism" on google do seem to mostly result in a legitimate academic usage (often referencing Dworkin). So yeah, Sennalen is right, and has found a suitable destination. That may change, but for now it seems entirely kosher. ] (]) 13:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::I actually find it surprising that the conspiracy theories focus on the Frankfurt School rather than British cultural studies/Marxism. And check out book review! The conspiracy theory practically writes itself! 😁 ] 10:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::I know what you mean! I would have thought that just the mere fact that Stuart Hall is referred to as "The Godfather of Multiculturalism" would have set the minds of the conspiracy theorists ablaze! But apparently they're mostly situated in the US, and I suppose for them there's no point mentioning anything that happened outside of the US.
::::::::::::Still, I think it will ultimately come to pass, The Birmingham School will be roped in - perhaps it might be done with less conspiracy theories being involved, but I suspect it will occur. Recently Tory MP Miriam Cates used the term Cultural Marxism at "Nat Con", Jewish News has . That conference was put on by ] who is described on their page as having ''"links with conservative think tanks in the US, such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute."''...
::::::::::::...and of course, The Heritage Foundation and The Free Congress Foundation were both founded by Paul Weyrich. The same Paul Weyrich who originally request Lind write up his version of the theory. Now, with that viewpoint of the cultural theorists of The Frankfurt School firmly embedded, they're Thus reproducing their cultural conservatism. It's a rather large circle these various think tanks have drawn over what, 20 or 30 years.
::::::::::::What the nature of the connection between the Edmund Burke Foundation and The Heritage foundation is, remains to be explored, and of course, the uptake of "The New Conservatism" (as Lind and Weyrich called it) in the UK remains to be seen. But I think if they grab hold of The Birmingham School, it could definitely take off over there. Let's hope it's a less toxic version. ] (]) 13:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


Should the hatnote be simplified to make it easier for a casual reader to understand?
*] is now live... 😭 ] 08:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


# Do nothing.
== Neutral point of view ==
# Simplify to: For the Marxist approach to cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis.
# Simplify to: For the Marxist view of culture, see Marxist cultural analysis.
# Simplify to: For the Marxist theory of culture, see Marxist cultural analysis.
# Something else (please specify).
Feel free to list your options in order of preference, if you'd like. ] (]) 21:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)


* '''Option 4''', followed by Option 3, then Option 2, because they are clearer for someone without a social science background. ] (]) 21:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
This article fails the test of having a neutral point of view. The entire introduction is hardly more than a screed. "Cultural Marxism" is a descriptive term long in use, not a "conspiracy theory." (https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2019/01/cultural-marxism-is-real/) ] (]) 07:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''', the current hatnote is clear enough. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:"This article fails the test of having a neutral point of view." But it meets ]'s definition of ]:
*Pinging @], @], @], @], @], @] and @] as editors involved in above discussions. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
** "Achieving what the Misplaced Pages community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Misplaced Pages aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view. It means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia"
*'''Option 1''': no need to dumb it down further. --] &#124; ] 01:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
** As long as the article reflects the view of the reliable sources, it will remain perfectly neutral and acceptable. And the reliable sources are not ]s and ]s like the ]. And I doubt that the ] is a reliable source, since it is a ] for "conservative or libertarian organizations". ] (]) 07:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' The current version seems clear. "The Marxist theory of culture" isn't wrong but seems like a slightly misleading over-simplification. ] (]) 02:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
*:While I partially endorsed option 4 I agree it’s an over-simplification and think it would be much better stated as “Marxist theories of culture.”
*:The discussion on the cultural analysis page shows that Marxist cultural analysis is not entirely homogenous and it is slightly misleading to suggest it as such with Option 4’s language. ] (]) 05:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)


:'''Option 1''' but I also find '''Option 4''' adequate. ] (]) 05:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:Nope, OP, nope. Take it somewhere else, like Conservapedia. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 07:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
:'''Nullification''' Just to re-iterate my concerns expressed elsewhere, ] is a ] of not particularly orthodox "Marxists" (some of whom aren't Marxists at all), which two authors are attempting to ] in order to force the appearance that Sociology is by definition Marxist. It's no longer a suitable hatnote for the page. I'd suggest no hatnote. ] (]) 10:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:The article you've linked starts by referencing Tablet Magazine (and an article by Alexander Zubatov). Tablet Magazine is run by Mem Bernstein, and receives its funding from the Tikvah Fund - a conservative "educational center" set up by the late investment banker, conservative philanthropist, and husband to Mem Bernstein; Zalman Bernstein. So you're using a libertarian source, that's referencing a conservative source, to talk about leftwing theories, intellectuals and groups. But your sources are merely opinion pieces from non-experts (and they're somewhat inaccurate as well).
::@] do you mean ]? If so I agree, because when I hear the term Marxist cultural analysis I think ] (the ]) and not what occupies that article. If someone were to propose a merge I'd support it. '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:The conspiracy theory is about left wing groups and movements, and the history and writings of those leftwing groups and movements are how we determine whether a statement about them is factual or not. We rely on academic sources to determine what is factual (factual information contributing to our ] page), and what is the stuff of conspiracy theories (which comes here). This is the page for the conspiracy theory usage of the term Cultural Marxism.
:::The IP is arguing at article Talk that only {{tq|Orthodox Marxists}} should be considered "Marxists", that the Frankfurt School were not (mostly) Marxists, and that instead of "Marxist cultural analysis" WP ought to have a "Gramscian cultural analysis" page that somehow includes Frankfurt. I doubt very much that this IP's concerns are the concerns of other editors - but who knows, at this point? ] (]) 11:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:What's more, most of the article you've linked to spends its time jumping from structural Marxism, to Foucault, Zizek, and Derrida - whilst not labeling any of them cultural Marxism, and actually spends quite a small amount of time on the actual subject. Labeling all of leftism, including ''"Feminism, gender studies, critical race theory, post-colonialism, disability studies"'' as universally ''"spin offs of Marxism"'' is not academically or historically correct. Feminism for example, predates The Frankfurt School, and has roots dating back before Karl Marx himself (See: Olympia De Gouges'; Declaration of the Rights of Woman, 1791).
::::@], when they state {{tq|Orthodox Marxists}} do they mean Marxism–Leninism? Not that I'm going to get involved, but if so that strikes me as ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:So not only are your sources unreliable, but the article you're citing doesn't provide any solid or substantial evidence. ] (]) 08:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::IANA Marxist, but I ''think'' ] means roughly the opposite—Marxists who aren't M-Ls (i.e. reject Lenin's views). ] (]) 00:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:This article is definitely not balanced.It is written from one point of view and you wonder if the author sees this one point of view as objective. ] (]) 20:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''', although I wouldn't oppose option 2. Any issue with ] should be discussed at that article's talk page, while issue with editors behaviour should be discussed at ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 10:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::Already discussed above. Incidentally, there are no credible estimates that the Communists killed over 100 million people either. That number is a warning bell that we're headed down the rabbit hole into fringe theory territory. ] (]) 23:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
* '''Option 1'''. All other options are defective, since, as already mentioned here and elsewhere, there is no {{tq|''the'' Marxist culture}} (emphasis mine), only a heterogenous set of different and contradictory analysises and approaches. ] (]) 09:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq|This article is definitely not balanced.It is written from one point of view}} - yes, the point of view of academics, historians and reliable sources on the topic of The Frankfurt School, the history of Sociology and cultural studies. It's true, Misplaced Pages will always privileged reliable sources over opinion pieces. That's just what an encyclopedia does.
::{{tq|and you wonder if the author sees this one point of view as objective}} - you are mistaken in assuming Misplaced Pages has just one author. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative, community project that anyone (including yourself) can contribute to, AS LONG AS your contributions fit within Misplaced Pages's editorial guidelines. Those guidelines require all contributions to use reliable sources, especially for contentious topics. You can visit the Reliable Sources policy guidelines by clicking here: ].
::Misplaced Pages's policies are available for anyone to read, and argue from. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Misplaced Pages uses opinion pieces written by scholars; their status as a scholar doesn't change the fact that it is opinion. Also, this fraudulent page states that this "conspiracy theory" started on the far right and has now been embraced by everyone on the moderate right, meaning that they are the same
:::"theory" not two different ones. As long as contributions are far left, they won't be undone by the gang of leftist punks that control the political content on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Stop making personal attacks on other editors or you may be blocked. ] (]) 06:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


== Marxism can be anything now. ==
== Recurring misstatement ==
{{hat|reason=], ], ]}}
Due to the actions of one editor, Marxism, according to the ] page, ''"...does not have any authoritative definition"'' so I don't see how the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page can be incorrect any more. If Marxism doesn't have a definition, and if cultural studies started with the works of Karl Marx in 1859 (as also claimed by the current ] page - then that seems to confirm and validate the Conspiracy theory's claims that ] originated with Karl Marx and is part of Marxism. Unless you're telling me the one editor who now ]s the ] is wrong? Well, for now it's being said in Wikivoice there, so perhaps the DAB hatnote for this article needs to be reconsidered. Strangely the page on ] says that field of academic discourse started in the 1960s.... that conflicts with ]'s claims it started 100 years earlier with Marx's writings. ] (]) 04:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)


:This is not what is claimed on the ] page. The page says that people in the ‘overlapping and antagonistic traditions’ of Marxist cultural analysis take ''inspiration'' from Marx’s texts, not that Marx was already doing Marxist cultural analysis ''avant la lettre''.
The article begins with the following sentence:
:<br>
:Think about it like Christianity. Quakers clearly take influence from the life of Christ and the Gospels, but it would be ridiculous to say that ] ''started'' with Jesus.
:<br>
:And yes, Marxists debate what Marxism really is all the time (just as conservatives debate what conservatism really is or who really counts as a conservative). Yet, the lack of an “authoritative definition” obviously does not mean that things can mean anything. Perhaps you’re right that the editor should get out of Wikivoice and mention the source authors directly (either Lee Artz or Peter Brooker). However, you should probably take your comments to the ] talk page, in that case. The hat notes of both pages are there to point out that “yes, Marxists have theorised about culture”, but that what they have actually said and done is distinct from the claims of Lind or Minnicino or other proponents of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. ] (]) 10:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:What @] said.
:Also, please at least tag me if you are going to cast aspersions against me.
:It would also be lovely if you took a moment to explain why you have a long history of editing around a contentious topic with constantly shifting IPs instead of your username. ] (]) 18:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:See ]: "a logical fallacy that occurs when someone assumes a word's original meaning is the same as its current meaning." It doesn't matter what Marxism means but what the concept of cultural Marxism means to the conspiracy theorists who created the concept. ] (]) 19:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:Nothing will ever confirm the conspiracy theory, as the conspiracy theory is made up nonsense. No word play will ever change that fact. If you want to discuss the hatnote there's an RFC above. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}


== ] ==
:"The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory..."


@], I'm surprised by . It appears true that, as you write, "'Cultural Marxism' is the imaginary object of the conspiracy theory". But more pertinently, it is also the name of the theory, in addition to being its object. Therefore, per the MOS as documented at ], we should avoid using constructions such as "refers to". We are describing the concept, not its name. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
There is no way that "Cultural Marxism" ''denotes'' a conspiracy theory. That is the same as saying "Cultural Marxism is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory..."


:My revert reflects multiple discussions on this page, which show no consensus to replace the longstanding "refers to" formulation with "is" or any other replacement text. To the best of my knowledge, the most recent of the many discussions is . ] (]) 12:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
A sentence that would express the intended meaning here would be:
::@], thanks for the link. This seems to have been (over)exhaustively discussed and therefore I'll not involve myself in it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)


== Hatnote expansion ==
:"The term "Cultural Marxism" is used within a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory..."


There was a lengthy (and not always calm) discussion on the AfD for ']'. The original disambiguation page had just two topics but was ripe for expansion had it been retained. The conclusion of the discussion was that "A hatnote is more effective at getting readers to the other article if they end up in the wrong place.".
or better


The sources provided showed several uses of the phrase 'Cultural Marxism', going back the 19th century - long before modern conspiracy theories. One major theme was writers who described ] as 'cultural Marxism' (most famously ], but with plenty of others). It may be from that usage that less analytical minds created the idea of a conspiracy.
:"The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory..."


I argued on that page that without disambiguation, Misplaced Pages would be saying that all the past uses of the term are to the later conspiracy theory: that is wrong and indeed libellous to those who have used it in other senses.
The latter is better because the title of the article indicates that its topic is a conspiracy theory, not a term.


The broad choice then is: (a) A longer hatnote; (b) A disambiguation page; or (c) Mislead readers and libel some litigious commentators.
] (]) 04:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
The conclusion on the AfD was in favour of hatnotes. ] (]) 09:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


:Yeah. There's also that discussion above under '''Post-AfD Hatnote Poll''' which seems to indicate a consensus for the hatnote " "Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For the Marxist approach to social theory and cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis." That people have put the words "Marxism" and "(C)ultural" adjacent to each other without meaning the conspiracy theory is not a compelling argument that it is a term needing disambiguation. I hope that you aren't trying to reopen a seemingly closed discussion in hope of another result. (Also, what's this about "libel(ing) some litigious commentators"?) ] (]) 10:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:If you go to the ] page, you can read the explanation of this:
:The hatnote was discussed above, the consensus was for the disambiguation page should be deleted. Nothing here hasn't already been discussed. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:<blockquote>"The tradition of Marxist cultural analysis has occasionally also been referred to as "cultural Marxism", and "Marxist Cultural theory", in reference to Marxist ideas about culture. However, since the 1990s, the term "Cultural Marxism" has largely referred to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, an influential discourse on the far right without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis."</blockquote>
::The hatnote discussion was <u>before</u> the discussion on the AfD. I am trying to implement the conclusions reached there. Where a commentator / philosopher / speaker has used the phrase 'Cultural Marxism' to refer to another concept, specifically critical theory, how would you suggest dealing with that?
:Note, that one example uses the phrase "cultural Marxism" (not a pronoun or defined ideology, but two words put together to indicate something about culture and Marxism), where as the other term "Cultural Marxism" uses capital letters, because it's a pronoun - it refers to the idea that "cultural Marxism" is a set viewpoint, plan or ideology (usually something about The Frankfurt School destroying western civilization). So first you'll have to find an academic reference for what "Cultural Marxism" is exactly - and then we can add that reference to the ] page. But until then, there is a conspiracy theory that uses the pronoun "Cultural Marxism" to refer to a set of incorrect, and sometimes unhinged beliefs about The Frankfurt School having a plan to take over and destroy western civilization and/or Christianity. This claim has no evidence that could be found in their writings, so is in terms of content appropriate for an encyclopedia, classed as a conspiracy theory.
::Hatnotes are useful where terms are used in different ways. The term ']' has a long-established meaning in political philosophy and the Misplaced Pages article reflects that. However some people use it for an unrelated concept, and so the hatnote on the article redirects the reader who was looking for the latter. The same is needed with this disputed term. ] (]) 14:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:Particularly so, because various conservative and right wing authors who have made bizarre claims about the group. There's the claim that they're , that "", or as right wing website Breitbart put it in 2015 - even slightly less surreal claims like Michael Walsh's 2017 idea that they were "" or Lind's false claims that they ""... all these claims are false, and conspiratorial in nature.
:::Both discussions were proceeding at the same time. And the AFD in no way presented any consensus for you to change the hatnote, folks there were supporting the existing hatnote. ] (]) 14:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:The long and short of it is, we have evidence that conservatives have constructed a conspiracy theory about The Frankfurt School, denoted by the term "Cultural Marxism" but we don't have as much, or as convincing evidence, that The Frankfurt School defined a set ideology, called "cultural Marxism" or "Cultural Marxism". So being an encyclopedia, we're limited to what high quality, factual, and academic sources say... and we've found some saying that it's a conspiracy theory.
:::This is why I thought I must have missed something. The discussion at AfD wasn't conclusive, and the discussion here was happening at the same time not before. I certainly don't believe the arguments presented are a reason to change the hatnote. The mischaracterisation of real subjects is the subject of this article, and other than a few passing mentions in real sources those using 'Cultural Marxism' are part of that mischaracterisation. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:So just like our page on the ] can exist along side our page on ], or the page on the ] exists along side the page about ] - so we have our page on ] existing along side our page on the ].
:Thanks for reminding me of why I had previously unfollowed this article.
:If you want to read about The Frankfurt School you could also go to our ] page. If you want to prove the term "cultural Marxism" has seen usage on the left in "reference to Marxist ideas about culture" - that's stated at ]... however, if you want to define the views of The Frankfurt School in terms of right wing political opinions about them.... well, I don't think Misplaced Pages would consider that legitimate, not without those individuals having academic credentials relevant to The Frankfurt School (eg. credentials in Sociology, The History of Sociology, Critical Theory, or cultural Studies). So that's the general state of play. Hope that synopsis helps you. ] (]) 06:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
:Nothing at all about hatnotes here adds up to a plausible liable case under U.S. law. Or please cite precedent to the contrary.
::I think you mean "proper noun" rather than pronoun.
:I will not see responses unless you tag me. ] (]) 17:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::I don't dispute that there is a conspiracy theory. My point is purely a formal one about the phrasing of the lede. It is confusing.
:There are approximately five sources that had used the term cultural Marxism before the conspiracy theory used the term. None of them are significant to the topic and are only mentioned by conspiracy theorists trying to prove that there is some basis for their views.
::The term "cultural Marxism" (ignoring case) has multiple usages, not all of them coming from rabid right-wingers. It would be helpful to have a disambiguation page rather than a redirect. I found the Wiktionary entry for "cultural Marxism" to be much more straightforward and less polemical than this article.
:The name of the conspiracy theory was an update of cultural Bolshevism and was not based on earlier usage of the term cultural Marxism.
::] (]) 08:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
:I object to changing the hatnote because it's basically endorsing the views of people such as Jordan Peterson who claim cultural Marxism is a real thing. ] (]) 18:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::See the ] 😂 ] 09:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
::Well, Dr Peterson does have several million viewers, so his usage of the term is significant. We are not here to endorse or suppress views, nor choose which are right or wrong. His usage, and others who have followed on from there, is (as I understand it and is oversimplified form) that the idea of Marxism posits class conflict as the motivator of history; those who follow that idea may have accepted that economic Marxism has failed, and so have adapted the ideas in a cultural form - proposing a narrative of struggle between classes, races, sexes etc. That does not require a conspiracy, any more than classical Marxism does. Essentially what is being described is a genuine social philosophy: to its proponents it has come to be known as 'critical theory' and its opponents can give it other names, of which Dr Peterson uses 'cultural Marxism'. Whether he is correct to choose that term is not for me nor you nor Misplaced Pages to say.
::::Shinjuku station with all exits blocked. ] (]) 15:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
::Having determined that this meaning is in fact applied by commentators, then it is misleading to say 'It only ever means a conspiracy theory', as that is clearly incorrect. It also smears a great many people who have used the term in other senses.
:::::Much easier to lockdown this article than Shinjuku. ] 16:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
::If the conspiracy theory sense is, according to the decrees of Misplaced Pages, the principal meaning, very well - but we are then duty-bound to provide a landing place for when it is used in other senses. ] (]) 23:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I did indeed mean proper noun, thank you. ] (]) 09:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Peterson's sense of the term and the conspiracy theory sense is the same thing. We don't need another landing place because this article is already the correct one. ] (]) 23:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:Some authors actually do use the unadorned term 'Cultural Marxism' to refer to the conspiracy theory itself. See for example , {{tq|As a conspiracy promoted by the far-right, Cultural Marxism has gained ground over the past quarter century}} etc. etc. So Cultural Marxism can refer to a conspiracy theory, and also the object of that conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory is also less commonly called the Frankfurt School conspiracy. Unfortunately the current lead does not do a good job explaining this. We had an RfC recently about whether something very similar to your suggestion "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory..." should start the article. It was rejected, with at least one editor arguing that including the words "conspiracy theory" implied that Cultural Marxism, (in the sense of the object of the conspiracy), was real, and another offering the opinion that it reminded them of a Monty Python song or something. ] 07:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
:::"duty-bound"? You're trying really hard, but not doing very well. ] (]) 03:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::I knew of cultural Marxism (so named) as a thread within the left, long before hearing of any hard-core right-wing conspiracy theories. In other words, I saw it used as a neutral term, or perhaps mildly negatively by some critics. That is why it's disturbing to see it defined here purely as an "anti-Semitic conspiracy theory".
:::Do you have any reliable sources for these assertions? ] (]) 09:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Here's a recent usage in The Nation: https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/lauren-berlant-obituary. Is it perhaps also an obituary for the neutral use of this term?
:::" may have accepted that economic Marxism has failed, and so have adapted the ideas in a cultural form - proposing a narrative of struggle between classes, races, sexes etc." That by definition is a conspiracy because it requires people working together. It's also false, ergo, it's a conspiracy theory. What seals the deal is the idea that the conspirators were so influential that they could have forced wokeness on unsuspecting citizens, ] (]) 15:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::] (]) 09:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
:There is no need to elaborate the hatnote with a distinction between Peterson's dogwhistle usage of the "Cultural Marxism" trope and the conspiracy theory, because the reliable sources treat them as the same topic - namely, as a conspiracy theory. There isn’t any other article, besides the one for the CT, where readers interested in the trope employed by culture warriors should (or even could) be directed. ] (]) 14:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I empathise with your disturbance. Unfortunately, editors here are unable or unwilling to see much use for the term cultural Marxism, with or without an upper case 'C', outside of the conspiracy theory. Maybe one day there will be different editors with different opinions here. ] 09:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
::The quote given is what I was thinking about. Timing is crucial though: if Peterson's use of the term popularised it, then he was not 'dog-whistling', but creating a term that others ran off with, with their own, often unreasoned, interpretations.
:::The expectation of Misplaced Pages is that when people go to the ] page, the first thing they'll read is: <u>''"Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For "cultural Marxism" in the context of social theory and cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis.''</u>
::Describing a growing political tendency is not proposing a conspiracy: that is not how ideas spread. If someone says 'There are conservatives who want people to think X', that is not a conspiracy theory. People reading articles in 'The Spectator' or 'The Guardian' are not a cabal skulking in secret rooms!
:::The phrase cultural Marxism in reference to sociology and cultural studies (as stated earlier), is difficult to pin down. For example, the article you link to mentions Raymond Williams, indicating that it's talking about British cultural studies, specifically, The Birmingham School which Williams was an important part of. So here we have to consider that The Frankfurt School, held different views to The Birmingham School, and can be said to have a different version of cultural Marxism. However, both groups influenced cultural studies. So, as has been suggested by others (Terry Eagleton I believe), cultural Marxism is a sort of interim term for the time between the start of The Frankfurt School and Birmingham School, and the start of cultural studies. But cultural Marxism can also refer to things outside of those parameters. Basically, that's why the consensus is that it's poorly defined, a problem made worse when the conspiracy theory came along.
::There are conspiracy theorists about - believing in secretive cabals saves thinking - but identifying a political idea is not to allege a conspiracy. ] (]) 09:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What I'm trying to say is that, I don't think the current set up of the pages is due to obstinate editors, or a political bias of the people here, I think it's just a difficult topic. Very few people have tried to write a draft that clearly defines cultural Marxism in a concise way, using reliable sources. Part of the problem with any encyclopedia, is that it wants set topics which are unified and can be categorized. How much does an intellectual have to write on Marxism and culture to be a cultural Marxist? Are all 20th century Western Marxists by default cultural Marxists for having to consider culture? Can any modern Marxist not be a cultural Marxist?
:::Peterson clearly did not create the term, we have a whole section of the article that explains this, including specific discussion of Peterson. And he is obviously alleging a conspiracy, we have a source (cited in the article) that quotes him calling anti-racist educators a ']'. It doesn't get any more clear than that. ] (]) 14:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It's unfortunate, but I'm not sure there's a strong resolution to be had here. Most of the knock backs are just part of trying to avoid ] or doing ]. ] is as much progress as has been made to having a page for the topic. ] (]) 10:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
:::No one is promoting the political idea that Peterson writes about. Specifically he says that cultural Marxists created identity politics in order to obtain power. In fact, the people he blames as starting this did not promote identity politics, which btw predates Marxism. ] (]) 14:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Recently I found out Richard Hoggart wasn't a fan of Marxism: ''"Hoggart’s political viewpoints were not outwardly expressed until much later in life, and make clear his aversion to Marxism"'' and the works of Raymond Williams ''"retained a consistent hostility towards what has become a central component of our understanding of the social construction of the subject'' - ''the theory of psychoanalysis"'' - and so he doesn't mention Freud a whole lot (he isn't particularly based there), and certainly not in the same way as the "Freudo-Marxists" of the Frankfurt School were... hence creating a "cultural Marxism" that coherently includes both schools is, probably not an easy or straight forwards task. They don't even share the same fundamental influences or basis for their analysis. ] (]) 10:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
::::If I say 'There is a shady organisation, with cells across the country, which uses dishonesty to try to change public opinion and seeks to take over the national government', is that a conspiracy theory, or a factual description of any political party?
:::::Exactly as easy or hard as speaking of "Western Marxism". ] (]) 13:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
::::The quote from Jordan Peterson is describing the field of study known as critical theory, and that is genuine.
::::If you take such a very wide definition of 'conspiracy theory', then you must remove the statement that this one is anti-Semitic. Certainly some have added an anti-Semitic element - it is the oldest delusion in the book and gets tacked onto every conspiracy narrative going. However, if you are going to say that Jordan Paterson or Suella Braverman, or anyone else using the term is using it in the sense of a conspiracy theory, it's not that one. Neither has a grain of anti-Semitism about them. It would be libellous to include them. ] (]) 11:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Please review the many prior discussions of antisemitism (and sources evaluating the CMCT as a antisemitic) on this Talk page. The TLDR is that people - including people of Jewish heritage or identity - can deploy antisemitic tropes and dog-whistles. Them doing so doesn't change the underlying nature of the CT according to relaible sources.
:::::Also, please refrain from making legal threats. Thanks. ] (]) 17:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::No one has accused me, and I do not know either of the people I have referred to, nor am I particularly partisan regarding them. I am reminding you of the Misplaced Pages policy: ]. Does that not apply to us all?
::::::
::::::There may be an anti-Semitic theory, but it is not what has been bundled in with this definition. Danny Stone (Chief Executive of Antisemitism Policy Trust) in the Jewish Chronicle in 2023: ''. He concludes that it is used in that way, but also with innocuous meaning, and sometimes by Marxists themselves. It shows the ambiguity, that needs disambiguation.
::::::We can either then have a disambiguation page, or a hatnote, or deny demonstrable, citable usage. ] (]) 23:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Do you have any independent, reliable sources for this {{tq|innocuous}} and {{tq|citable}} usage? No reliable, non-RSOPINION, non-self-published sources for this have been found in any of the prior, related discussions on this page - and Stone is obviously not suitable for this purpose, either.
:::::::As far as ] is concerned, it isn't a piece of WP:UPPERCASE that can be used to remove well-sourced material with which you disagree. If you think this article makes specific claims about living or recently deceased persons that are potentially defamatory, please point them out. I have seen none. ] (]) 01:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::If you say or imply that "here is a shady organisation, with cells across the country, which uses dishonesty to try to change public opinion and seeks to take over the national government," it is a conspiracy theory. If it isn't, what is?
:::::::Also, cultural Marxism is ]. It describes a Jewish conspiracy without explicitly naming them. ] (]) 02:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
That might be your interpretation, but it is only your reading of what you hear. If you hear someone whistling '']'', are they dogwhistling an anti-Catholic meme because it the tune is used for the Glaswegian song '']''? Someone may interpret it that way, but it is not the only interpretation. It is best to assume good faith, even off-wiki.


Sensitivity to words meant in a way you would not use them is not an objective approach. You assume that the hypothetical statement 'There is a shady organisation, with cells across the country, which uses dishonesty to try to change public opinion and seeks to take over the national government.' is necessarily a conspiracy theory, but I chose it carefully: it is an exact description of what a political party does: they gather likeminded people, form local organisations with committees that meet in private and try to get elected, so that their people will form the national government. That shows the danger of jumping too early at a phrase and running off with your first thought. It saves thinking, and prevents reasoning.
== ==
{{hat|Indeed, the matter is closed}}
<s>The opening sentence of the article claims the conspiracy theory is about ], however, there's a consensus formed in the lower half of ] which disagrees with making ] equivocable to ]. ], is the usual group targeted as to blame for the claims of the conspiracy theory, and that's the page the first line should link to, not to ]. Thank you. ] (]) 06:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)</s> ] (]) 09:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

:Specifically, most of the intellectuals mentioned on the ] page aren't generally mentioned in conspiracy theory narratives (making it an inappropriate statement to claim the conspiracy theory is about them). None of the following theorists mentioned on ] are targets of the conspiracy theory; '''Louis Althusser, Nicos Poulantzas, Galvano Della Volpe, Antonie Pannekoek, Herman Gorter, Hegel, Lucien Goldmann, Henri Lefebvre, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Jean-Paul Sartre, yet all of them are considered Western Marxists.''' ] (]) 07:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
::While it is fair to say that not all Western Marxists are targets of the CM conspiracy theory, it is also worth pointing out that it is not only Frankfurt School figures that are so targeted. ] (]) 09:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
:The opening sentence needs to be fixed so that some of the many other targets of the conspiracy theory get a mention. ] 07:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

'''Proposed wording:''' "The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims that proponents of ] are the basis of a continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture." ] (]) 10:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

:This change is terrible. Why has it been made in article space with no discussion, let alone agreement? ] 07:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

::Agreed, let's change it back to the original (]) - and leave it there. I was mistaken. Once this is done, I'll blank this section (as I was the one who raised the "issue"). ] (]) 09:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
:::What's wrong with the new version I did? I thought you said you liked it in your deleted comment? You could always replace Frankfurt School with Western Marxism if you think that's better...and don't blank the section please... ] 09:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Changed... let me know if you don't like it or have any suggestions... ] 09:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::So... all good then? ] 10:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
{{hab}}


No, just asserting that the very idea of cultural Marxism must be anti-Semitic is just as tenuous. I hope you read Danny Stone's article. (I don't know him, but I appreciate his work, and he has put a good deal of thought into that article.) I have also cited Brian Doherty (a libertarian) , noting it the term to have been used as a synonym for Critical Theory. That is the alternative interpretation I was adding to the hatnote.
== Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2023 ==


There will be those who anti-Semitic delusions into anything: that does not mean that everyone using the same language intends the same, and in this case it appears that the wild conspiracy theorists are just taking a phrase meant in a different way (quite frankly by people more intelligent than themselves) are running off using it to justify their own ideas. ] (]) 20:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory|answered=yes}}
Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy theory nor is it anti-semitic. There is a clear, sustained and ongoing attack by progressives against conservative values to change societal standards. This has nothing to do with far-right nor anti-semitism and to have this article in its current format demonstrates the far-left liberal bias of wikipedia. At the very least, this should be a neutral article on the subject of cultural Marxism representing both sides of the argument. What is demonstrative of the fact that it is not far-right nor anti-semitic is that mainstream conservatives have espoused the view and none have ever tried to attach it to anit-semitism in any way shape or form. If cultural Marxism is an anit-semitic notion then why is Marxism not an anti-semitic notion as well? ] (]) 10:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
:Not a properly formed edit request... ] (]) 10:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
:Note that neutrality does not include giving ] to a conspiracy theory. The article is written to reflect mainstream reliable sources, not ] ones. &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
:{{TQ|What is demonstrative of the fact that it is not far-right nor anti-semitic is that mainstream conservatives have espoused the view and none have ever tried to attach it to anit-semitism in any way shape or form.}} - yes they have, you're just mistaking your lack of knowledge for knowledge of the opposite being true. Here, I'll show you:
:The term "Cultural Marxism" in reference to the conspiracy theory about The Frankfurt School has a lot of white nationalist baggage because a
:William S. Lind came up with "Cultural Marxism" as a conspiracy theory narrative about The Frankfurt School, and in 2002 was paid by The Free Congress Foundation (a conservative think tank) to give a lecture about his theory at a Holocaust Denial conference. The Free Congress Foundation claims this was a form of outreach to many different groups on an issue by issue basis. In the lecture Lind made sure to mention that The Frankfurt School "were all Jewish" ...and part of the lecture was about them working for Hollywood (which is untrue), as well as being the source of America's supposed degeneration.
:Subsequently by 2010 The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory was a common topic on the White Nationalist forum StormFront.org, and by 2014 had spread to 4chan's neo-Nazi threads. Which is how it became part of alt-right doctrine. This was its pathway to being mainstream right wing and conservative ideology.
:Hitler had a similar idea he called ]. The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is essentially about a small group of foreign Jews coming to America with a plan to destroy western civilization (and in some versions, Christianity) by taking over the media, academia and politics. That's just the general outline of the theory (reads as pretty antisemitic). The Frankfurt School had no such plan, and in fact, were warning against mass media, which they considered to be a type of commercial propaganda, they called it The ] (today known as mainstream media). Frankfurt theorist Theodor W. Adorno writes more about They were also Jewish refugees, fleeing from Hitler (rather than seeking to destroy their host country).
:What's more identity politics was NOT created by The Frankfurt School, and is instead a home grown American theory. It was created by two black American women, Barbara Smith, and Kimberle Crenshaw. Barbara Smith being the first person on record to coin the term Identity Politics, Kimberle Crenshaw coming up with the idea of "intersectionality" or the idea that no one person is part of a single demographic alone, but that all identities stand at an intersection of many different demographics (for instance, a poor white mother with a disability, fits into 4 or 5 groups at once, the poor, women, white people, pregnant people, and disabled people).
:Oh, also, the same person who founded The Free Congress Foundation (a man named Paul Weyrich), also founded The Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank considered '''very MAINSTREAM'''), and both have received funding from Koch industries. Promotion of the culture war is mostly done by conservative think tanks, and their billionaire donors. Even someone like Jordan Peterson
:Here are some examples of it's antisemetic usages - for starters, there's a bunch of antisemitic imagery on its There are conspiracy theorists ho claim The Frankfurt School sociologists were , others conservatives claim they were (note, that link is from The National Review, considered to be '''the most mainstream''' conservative outlet). There's a very strange claim that one theorist (Adorno) was trained by The Tavistock Institute to write music for The Beatles, in order to the conservative website Breitbart put their own spin on this claim saying ... and of course Lind has his previously mentioned claims that that The Frankfurt School had sway over Hollywood, and used that sway to put gays on Television. This is all reads a bit like ] (the idea that Jews and Communists were ruining Germany by purposefully ruining Germany's culture)... and so Postmodernism has somewhat become part of the target for conservatives, even though it's really just
:So - the claim that Cultural Marxists are somehow in charge of - or ruining culture, has it's antisemitic side. Likewise, the claim that The Frankfurt School are responsible for the recent boom in trans rights, could be seen as a call back to ]. But that might be a stretch, at any rate - The Frankfurt School never wrote about trans people... and the point of a conspiracy theory is to spread misinformation. I hope this clears some things up, or at least suggests why people might see the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as antisemitic. It certainly gets used by a lot of antisemites and parallels a large variety of White Nationalist and antisemitic ideas... some of which have been spread in mainstream conservative American think tanks, and media. So now you know! ] (]) 08:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


:All I see in this comment is ], supported only by an op-ed intervention by someone without relevant expertise. The comment may be long, but it isn't relevant to determining content in this article. Such content must be based in the highest-quality sources we have, and according to them the CMCT is antisemitic in its origins and in its connotations. ] (]) 21:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Re: "There is a clear, sustained and ongoing attack by progressives against conservative values to change societal standards." That's basically a restatement of the conspiracy theory. Using faulty logic and dubious facts, conspiracy theorists explain events by blaming sinister forces. ] (]) 12:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
::Beyond the fact it's an op-ed from someone without the relevant experise, it's use is very much missing the point of the op-ed. A couple of choice quotes from Doherty {{tq|Summing up what the Frankfurt School's clotted and confusing thinkers actually wrote or believed is beyond the capacity of a short essay (or even a long one). Luckily, it is also beside the point for understanding the '''conspiracy theory of cultural Marxism.'''}} and of the Frankfurt School and critical theory {{tq|One can spill gallons of ink on what followed from the Frankfurt School in academia. But for our purposes it hardly matters, '''because theories of cultural Marxism barely depend on anything those writers actually explored in their own work.'''}} Doherty is confirming the usage that is described in this article. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It is an interesting article: not ana academic article but a polemic, so I would not want to cite it as a main source. Nevertheless it analyses the conspiracy idea well.
:::(One would have to be careful with any source, academic or polemic, as there are few neutral positions and it will take a fifty years or so for an adequately distant overview to appear.)
:::Doherty's analysis affirms (and reviles) the conspiracy theory. The analysis though shows numerous different uses of the term. What comes out is use of 'cultural Marxism' as a derogatory term for ]; turning Marx's concept of class war into a concept of sectional war. Whether that is valid or not is irrelevant: it is how the term has been and is used.
:::Doherty's polemic shows people are using the term to suggest a conspiracy, but that they are not always suggesting conspiracy - it suggests a political idea that spreads, as ideas do.
:::What does not come out of the analysis is any suggestion that the term is always anti-Semitic. (Indeed, almost all of the ideas-men accused of creating it were Gentiles.) There are certainly versions which are anti-Semiotic, and it is important to cover this. My point has always been that there is diversity of meaning. ] (]) 09:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::We're going round in circles. I'll leave this to see if anyone new points, but so far it doesn't appear that anyone is convinced by your interpretations. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 10:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I am not expressing my opinion, but the consensus of opinion in reliable sources. Obviously advocates of the conspiracy theory reject it, but policy requires that we provide due weight to mainstream opinion. While Brian Doherty is a journalist, not a social scientist who is an expert in the field, his article provides a good summary of the mainstream position, although he doesn't explain why the theory is anti-Semitic. ] (]) 17:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Option C seems to be more or less baseless. ] (]) 22:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:07, 26 December 2024

    This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article.
    This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
    Article policies
    Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
    Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
    There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Misplaced Pages policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
    The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
    Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.
    ? view · edit Frequently asked questions

    Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing how to improve this article.

    To view an explanation of the answer, click the link to the right of the question.
    Frequently asked questions about Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory Q1: Why is this topic called a "conspiracy theory" in the title? A1: Because that's what the reliable sources call it, and Misplaced Pages follows what reliable, independent, secondary sources say. See the sources listed in the footnotes in the lead of the article, for example. Q2: Why is it labeled "far-right" and "antisemitic" in the first sentence? Doesn't that show a biased, leftist point of view? A2: See answer #1; because that's what the reliable sources call it; see the citations for the first sentence. 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. Q4: I came here to read (or edit) about scholars who apply Marxist theory to the study of culture. A4: Much of this is covered at a different article, Marxist cultural analysis. Q5: Why is this labeled "antisemitic"? Plenty of people involved with the Frankfurt school were Jewish! A5: This article is about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory dating to the 1990s, and the reliable sources consistently identify it as antisemitic. The Frankfurt school is a different topic, and dates back to Germany in the 1920s.
    This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
    It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
    WikiProject iconUnited States Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconSocialism Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconPolitics: American Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    Taskforce icon
    		This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
    WikiProject iconDiscrimination Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
    WikiProject iconJudaism Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconSkepticism Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconAlternative views Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
    A warning about certain sources: There are two sources on the subject of "Cultural Marxism" that represent a citogenesis or circular reporting risk to Misplaced Pages as they plagiarize verbatim directly from an outdated draft that came from Misplaced Pages, which can be found here (2006 revision here). The sources are N.D. Arora's Political Science for Civil Services Main Examination (2013) and A.S. Kharbe's English Language And Literary Criticism (2009); both are from publishers located in New Delhi and should be avoided to prevent a citogenesis incident.


    Cultural Marxism DAB

    Should the hatnote be changed to {{redirects|Cultural Marxism|other uses}}, which links to the Cultural Marxism (disambiguation) page? 10:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Survey

    Withdrawn as moot, disambiguation page had been deleted at AfD. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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

    • No that disambiguation page should be removed, as per my comment on the poll on the disambiguation talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
      The disambiguation should remain.
      This article literally has YEARS of argument about whether the topic sentence is too contentious, and whether this article is appropriately neutral. The disambiguation page accurately covers basically anything which the term “cultural marxism” may mean, and to deny that the term is used in the ways presented on the disambiguation page is demonstrably false and there is a decade worth of edits on this page (including the fact that this article was created using the nonconspiratorial title ‘cultural marxism’) displaying as much.
      All nonfrivolous arguments about the content and POV of this page are made null and all complaints are rectified by a disambiguation page. I have not seen a bona fide argument against it. It simply is a solution which works for everyone. I am a Leaf (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
      No the dab page is solely a solution for those on one side of the argument. Quite obviously therefore it is not an acceptable compromise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
      What do you mean one side of the argument? The side of the argument that recognizes that the term's use very well is ambiguous?
      This should be the only side of the argument, as stated, because there is well over a decade of people complaining about how the conspiracy is not the only way to use the term. I am a Leaf (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      And what is a good "compromise?" Because as stated in my reply, no argument has been made against the disambiguation page aside from people who are plainly ignoring the use of the term outside the conspiracy theory context.
      Is the solution not to compromise at all and to delegitimize the ambiguous nature of the term because anyone who disagrees is part of the ravenous revisionist horde? That seems to be the position you are taking, and that is a position which is plainly called bigotry. I am a Leaf (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      A good compromise would be the current setup, where readers are not misinformed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      A disambiguation page is a list of extant Misplaced Pages articles. Even if it were to be kept, it it's not going to be turned into a WP:COATRACK covering basically anything which the term “cultural marxism” may mean - that is not the function of a disambiguation page. MrOllie (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
      The disambiguation page as it remains is perfect. I am a Leaf (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      It is disambiguates to exactly two articles. There's nothing perfect about that. Per WP:ONEOTHER a DAB page is not needed. TarnishedPath 01:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      Hahaha what do you MEAN??? A term can be ambiguous due to only two different uses of the term. What would you recommend changing? I am a Leaf (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      I see, my response to WP:ONEOTHER is that the two topics which are being disambiguated are so different as to not be subtopics of a main topic.
      That is, either the conspiracy theory is a subtopic of the western marxism or marxist cultural analysis page, or marxist cultural analysis is couched as a subtopic of the conspiracy.
      NEITHER of these are adequate solutions, and therefore WP:ONEOTHER is not the correct issue to be bringing up here. I am a Leaf (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      WP:DISAMBIG has nothing to do with 'subtopics' or 'main topics'. It's a navigation page, so readers can find articles when names are similar. If there are only two articles we don't need a navigational page. Perhaps you've been confused by the page's reference to 'primary topics' - WP:PRIMARYTOPIC just means that most incoming web traffic should be routed to one of the articles. It is purely about page views and what the readers are expected to be looking for. MrOllie (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      In this case all a disambiguation page would be is an extra click. Someone ends up on this article, but they wanted Marxist cultural analysis, so they would have to click on the hat link to the disambiguation page, and then from there there is only one other option they would be headed to. We should just send them to their final destination right away and save the extra click. MrOllie (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      This is a frivolous argument.
      You think it would be worse that people are presented with an overview of what a term might mean, instead of immediately being presented with the most pejorative and conspiratorial possible use of the term?
      How exactly is the conspiracy theory being presented first better?
      Would it be best if, when someone searched “moon landing” that they were immediately presented with “moon landing conspiracy theory” page?
      To respond to another criticism from another in this thread - From the WP:ONEOTHER page:
      Disambiguation helps readers quickly find a desired article in cases when a term could reasonably apply to more than one article.
      In this case, we have
      1. a now nonexistent page called ‘Cultural Marxism’ which was about Marxist cultural analysis, and has since become “cultural marxism conspiracy theory”
      2. a decade worth of people saying that “cultural marxism” as used in the lede is unreasonable, contentious, revionist, and so on. If you’ve been here long enough you’ve seen probably hundreds of arguments to this tune.
      3. Evidence of academics (Dworkin, legal scholars like Kevin Roberts, and yes, even the hack psychologist cultural critic Peterson) using the term to generally mean Marxist cultural analysis, post structuralism, Frankfurt School and so on and so forth.
      Is it that you think that all these people do not ~reasonably~ use this term? Or is it that you think that this use of the term “cultural marxism” could not ~reasonably~ apply to more than one article? It must be one or the other, if not, the disambiguation is entirely appropriate.
      I am a Leaf (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      You're arguing about stuff that is simply irrelevant. Perhaps the term could apply to some hypothetical third article, but since we do not have an actual third article to list, the topic doesn't need a disambiguation page. MrOllie (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      It is irrelevant that the term Cultural Marxism was the page under which this page was originally created, and that the topic of the page was Marxist cultural analysis? It is irrelevant that many academics use the term cultural marxism in a non conspiracy theory way? This argument is not simply handwoven away. I am not speaking in hypotheticals. I am a Leaf (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      Since this discussion is about a hatnote and a disambiguation page, yes, that is all irrelevant. We have two pages to link, no more and no less. MrOllie (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      What is your issue with the disambiguation page? There is no rule stating that if there are only two that the disambiguation page must not exist. This is a grossly strict reading of WP:DISAMBIG and is not supported by the text of the article. I am a Leaf (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      Yes, there is. It was linked for you earlier in this thread. MrOllie (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      And I quoted the language in the article which supported my position, and you did not. I am a Leaf (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      No, WP:ONEOTHER is directly on point. You came up with some irrelevant stuff about 'subtopics' that in no way undercuts the obvious point of that guideline. If you want to stick with irrelevant arguments, be my guest. We're just repeating ourselves, so it seems useful conversation is at an end. Feel free to take the last word in this sub thread if you need it, I won't reply here again. MrOllie (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      WP:ONEOTHER is literally about the distinction between primary topics and other (if you will, sub-) topics.
      Do you read these articles? Or do you just cite them fervently in the hope that the person challenging your ideas does not read them too?
      In addition WP:DISAMBIG states plainly
      This page in a nutshell: Disambiguation helps readers quickly find a desired article in cases when a term could reasonably apply to more than one article.
      You suggest only one article is insufficient for a disambiguation page, yet the WP:DISAMBIG page and WP:ONEOTHERboth plainly state that that is not such a strict rule as you suggest. I am a Leaf (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    • No. This RFC shouldn't have been opened in the first place, and the disambiguation page should go to AfD. - MrOllie (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    • No (Summoned by bot) Cultural Marxism refers to the conspiracy theory. Readers should be directed to Marxist cultural analysis if they are interested in reading about that subject. TarnishedPath 13:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    • No. This RfC is inappropriate, and the bogus dab page should be in AfD by now. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
      @Orangemike, it certainly is. TarnishedPath 14:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Yes if we keep the dab, and No if it's deleted per the afd; isn't that straightforward? What MrOllie said, I guess. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cultural Marxism (disambiguation). ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
      The AfD was initiated immediately after the RfC started, presumably because the nominator wanted to shorten the discussion from 30 days to 7. However, this resulted in the discussion being split between two locations, which is far from ideal. Speaking of split discussions, see my WP:ONEOTHER comment in the Discussion section above; it relates to your comment in the AfD. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
      Presumably it was initiated because the nominator thought that the page should be deleted, something the RFC process does not do. MrOllie (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
      Correct. RFCs and AFDs are entirely different discussions. TarnishedPath 01:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
      Given the consensus that the conspiracy theory article is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term Cultural Marxism, the only permissible use for the disambiguation page is via the hatnote in this article. In other words, updating the hatnote is a prerequisite for using the dab page. This is why it's appropriate to address the hatnote discussion first, and why that discussion should take place on this talk page. Additionally, since the dab page was created only a few days ago and no other articles link to it, making it effectively invisible to readers, there is no compelling reason to rush its deletion. Using the AfD to influence the outcome of the RfC doesn't seem like the most constructive approach. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
      7 days is more than enough time to demonstrate that it is needed per WP:D2D and WP:ONEOTHER. TarnishedPath 07:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
      By simple logic deciding if the page should exist should happen before deciding how to use the page. If the page doesn't exist then deciding how to use it is nonsensical, only if the page is exists does discussing how it's used make any sense.
      That's not using AfD to influence the RFC, that's doing things in their logical order. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Comment. Because this DAB has only two pages, I lean towards deleting it. However, I've seen an increasing tendency among conservatives to use "Cultural Marxism" for its plain meaning of "Marxism in culture" (or at the very least, aspects of culture they perceive as downstream of Marxism). This terminology is now reflected in secondary and tertiary sources, e.g. here in the OED (which notes its roots in the original antisemitic conspiracy theory, but also notes the way it's taken on a broader meaning). My suggestions would be to split this into two pages (maybe Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and something like Cultural Marxism (phrase)), which could both be included in a DAB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Closed Limelike Curves (talk • contribs) 18:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Yes, I support simplifying the hatnote and linking to the disambiguation page. Some editors argue that the "See also" articles are irrelevant or merely padding, but I respectfully disagree. Cultural Bolshevism is historically and topically related to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, as both articles explain, and similarly, Western Marxism and Cultural studies are closely linked to Marxist cultural analysis, with all three overlapping to a significant degree. One unique link, which isn't available in the other articles, is the Wiktionary entry, which is particularly important given that the term cultural Marxism has over time become a highly politicized meme. None of the articles directly address this aspect (nor should they, as this is the role of Wiktionary). Including both the Wiktionary link and the "See also" articles not only aids navigation but offers readers valuable context that isn't provided elsewhere, making this a reasonable exception to the WP:ONEOTHER guideline. As with any guideline, exceptions may apply, and in this case, I believe it's necessary to help ensure that Misplaced Pages remains accessible for all readers, regardless of their political views. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
    • As the original poster, I am withdrawing the RfC because the issue is now moot following the deletion of the Cultural Marxism (disambiguation) page during the AfD process. For reference, here is the archived dab page that was deleted. I will also add a subsection below to address an outstanding question about the hatnote that a few of us discussed earlier, and welcome any additional input from others. Thanks to everybody for participating in the RfC. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Post-AfD Hatnote Poll

    The current hatnote reads: "Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For the Marxist approach to social theory and cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis.

    Should the hatnote be simplified to make it easier for a casual reader to understand?

    1. Do nothing.
    2. Simplify to: For the Marxist approach to cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis.
    3. Simplify to: For the Marxist view of culture, see Marxist cultural analysis.
    4. Simplify to: For the Marxist theory of culture, see Marxist cultural analysis.
    5. Something else (please specify).

    Feel free to list your options in order of preference, if you'd like. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    Option 1 but I also find Option 4 adequate. I am a Leaf (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    Nullification Just to re-iterate my concerns expressed elsewhere, Marxist cultural analysis is a WP:coatrack of not particularly orthodox "Marxists" (some of whom aren't Marxists at all), which two authors are attempting to WP:OWN in order to force the appearance that Sociology is by definition Marxist. It's no longer a suitable hatnote for the page. I'd suggest no hatnote. 117.102.150.254 (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    @117.102.150.254 do you mean WP:POVSPLIT? If so I agree, because when I hear the term Marxist cultural analysis I think Frankfurt School (the WP:COMMONNAME) and not what occupies that article. If someone were to propose a merge I'd support it. TarnishedPath 10:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    The IP is arguing at article Talk that only Orthodox Marxists should be considered "Marxists", that the Frankfurt School were not (mostly) Marxists, and that instead of "Marxist cultural analysis" WP ought to have a "Gramscian cultural analysis" page that somehow includes Frankfurt. I doubt very much that this IP's concerns are the concerns of other editors - but who knows, at this point? Newimpartial (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Newimpartial, when they state Orthodox Marxists do they mean Marxism–Leninism? Not that I'm going to get involved, but if so that strikes me as No true scottsman. TarnishedPath 11:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    IANA Marxist, but I think Orthodox Marxism means roughly the opposite—Marxists who aren't M-Ls (i.e. reject Lenin's views). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

    Marxism can be anything now.

    WP:COMPETENCE, WP:NOTHERE, WP:NOTFORUM
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Due to the actions of one editor, Marxism, according to the Marxist cultural analysis page, "...does not have any authoritative definition" so I don't see how the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page can be incorrect any more. If Marxism doesn't have a definition, and if cultural studies started with the works of Karl Marx in 1859 (as also claimed by the current Marxist cultural analysis page - then that seems to confirm and validate the Conspiracy theory's claims that Cultural Studies originated with Karl Marx and is part of Marxism. Unless you're telling me the one editor who now WP:OWNs the Marxist cultural analysis is wrong? Well, for now it's being said in Wikivoice there, so perhaps the DAB hatnote for this article needs to be reconsidered. Strangely the page on Cultural Studies says that field of academic discourse started in the 1960s.... that conflicts with Marxist cultural analysis's claims it started 100 years earlier with Marx's writings. 101.115.134.142 (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    This is not what is claimed on the Marxist Cultural Analysis page. The page says that people in the ‘overlapping and antagonistic traditions’ of Marxist cultural analysis take inspiration from Marx’s texts, not that Marx was already doing Marxist cultural analysis avant la lettre.

    Think about it like Christianity. Quakers clearly take influence from the life of Christ and the Gospels, but it would be ridiculous to say that Quakerism started with Jesus.

    And yes, Marxists debate what Marxism really is all the time (just as conservatives debate what conservatism really is or who really counts as a conservative). Yet, the lack of an “authoritative definition” obviously does not mean that things can mean anything. Perhaps you’re right that the editor should get out of Wikivoice and mention the source authors directly (either Lee Artz or Peter Brooker). However, you should probably take your comments to the Marxist Cultural Analysis talk page, in that case. The hat notes of both pages are there to point out that “yes, Marxists have theorised about culture”, but that what they have actually said and done is distinct from the claims of Lind or Minnicino or other proponents of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Ex-periment-evie (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
    What @Ex-periment-evie said.
    Also, please at least tag me if you are going to cast aspersions against me.
    It would also be lovely if you took a moment to explain why you have a long history of editing around a contentious topic with constantly shifting IPs instead of your username. Patrick (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
    See Etymological fallacy: "a logical fallacy that occurs when someone assumes a word's original meaning is the same as its current meaning." It doesn't matter what Marxism means but what the concept of cultural Marxism means to the conspiracy theorists who created the concept. TFD (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
    Nothing will ever confirm the conspiracy theory, as the conspiracy theory is made up nonsense. No word play will ever change that fact. If you want to discuss the hatnote there's an RFC above. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

    WP:REFERS

    @Newimpartial, I'm surprised by this revert. It appears true that, as you write, "'Cultural Marxism' is the imaginary object of the conspiracy theory". But more pertinently, it is also the name of the theory, in addition to being its object. Therefore, per the MOS as documented at WP:REFERS, we should avoid using constructions such as "refers to". We are describing the concept, not its name. Sandstein 12:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

    My revert reflects multiple discussions on this page, which show no consensus to replace the longstanding "refers to" formulation with "is" or any other replacement text. To the best of my knowledge, the most recent of the many discussions is this one. Newimpartial (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Newimpartial, thanks for the link. This seems to have been (over)exhaustively discussed and therefore I'll not involve myself in it. Sandstein 11:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

    Hatnote expansion

    There was a lengthy (and not always calm) discussion on the AfD for 'Cultural Marxism (disambiguation)'. The original disambiguation page had just two topics but was ripe for expansion had it been retained. The conclusion of the discussion was that "A hatnote is more effective at getting readers to the other article if they end up in the wrong place.".

    The sources provided showed several uses of the phrase 'Cultural Marxism', going back the 19th century - long before modern conspiracy theories. One major theme was writers who described Critical theory as 'cultural Marxism' (most famously Jordan Peterson, but with plenty of others). It may be from that usage that less analytical minds created the idea of a conspiracy.

    I argued on that page that without disambiguation, Misplaced Pages would be saying that all the past uses of the term are to the later conspiracy theory: that is wrong and indeed libellous to those who have used it in other senses.

    The broad choice then is: (a) A longer hatnote; (b) A disambiguation page; or (c) Mislead readers and libel some litigious commentators. The conclusion on the AfD was in favour of hatnotes. Howard Alexander (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

    Yeah. There's also that discussion above under Post-AfD Hatnote Poll which seems to indicate a consensus for the hatnote " "Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For the Marxist approach to social theory and cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis." That people have put the words "Marxism" and "(C)ultural" adjacent to each other without meaning the conspiracy theory is not a compelling argument that it is a term needing disambiguation. I hope that you aren't trying to reopen a seemingly closed discussion in hope of another result. (Also, what's this about "libel(ing) some litigious commentators"?) CAVincent (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    The hatnote was discussed above, the consensus was for the disambiguation page should be deleted. Nothing here hasn't already been discussed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    The hatnote discussion was before the discussion on the AfD. I am trying to implement the conclusions reached there. Where a commentator / philosopher / speaker has used the phrase 'Cultural Marxism' to refer to another concept, specifically critical theory, how would you suggest dealing with that?
    Hatnotes are useful where terms are used in different ways. The term 'Corporatism' has a long-established meaning in political philosophy and the Misplaced Pages article reflects that. However some people use it for an unrelated concept, and so the hatnote on the article redirects the reader who was looking for the latter. The same is needed with this disputed term. Howard Alexander (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Both discussions were proceeding at the same time. And the AFD in no way presented any consensus for you to change the hatnote, folks there were supporting the existing hatnote. MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is why I thought I must have missed something. The discussion at AfD wasn't conclusive, and the discussion here was happening at the same time not before. I certainly don't believe the arguments presented are a reason to change the hatnote. The mischaracterisation of real subjects is the subject of this article, and other than a few passing mentions in real sources those using 'Cultural Marxism' are part of that mischaracterisation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for reminding me of why I had previously unfollowed this article.
    Nothing at all about hatnotes here adds up to a plausible liable case under U.S. law. Or please cite precedent to the contrary.
    I will not see responses unless you tag me. Patrick (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    There are approximately five sources that had used the term cultural Marxism before the conspiracy theory used the term. None of them are significant to the topic and are only mentioned by conspiracy theorists trying to prove that there is some basis for their views.
    The name of the conspiracy theory was an update of cultural Bolshevism and was not based on earlier usage of the term cultural Marxism.
    I object to changing the hatnote because it's basically endorsing the views of people such as Jordan Peterson who claim cultural Marxism is a real thing. TFD (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, Dr Peterson does have several million viewers, so his usage of the term is significant. We are not here to endorse or suppress views, nor choose which are right or wrong. His usage, and others who have followed on from there, is (as I understand it and is oversimplified form) that the idea of Marxism posits class conflict as the motivator of history; those who follow that idea may have accepted that economic Marxism has failed, and so have adapted the ideas in a cultural form - proposing a narrative of struggle between classes, races, sexes etc. That does not require a conspiracy, any more than classical Marxism does. Essentially what is being described is a genuine social philosophy: to its proponents it has come to be known as 'critical theory' and its opponents can give it other names, of which Dr Peterson uses 'cultural Marxism'. Whether he is correct to choose that term is not for me nor you nor Misplaced Pages to say.
    Having determined that this meaning is in fact applied by commentators, then it is misleading to say 'It only ever means a conspiracy theory', as that is clearly incorrect. It also smears a great many people who have used the term in other senses.
    If the conspiracy theory sense is, according to the decrees of Misplaced Pages, the principal meaning, very well - but we are then duty-bound to provide a landing place for when it is used in other senses. Howard Alexander (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Peterson's sense of the term and the conspiracy theory sense is the same thing. We don't need another landing place because this article is already the correct one. MrOllie (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    "duty-bound"? You're trying really hard, but not doing very well. CAVincent (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Do you have any reliable sources for these assertions? TucanHolmes (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    " may have accepted that economic Marxism has failed, and so have adapted the ideas in a cultural form - proposing a narrative of struggle between classes, races, sexes etc." That by definition is a conspiracy because it requires people working together. It's also false, ergo, it's a conspiracy theory. What seals the deal is the idea that the conspirators were so influential that they could have forced wokeness on unsuspecting citizens, TFD (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    There is no need to elaborate the hatnote with a distinction between Peterson's dogwhistle usage of the "Cultural Marxism" trope and the conspiracy theory, because the reliable sources treat them as the same topic - namely, as a conspiracy theory. There isn’t any other article, besides the one for the CT, where readers interested in the trope employed by culture warriors should (or even could) be directed. Newimpartial (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    The quote given is what I was thinking about. Timing is crucial though: if Peterson's use of the term popularised it, then he was not 'dog-whistling', but creating a term that others ran off with, with their own, often unreasoned, interpretations.
    Describing a growing political tendency is not proposing a conspiracy: that is not how ideas spread. If someone says 'There are conservatives who want people to think X', that is not a conspiracy theory. People reading articles in 'The Spectator' or 'The Guardian' are not a cabal skulking in secret rooms!
    There are conspiracy theorists about - believing in secretive cabals saves thinking - but identifying a political idea is not to allege a conspiracy. Howard Alexander (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Peterson clearly did not create the term, we have a whole section of the article that explains this, including specific discussion of Peterson. And he is obviously alleging a conspiracy, we have a source (cited in the article) that quotes him calling anti-racist educators a 'fifth column'. It doesn't get any more clear than that. MrOllie (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    No one is promoting the political idea that Peterson writes about. Specifically he says that cultural Marxists created identity politics in order to obtain power. In fact, the people he blames as starting this did not promote identity politics, which btw predates Marxism. TFD (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    If I say 'There is a shady organisation, with cells across the country, which uses dishonesty to try to change public opinion and seeks to take over the national government', is that a conspiracy theory, or a factual description of any political party?
    The quote from Jordan Peterson is describing the field of study known as critical theory, and that is genuine.
    If you take such a very wide definition of 'conspiracy theory', then you must remove the statement that this one is anti-Semitic. Certainly some have added an anti-Semitic element - it is the oldest delusion in the book and gets tacked onto every conspiracy narrative going. However, if you are going to say that Jordan Paterson or Suella Braverman, or anyone else using the term is using it in the sense of a conspiracy theory, it's not that one. Neither has a grain of anti-Semitism about them. It would be libellous to include them. Howard Alexander (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Please review the many prior discussions of antisemitism (and sources evaluating the CMCT as a antisemitic) on this Talk page. The TLDR is that people - including people of Jewish heritage or identity - can deploy antisemitic tropes and dog-whistles. Them doing so doesn't change the underlying nature of the CT according to relaible sources.
    Also, please refrain from making legal threats. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    No one has accused me, and I do not know either of the people I have referred to, nor am I particularly partisan regarding them. I am reminding you of the Misplaced Pages policy: Misplaced Pages:Libel. Does that not apply to us all?
    There may be an anti-Semitic theory, but it is not what has been bundled in with this definition. Danny Stone (Chief Executive of Antisemitism Policy Trust) in the Jewish Chronicle in 2023: 'Is the term 'Cultural Marxism' really antisemitic? - The Jewish Chronicle'. He concludes that it is used in that way, but also with innocuous meaning, and sometimes by Marxists themselves. It shows the ambiguity, that needs disambiguation.
    We can either then have a disambiguation page, or a hatnote, or deny demonstrable, citable usage. Howard Alexander (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Do you have any independent, reliable sources for this innocuous and citable usage? No reliable, non-RSOPINION, non-self-published sources for this have been found in any of the prior, related discussions on this page - and Stone is obviously not suitable for this purpose, either.
    As far as WP:LIBEL is concerned, it isn't a piece of WP:UPPERCASE that can be used to remove well-sourced material with which you disagree. If you think this article makes specific claims about living or recently deceased persons that are potentially defamatory, please point them out. I have seen none. Newimpartial (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    If you say or imply that "here is a shady organisation, with cells across the country, which uses dishonesty to try to change public opinion and seeks to take over the national government," it is a conspiracy theory. If it isn't, what is?
    Also, cultural Marxism is Dog whistle (politics). It describes a Jewish conspiracy without explicitly naming them. TFD (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    That might be your interpretation, but it is only your reading of what you hear. If you hear someone whistling Marching Through Georgia, are they dogwhistling an anti-Catholic meme because it the tune is used for the Glaswegian song Billy Boys? Someone may interpret it that way, but it is not the only interpretation. It is best to assume good faith, even off-wiki.

    Sensitivity to words meant in a way you would not use them is not an objective approach. You assume that the hypothetical statement 'There is a shady organisation, with cells across the country, which uses dishonesty to try to change public opinion and seeks to take over the national government.' is necessarily a conspiracy theory, but I chose it carefully: it is an exact description of what a political party does: they gather likeminded people, form local organisations with committees that meet in private and try to get elected, so that their people will form the national government. That shows the danger of jumping too early at a phrase and running off with your first thought. It saves thinking, and prevents reasoning.

    No, just asserting that the very idea of cultural Marxism must be anti-Semitic is just as tenuous. I hope you read Danny Stone's article. (I don't know him, but I appreciate his work, and he has put a good deal of thought into that article.) I have also cited Brian Doherty (a libertarian) in his 2018 article, noting it the term to have been used as a synonym for Critical Theory. That is the alternative interpretation I was adding to the hatnote.

    There will be those who anti-Semitic delusions into anything: that does not mean that everyone using the same language intends the same, and in this case it appears that the wild conspiracy theorists are just taking a phrase meant in a different way (quite frankly by people more intelligent than themselves) are running off using it to justify their own ideas. Howard Alexander (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    All I see in this comment is original interpretation, supported only by an op-ed intervention by someone without relevant expertise. The comment may be long, but it isn't relevant to determining content in this article. Such content must be based in the highest-quality sources we have, and according to them the CMCT is antisemitic in its origins and in its connotations. Newimpartial (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Beyond the fact it's an op-ed from someone without the relevant experise, it's use is very much missing the point of the op-ed. A couple of choice quotes from Doherty Summing up what the Frankfurt School's clotted and confusing thinkers actually wrote or believed is beyond the capacity of a short essay (or even a long one). Luckily, it is also beside the point for understanding the conspiracy theory of cultural Marxism. and of the Frankfurt School and critical theory One can spill gallons of ink on what followed from the Frankfurt School in academia. But for our purposes it hardly matters, because theories of cultural Marxism barely depend on anything those writers actually explored in their own work. Doherty is confirming the usage that is described in this article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    It is an interesting article: not ana academic article but a polemic, so I would not want to cite it as a main source. Nevertheless it analyses the conspiracy idea well.
    (One would have to be careful with any source, academic or polemic, as there are few neutral positions and it will take a fifty years or so for an adequately distant overview to appear.)
    Doherty's analysis affirms (and reviles) the conspiracy theory. The analysis though shows numerous different uses of the term. What comes out is use of 'cultural Marxism' as a derogatory term for critical theory; turning Marx's concept of class war into a concept of sectional war. Whether that is valid or not is irrelevant: it is how the term has been and is used.
    Doherty's polemic shows people are using the term to suggest a conspiracy, but that they are not always suggesting conspiracy - it suggests a political idea that spreads, as ideas do.
    What does not come out of the analysis is any suggestion that the term is always anti-Semitic. (Indeed, almost all of the ideas-men accused of creating it were Gentiles.) There are certainly versions which are anti-Semiotic, and it is important to cover this. My point has always been that there is diversity of meaning. Howard Alexander (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    We're going round in circles. I'll leave this to see if anyone new points, but so far it doesn't appear that anyone is convinced by your interpretations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am not expressing my opinion, but the consensus of opinion in reliable sources. Obviously advocates of the conspiracy theory reject it, but policy requires that we provide due weight to mainstream opinion. While Brian Doherty is a journalist, not a social scientist who is an expert in the field, his article provides a good summary of the mainstream position, although he doesn't explain why the theory is anti-Semitic. TFD (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Option C seems to be more or less baseless. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Categories: