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 23:39, 18 November 2024 editTarnishedPath (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers17,320 editsm →2024-11 sources← 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 
(75 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)
Line 61: Line 61:
| 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=34 | counter=35
| maxarchivesize=75K | maxarchivesize=75K
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} | archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
Line 69: Line 69:


{{annual readership}} {{annual readership}}

== Separate article for cultural Marxism ==

As the FAQ notes, this article only covers the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory dating to the 1990s:
{{tq|Q3: Dworkin (1997) has the term in the title of his book, so the field clearly must exist.}}

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

My question is, does the more general concept of cultural Marxism meet the requirements of ] to have its own article? It would appear so, as there are quite a few reliable sources that discuss the general concept (without the conspiracy theories):
* Dworkin's ''Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain''
* ''Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology'' by Richard Weiner
* Trent Schroyer's use of the term in his ''The Critique of Domination''
* Davies, I. "British cultural Marxism". ''Int J Polit Cult Soc'' (1991)
* Oittinen's discussion of the term in ''The Encyclopedia of Political Thought'' (2014)
* Jamin, J. "Cultural Marxism: A survey". ''Religion Compass'' (2018)

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

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

:I think there are only two topics and hence no need for a third article. ] covers all the real Marxist stuff and this article covers all the conspiracy stuff. I don't think there is anything else. I'll wager that everything on that list refers to one or the other.
:The conspiracy theory use of the term may date to the 1990s but it is not limited to that time period. In fact it only exploded in popularity well afterwards and continues to this day. --] (]) 01:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

:Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cultural_Marxism_(2nd_nomination)
:Google books says this of Richard Weiner's ''Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology'' (as per its blurb):
:<blockquote>A thorough examination and analysis of the tensions between political sociology and the culturally oriented Marxism that emerged in the 60s and 70s is presented in this volume. In order to create a strikingly '''original synthesis''', Weiner considers the work of theorists as diverse as Jurgen Habermas, Claus Offe, Alain Touraine, Anthony Giddens and Alvin Gouldner, '''many of whom fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement.'''</blockquote>
:Due to that it can't be considered a rigorous source, it seems to be discussing a "culturally oriented Marxism" (as a general concept) rather than a solid definition of a unified group/movement going under the name "Cultural Marxism" (note the capitalization, indicating a proper noun).
:Trent Schroyer uses lower case "cultural Marxism" also indicating he's talking about a more general concept, and not a set or well defined idea... this seems to be the case for Davies, and Oittinen too.
:The Jamin source (perhaps because it's the most recent, and so more familiar with the conspiracy theory usage) actually makes Misplaced Pages's position a bit clearer, the term is used for both a Conspiracy Theory, as well as a type of analysis associated with a specific set of thinkers (The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School aka British Cultural Marxism, and E.P Thompson). This page is for the conspiracy theory. For other usages, you should check out ] (as the other responder suggests).
:As a final point, ] wouldn't be a suitable source for this topic, as it's a ] magazine. It's also been suggested that they're fairly friendly to the Alt-right who are affiliated with the conspiracy theory, search the talk page archives for the authors surname "Zubatov" for further details. ] (]) 02:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:All those sources, except Jamin's 2018 article, were mentioned in a Misplaced Pages editor's 2015 article defending the existence of cultural Marxism as a topic.
:None of the original sources define the term and there is no evidence they mean the same thing. Only three of them are writing about the topic in general, rather than cultural Marxism in the UK. They also seem to be using the term interchangeably with cultural analysis.
:Notice also that the first use of the term was in 1973, long after the school's heyday. None of the main characters, or their critics, used the term or were even aware of it.
:In order to write an article, you would have to begin by saying what the topic was. But there are not sources for this. ] (]) 10:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
*There is also David Auerbach's 2014 Slate article found in the Press section of this talk page that illuminates the issue. ] (]) 21:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::It only uses the term in passing, without enough context to determine whether the author is bemoaning the loss of a page on the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (but believes some aspects of the theory have merit to it and therefore shouldn't be described as one), bemoaning the loss of what is now our page on ], bemoaning the fact that we now have only one page on ], or bemoaning the loss of a page on some third thing. Realistically everything of value on that page was distributed over those three. --] (]) 21:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::To quote from the Slate article:
::: ''Recently, an adequate and fairly neutral page on “Cultural Marxism,” which traced the history of Marxist critical theory from Lukács to Adorno to Jameson, simply disappeared thanks to the efforts of a single editor. Rather than folding it into the narrower but deeper “Critical theory” page, the editor replaced the page with one on the “Frankfurt school conspiracy theory,” which obsessively and somewhat offensively dwells on the Jewish presence in these schools of thought and the right-wing and borderline anti-Semitic conspiracy theories around them. (The reason the editor dwelled on these irrelevant conspiracy theories instead of the thinkers themselves is unknown, but the changes are certainly troubling.) After bewildered complaints, Wales restored the original page and asked for an extra week’s debate on the sudden and drastic shift, sparking outrage from a cabal of editors who favored the change. Whether the change will win out will be determined less by truth and more by the stubbornness and comparative popularity of the editors and the administrators backing them.''
::] (]) 21:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I can't help but note that not only does that quote contradict what happened (there were extended discussions on the initial deletion; no {{tq|single editor}} could do such a thing), it also contradicts ''itself''. In that paragraph alone, they state that the page {{tq|simply disappeared thanks to the efforts of a single editor}}, yet a few sentences later Wales' decision to unilaterally restore it sparked {{tq|outrage from a cabal of editors who favored the change}} - so apparently even the author realized it wasn't just one editor? In any case, it reads to me like an opinion piece; and given that it's by a non-expert it's not useful for much. My advice is to read better sources. --] (]) 19:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Something deeply ironic about David Auerbach suggesting there's a conspiracy theory to take over Misplaced Pages headed by a lone editor backed by administrators. That's just more conspiracy mongering. In actual fact you can find the talk page of quite easily - and you can review the accounts of the administrators who closed the discussion - and check whether they were impartial as per ] and ]. Misplaced Pages has these policies to ensure there's not collusion or a conspiracy. Misplaced Pages also operates on facts, and requires people to do proper research - it doesn't operate on opinions, hearsay, and conspiracy theories. David Auerbach should put some research in if he wants to prove there's a conspiracy going on here. ] (]) 02:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::Auerbach has a BA in computer science and is not an expert. The problem remains that the few sources that the conspiracy theorists were able to find are insufficient to establish it is a notable topic. ] (]) 21:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Slate is generally regarded as RS, but setting that aside, I hope you’re not implying that anyone supporting the CM disambiguation is a conspiracy theorist. ] (]) 22:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Slate might be generally regarded as RS, but Auerbach has a personal involvement with Misplaced Pages (stemming from his involvement in GamerGate) and ought not to be used as a source on anything Misplaced Pages-related. ] (]) 11:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::*Sort of? The 2014 dispute you're talking about (when an article that functionally endorsed the conspiracy theory was deleted and eventually replaced with this one) was related to ]; modern sources are extremely clear that the use of "cultural marxism" in that context was part of the conspiracy theory described on this page - see the relevant section here and its sources. That doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who got caught up in some part of that campaign saw the whole thing, or endorsed the entire conspiracy theory with all of its twists and turns, or were even fully ''aware'' that they were being fed a conspiracy theory; but the sources in the article are clear that the term, as it was used in the context of that campaign, was used to invoke the conspiracy theory in order to try and recruit people deeper into the radical movements that believe in it. So if your position is "hey I heard a bunch of stuff about Cultural Marxism in 2014, why isn't there an article about that, why is there this article about a conspiracy theory instead?", the answer is that this article ''is'' the article about what people were telling you back then. --] (]) 20:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Please provide a source that Slate is generally reliable. It isn't listed in ]. Similar publications listed are reliable "for news."
::::Please see ]. The nature of the publication determines whether it is reliable for specific claims.
::::Imagine you were writing a chapter about a philosophical school for an encyclopedia. Are you going to consult books and articles written by experts with PhDs and university professorships and published by academic publishers, or are you going to base it on a computer scientist writing in a magazine?
::::Similarly, would you base an article about nuclear physics on something written by someone with a BA in hotel management? Or would you decide on what medical treatment you needed based on an article by someone with a BA in architecture? ] (]) 03:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
* In 2014, the AfD deleted the page "Cultural Marxism" and redirected it to...? The article "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" was created in 2017, while this Talk page was created in 2020. Could someone clarify the gaps between these events? This talk page is generating significant engagement, and I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation for both gaps. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*:Hey, I suspect you're new to Misplaced Pages, so: Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I believe this is what you're looking for: - you can click the history button and see the history of the page (eg. where it's been redirected to) since the closing admin of the AfD wiped it. Looks like the first place it redirected to was ]
*:If I recall correctly, it was eventually decided that the conspiracy theory section of that page, didn't really relate to what The Frankfurt School actually said, or did, or was about in any way (it was also getting too expansive). The conspiracy theory proposes that they took over the media, culture and society, to control it as political propaganda... but in actual fact they were vehemently ''against'' propaganda, and believed that cultures should be localized, and have lots of different humanistic voices, perspectives, debates, poetry, and art (even Avant-garde art that's clearly not going to be popular with everyone, which was a theme of - his point was that it didn't have to be commercially viable to be valuable or meaningful to the artist/human experience).
*:Likewise, Marcuse's theory of the ] is that making culture into a profit driven, or political apparatus, inevitably led to a mechanical system of Capitalist hegemony that was impossible to escape - because all attempts at escaping would be folded back in if/when they become popular enough (this is perhaps evidence in the fact that all Youtube videos ultimately contribute to Google's profits, same for other social media cites, we can't help but feed them in click/view profits so the mechanical reproduction of culture on an industrial level serves the Capitalist system in total). So there was really not much of a path for value systems to escape that.
*:Perhaps tangentially, the conspiracy theory doesn't just get those facts/viewpoints wrong, but it also doesn't mention other schools of ] that have been discussed as "cultural" forms of Marxism - such as those of ], or Labor theorist ]. For instance, where the conspiracy theory claims The Frankfurt School totally dominates society, The Birmingham School theorists had a much more hopeful idea that modern viewers (circa, 1973) could ], to produce new versions and understandings of the messages within it. They could modify, subvert, make fun of, respond to it (again, you probably recognize this on Youtube).
*:Finally there's ], and his work in ] and books like ] where his practice of a Marxist approach to culture is involved with tracking down historical records of a hidden history, a hidden social consciousness that is outside of popular culture and exists in a more traditional mode, discussions in pubs, in union meetings, in human interactions, in certain families, in cultures which aren't commercial - but still worth documenting.
*:All of which stems from ] - who is complicated and expansive, but was vitally saying; we need a working class hegemony, a place to preserve and hold our human values in the face of a culture which is manufactured and pushed and propagandized. In his era, this was a reference to Fascist propaganda (keep in mind, he was writing from prison, put there by Italian fascists). Lots of these authors are responding to fascism... where as the conspiracy theory selects out just The Frankfurt School, and claims they were the fascists, and that they're the ones trying to construct an authoritarian mono-culture. To anyone whose actually familiar with what The Frankfurt School actually wrote, said, did, this makes absolutely no sense - and is in many ways the opposite of them. They were trying to preserve and provide their ideas on a more humanist and varied type of culture, where a hegemony (and its causes) could be pointed out, and voices of criticism could be heard. This is why they were against fascism, because it silences people. So the one voice they thought should be stopped, was the fascist voice - this is because they'd experienced fascism first hand in Germany and Italy.
*:Anyways, hopefully that redirect link will help you investigate whatever it is you're trying to find out further. ] (]) 06:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
*::The AfD references two previous RfCs, but I can't find them since "Talk:Cultural Marxism" prior to 2014 is inaccessible. To make matters worse, the Internet Archive is also down today. Perhaps history doesn't matter after all.😒 ] (]) 22:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::An RfC is just a "Request for Comment" and is usually just one editor asking the opinions of other editors to get a consensus on a change to be made to an article. That's not likely to be a deletion discussion, just a change someone is uncertain about. There is apparently 2 AfDs (article for deletion discussions) for this page - but the first one was a clerical error. An editor accidentally nominated the talk page to be deleted, rather than the actual article. That discussion (which is very short as it was a misfiling) can be reviewed here: . ] (]) 08:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::I couldn't find these references in the AfD. In any case, it has little relevance to re-creating an article about cultural Marxism. You need to show that sufficient sources exist.
*:::Also, how is cutural Marxism different from Marxist cultural analysis? ] (]) 08:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
*:There was originally a ‘Cultural Marxism’ page with a section for the ‘CM conspiracy theory.’ Due to disagreements, this page was formed, and I guess at some point the cultural marxism page itself was moved/deleted. ] (]) 12:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

:I agree that it would be a good idea to have a separate article for cultural Marxism ] (]) 05:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::You're looking for ], there's a hatnote about it atbthe top of the article. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

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

: are clear, this is the primary topic. - ] (]) 20:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::This is the primary topic because there is no disambiguation and because the original cultural marxism page has since been deleted. Suggestions for a disambiguation page date back at least to November 2023.
::There should be a disambiguation page now if the academy is increasingly using the term Western Marxism in the way Dworkin was using the term Cultural Marxism. ] (]) 14:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|"There should be a disambiguation page now if the academy is increasingly using the term Western Marxism in the way Dworkin was using the term Cultural Marxism."}} - it's not and never was. Western Marxism is a broader term including a myriad of Marxists that fall out of the common or most prevalent usage of cultural Marxism, its self a niche term in Academia (which refers to The Frankfurt School, Birmingham School, and occasionally E.P. Thompson). Western Marxism covers a lot more that's out side of that.
:::Also, I don't know why you'd choose one source as the be all and end all for defining the term - especially seeing as your chosen sources is focusing on BRITISH cultural Marxism alone. So that's a sub category of a sub category (and is already covered on the ] page, as both The Birmingham School and E.P. Thompson were British, and that's the reason they're repeatedly referenced in Dworkin). So if you're going to claim things like that all Western Marxism is now Cultural Marxism - you really need more than one niche book... and that book its self states that it's the first attempt at manufacturing an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism anyways (see the FAQ at the top of the talk page). ] (]) 04:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:Given that there's only two pages to disambig, and that they're related in an abstract sense - the current hatnote on the article is probably enough. It directs users to ] if that's what people were looking for, and likewise that page has a section on the conspiracy theory, if that should be their interest. Misplaced Pages is doing a good job of respecting both viewpoints, and keeping them separate due to their opposing content. Obviously (and as mentioned in my longer comment above) these two pages are saying opposite things, with only one being rational, and as a consequence, truer to what the Marxist cultural theorists accused of being part of the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy were actually on about (again this is further discussed in my long comment above this one). ] (]) 06:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:This is the primary topic, and it includes a hatnote to ] if that is what readers are looking for. It's just unfortunate that most readers will have heard of the term in relation to the conspiracy theory rather than the fairly boring real nature of cultural analysis. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

== History of "Cultural Marxism" Article/Redirect/DAB ==

Since this topic emerged in our previous discussion, and given that some relevant pages on Misplaced Pages have been purged, I consulted the Internet Archive to recover missing information. Here are my findings, which may be pertinent to current and future discussions:-

* '''Cultural Marxism''' was originally a Misplaced Pages article, with the earliest snapshot available from 2006.

* From '''September to December 2014''', the article underwent rapid changes, shifting its focus. Notable snapshots include and

* On '''29 October 2014''', there was a brief discussion about whether to delete or merge the article with the "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory" article. No conclusion was reached.

* Between '''5-22 December 2014''', an extensive debate regarding merging the article with "Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory" took place, with Jimbo Wales actively participating. Ultimately, two uninvolved administrators determined there was no consensus to merge.

* From '''22-29 December 2014''', after a ], three uninvolved administrators sided with the delete-and-redirect proponents, ] that "Frankfurt School" or "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory" would be the most suitable targets for redirection.

* Shortly thereafter, a redirect was established from '''Cultural Marxism''' to '''Frankfurt School#Conspiracy theory'''. Both the old article and its talk page were purged (essentially, both pages were deleted and recreated, which accounts for the lack of complete history for these pages).

* The '''Frankfurt School conspiracy theory''' article, which existed from to , was also folded into the Frankfurt School at this time. Its prior and ] remain available.

* From '''7 May to 17 August 2019''', a Request for Comment (RfC) regarding the splitting of the content from "Frankfurt School#Conspiracy theory" section resulted in no consensus. ].

* Between '''12 August and 11 September 2020''', a similar RfC proposal was debated and deemed to have a clear consensus by the closing admin, the same one who closed the AfD in 2014. ].

* On '''11 September 2020''', the conspiracy theory content was moved from "Frankfurt School" to a new article titled "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory." The redirect from "Cultural Marxism" was updated to point to this new article, where it remains today.

* On '''28 September 2020''', the article "Marxist cultural analysis" was created.

* Regarding the creation of a "Cultural Marxism" '''disambiguation page''', my search did not uncover any RfCs, though I did find two unclosed discussions from 2021 and 2022.

Is this historical information useful? Should any of it be added to the FAQ? ] (]) 19:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

:"'''...{{nbsp}}given that some relevant pages on Misplaced Pages have been purged, I consulted the Internet Archive to recover missing information.'''" If you didn't know that all these discussions are archived ''on Misplaced Pages'' and are easily navigatable with the links at the top of this page, then there's nothing more for anyone to say other than good effort and I'm sorry you wasted your time? Archiving old and closed discussions is routine on most talk pages when the total amount of text on a talk page gets too big. Do you really think there's some nefarious "purging" going on or are you playing innocent with the old "I'm just asking questions, definitely not implying anything here." <big>]]</big> 21:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
::Not strictly true. During the closing of the AfD, Admins decided to ] the old history of the page because it contained questionable conspiracy theory content being passed off as fact. This was done to prevent any misinformation propagating from Misplaced Pages or being reused. The history for the page is probably still out there, but I think only the Admins of Misplaced Pages would have it (and I'm not even sure if they keep it). There are probably versions of archive sites though. ] (]) 08:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::: «{{tq|During the closing of the AfD, Admins decided to WP:SALT the old history of the page because it contained questionable conspiracy theory content being passed off as fact}}» => This sentence make no sense. ] is not about purging history of a page but about «prevent the creation of pages. This type of protection is useful for pages that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated.» ] (]) 14:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::The process of purging was disorganized. I didn’t go into details because it is a tangential issue. Here are some pertinent pages and discussions, in case you’re interested: ] (]) 13:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:A major thing I think you're missing out on - is the fact that BEFORE concerned Wikipedians started to look into the page in late 2014... say even immediately before that (before the graph on the webarchives starts to go up) - say the and everything before then... the page only had 9 sources. Of those 9 sources, '''only two''' authors actually used the term (Douglas Kellner, and William S. Lind). Their takes on the term are WILDLY OPPOSING.
:Kellner says ''"Hey, some Marxists have commented on culture, this might be a kind of cultural Marxism, but it's not a set school, or movement, or ideology, I'm just going to write about which Marxists have been cultural or dealt with culture in their writing... and they all seem to believe there's a Capitalist hegemony in the west."'' that's Kellner.
:William S. Lind says "Cultural Marxists" (he capitalizes both words, indicating he's formed a proper noun, or label identifying a concrete movement/group/ideology) - ''"Cultural Marxists are behind every Ivy League school, which are becoming more and more like North Korea! Cultural Marxists put gay people on Television! Cultural Marxism is political correctness, and gives you intellectual AIDS . Cultural Marxism was created by The Frankfurt School who didn't serve in world war 2, but instead worked in Hollywood! Karl Marx is behind modern progressive liberalism! They're also all Jewish!"'' - that's William S. Lind... and he'll go so far as to do this at Holocaust denial conferences.
:Later versions of the article have more sources that perhaps touch on the term, but they're from both of these conflicting camps. So Misplaced Pages didn't ''do anything'' in this debate, it merely observed (quite rightly) that these two camps existed, and were saying UTTERLY DIFFERENT things. Misplaced Pages doesn't like having pages where only 2 sources are actually relevant, and one of those sources - is kind of a conspiracy nut. We don't like to use conspiracy theories, as if they're ] reliable sources. So Misplaced Pages now has two different pages, one for the kind of ] ] that Lind largely is responsible for having started, the other for the type of ] that Douglas Kellner was writing about. That's what happened here, it just took a long time. The various moments of bureaucracy you've catalogued were part of Misplaced Pages's process in making sure we were respecting the sources, and their subject matter.
:Because The Frankfurt School are the actual subject matter for the conspiracy theory. People like William S. Lind can say things about The Frankfurt School - but if those things aren't true, if they're verifiably false (for instance, the Frankfurt School never "worked in Hollywood" as in the movie industry, as Lind suggests. They had no part in putting gay people on Television as Lind suggests, they're not even all Jewish as Lind suggests - Habermas was not from a Jewish background, most of them weren't practicing Jews). So I believe ultimately Misplaced Pages did its best to situate and differentiate between the conspiracy theory version of "the facts".... and the actual facts. That's what's happened here. That's why I can point to these two drastically different sources on the 2014 version, because it's the facts of the matter. It's how things went down, and where they'll likely stay. ] (]) 08:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::
::
: «{{tq|some relevant pages on Misplaced Pages have been purged}}» => I don't think so. What are you alluding to and can you show evidences? ] (]) 14:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::
: «{{tq|Is this historical information useful?}}» => It is misleading as long as you do not mention the history of {{Article links|Frankfurt School conspiracy theory}}. ] (]) 14:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you for pointing that out! I wasn’t aware that the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory was an article before it became a redirect. I’ve updated the timeline to include that information. ] (]) 08:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::

== Redirect is no longer to an appropriate location. ==

Due to changes to the ] page, it's no longer an appropriate redirect. That page (it has been determined by two editors who are claiming consensus), is now just for the general discussion of all things cultural by any Marxist theorists, so will no longer be specific to ]. I'm suggesting the hatnote at the top of THIS ARTICLE, now direct users to the ] article, rather than the page for ] (which is now essentially set up to become a duplicate (or even broader form) of the ] page). ] (]) 23:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:I can't see any such consensus on that talk page, and given that it's such a controversial topic a consensus of just two editors doesn't seem appropriate. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:I would also point out that the conspiracy theory and those who believe it have no idea what cultural analysis or the Frankfurt school really is. The conspiracy theory is about made up nonsense, so point towards Marxist cultural analysis is the most appropriate target. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:This IP comment seems to me to make at least two problematic assumptions: (1) that the scope of the ] article is wider than the relevant scholarship supports, such that it is too vague to be a useful disambiguation from this page; and (2) that the disambiguation for this page "ought to be" to the ], as though the CM conspiracy theorists are "really talking about" the Frankfurt School when they invoke the Cultural Marxism trope.
:I believe neither of those assumptions survives a confrontation with the relevant scholarship, which means a proposal based on one or both of these assumptions doesn't really merit consideration. ] (]) 03:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::There are no references to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory that DON'T refer to The Frankfurt School, Antonio Gramsci, and other forms of Gramscian cultural analysis (this is mentioned in the AfD).
::Show me one reference to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory that references Trotsky as a founder of it. You can't ], you just can't. ] (]) 03:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::This IP comment does not carry any relevance that I can see: the inclusion of Trotsky - or not - does not define this article one way or another. ] (]) 10:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

== Cultural Marxism disambiguation page ==

Someone created ] last week. How do other editors feel about this? ] (]) 23:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

:This is a multi-page ] . I suggest moving the discussion to ]. ] (]) 23:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
::When that dust settles, is there any support for renaming ''this'' article to ]? (which already exists as a redirect to this article). --] (]) 12:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I doubt that there will be; there certainly hadn't been significant support for similar ideas the last five or six times they were proposed. ] (]) 17:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I still support this disambiguation page.
::::While i'm here, some argued in this talk page that there was never a Cultural Marxism page, and I found it.
::::There was a Cultural Marxism page, but it was (as this page is) contentious, and became renamed 'the Frankfurt School', and then, after much debate by revisionists, to the current "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy theory" page.
::::I think worth a read for those who have been watching this page:
::::https://web.archive.org/web/20140519194937/http://en.wikipedia.org/Cultural_Marxism ] (]) 22:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::One possible approach is to rename "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" to "Cultural Marxism" and "Marxist cultural analysis" to "Cultural Marxism (academic use)." Another option is to rename "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" to "Cultural Marxism (conspiracy theory)," rename "Marxist cultural analysis" to "Cultural Marxism (academic use)," and have "Cultural Marxism" redirect to "Cultural Marxism (disambiguation)." None of these options has been explored, as far as I understand. ] (]) 17:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::They've been explored (and rejected) before, several times. A move proposal along those grounds has essentially no chance of gaining consensus. ] (]) 17:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:I think good idea. Been a while since the legitimacy/existence of any nonconspiratial use of the term cultural marxism has been argued, but I believe the disambiguation page leaves less room for argument about the topic.

When was the last time anyone brought up Douglas Kellner, a so-called third generation Frankfurt School theorist using the term 'cultural marxism' to describe Marxist cultural analysis (in a non conspiratorial way)?
:'Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies' - https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf ] (]) 04:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::I believe the last time this was discussed was October 30 (currently visible on this page). So it hasn't really "been a while" since this issue was discussed (and a related proposal was rejected). ] (]) 10:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

== 2024-11 sources ==

The Salon article https://www.salon.com/2019/05/05/a-users-guide-to-cultural-marxism-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theory-reloaded/ that i already mentionned in this talk page quote and link an article by Bruce Wilson in his blog: https://4thgenwar.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/trumpcultural-marxism-4gw-and-terrorism/ which can not be used as reliable source in Misplaced Pages in my opinion. Salon also published an interview with Bruce Wilson at https://www.salon.com/2016/07/16/donald_trumps_weaponized_platform_a_project_three_decades_in_the_making/ which can be used as reliable source in Misplaced Pages in my opinion. ] (]) 14:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

:Salon is not a particularly reliable source per ], if I’m not mistaken ] (]) 14:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:: You are welcome Dronebogus. Relevant link: ]. ] (]) 14:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
: According to the interview, ] co-founded the blog ]. According to Misplaced Pages, Talk to Action was co-founded by ], so i ping ]. ] (]) 14:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)


== Cultural Marxism DAB == == Cultural Marxism DAB ==
Line 330: Line 167:
Feel free to list your options in order of preference, if you'd like. ] (]) 21:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC) 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) * '''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)
*'''Option 1''', the current hatnote is clear enough. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*Pinging @], @], @], @], @], @] and @] as editors involved in above discussions. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''': no need to dumb it down further. --] &#124; ] 01:17, 19 November 2024 (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)
:'''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)
::@] 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 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)
::::@], 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)
:::::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)
*'''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)
* '''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)

== Marxism can be anything now. ==
{{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''.
:<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}}

== ] ==

@], 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)

: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)
::@], 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 ==

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.".

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.

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. ] (]) 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)
: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)
::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?
::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)
:::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)
:::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)
: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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::"duty-bound"? You're trying really hard, but not doing very well. ] (]) 03:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Do you have any reliable sources for these assertions? ] (]) 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, ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ']'. It doesn't get any more clear than that. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.

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.

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)

: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)
::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: