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.
* And yet, reliable sources may refer to this topic as '''Cultural Marxism''', '''Frankfurt School conspiracy''', or '''Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory'''. ''Even if'' you don't want to agree with the arguments that 'Cultural Marxism' also means something else to an arbitrary level of so-called "significance", per ], {{tq|When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph.}} "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" is a {{tq|significant alternative name for the topic}}, found in the sources already used, and is ''the title of the article''. ] 08:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
* And yet, reliable sources may refer to this topic as '''Cultural Marxism''', '''Frankfurt School conspiracy''', or '''Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory'''. ''Even if'' you don't want to agree with the arguments that 'Cultural Marxism' also means something else to an arbitrary level of so-called "significance", per ], {{tq|When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph.}} "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" is a {{tq|significant alternative name for the topic}}, found in the sources already used, and is ''the title of the article''. ] 08:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
*Also, unless you think that the should be included under {{tq|things like PHD theses and other generally low-quality sources}}, take a look at the entry "CULTURAL MARXISM AND BRITISH CULTURAL STUDIES" (Volume 2, pp 171-177) (which I suppose I'd better add to the sandbox) ] 11:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
*Also, unless you think that the should be included under {{tq|things like PHD theses and other generally low-quality sources}}, take a look at the entry "CULTURAL MARXISM AND BRITISH CULTURAL STUDIES" (Volume 1, pp 171-177) (which I suppose I'd better add to the sandbox) ] 11:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
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.
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
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.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This 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.
This 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
This 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
This 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
This 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
This 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
This 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
This 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
From the intro, it is unclear what this article is actually about. The title of most iw-linked articles in other languages does not contain the words "conspiracy theory". This article should be split into two articles: One article "Cultural Marxism", defining what that is ("a cultural movement promoting the cultural liberal values of the 1960s counterculture and multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness" per the intro?), and another article "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory", stating on one hand who the alleged conspirators are and what their supposed goal is and on the other hand who are promulgating the theory. A "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" may very well exist and deserve its own article, but "Cultural Marxism" itself is not a conspiracy theory. Separating the two topics will facilitate understanding them both. --Bensin (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Given that a "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" exists and is a conspiracy theory specifically referring to Cultural Marxism, then from that follows that Cultural Marxism itself is something else. A possible analogy would be that Film theory, which is the study about film, is different from Filmitself. --Bensin (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Lee Justin, Ph.D., rabble rouser (as the author appears in the linked article) does not appear to be a reliable source for the claim quoted. As we have had many, well-participated and impartially-closed RfCs and other formal discussions, which have concluded on the basis of the available RS that there is no "Cultural Marxist" movement except as a trope of the conspiracy theory, it would take more than such an opinion piece from a non-specialist to justify reopening this question AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Given the rather extensive talk archive, this article has evidently been talked about before. But I myself have never been part of any of those talks, and I can't find any reference to Lee Jussim. "Rabble Rouser" is the name of Jussim's blog here, it is not his name or alias. Jussim has an h-index of 55. (The h-index may have its weaknesses, but it means that he has written 55 papers that have been cited 55 times or more, and his papers have a total of 16263 citations). Help me understand why Jussim is not a reliable source. --Bensin (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
What peer-reviewed work has he published that has any relevance to Marxist theory (or "movements") or to conspiracy theory?
Experts aren't reliable outside their field of expertise, Jussim does not appear to study political theory... He's a social psychologist which isn't even a closely related field. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I think that what you are suggesting would be better solved by removing conspiracy theory from the title or improving the lead. I am not saying that this article should never be split, just that I think the current proposal is not enough for it. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
See the very first sentence of the page:
>"Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For "cultural Marxism" in the context of cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.17.51 (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Content of Template:Redirect on top of the article.
Would you mind indicating, where was the long term concensus being said to exists being made?
The description of "Marxist cultural analysis" in the article now is ""cultural Marxism" in the context of cultural studies", while my version is "Marxist analysis and criticism against modern culture and cultural industry", and I find my version much more closely match the target article's short description, which state the article represent "Anti-capitalist cultural critique" and the article's introduction of "Marxist cultural analysis is a form of cultural analysis and anti-capitalist cultural critique, which assumes the theory of cultural hegemony and from this specifically targets those aspects of culture which are profit driven and mass-produced under capitalism.". The original description also doesn't make sense that the wording of "in the context of cultural studies" implied it's studying Marxism culture while in fact it is not, and the subject of the target article is to talk about Marxism analysis of culture.
Hi, there. The relevant policy here is WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, the DAB text having been referred to in passing by multiple editors in the course over discussions during a couple of years since it was added. If the text were controversial, it would have been discussed before now - so (going into this discussion) it has consensus.
As far as the merits are concerned, the point of "on the context of cultural studies" is that it specifies the domain within which the term "cultural Marxism" is occasionally used as a synonym (by a minority of scholars) to denote "Marxist cultural analysis". Your impression that the DAB refers somehow to Marxism culture doesn't seem to me to reflect the plain English meaning of the notice. On the other hand, your proposed phrase, against modern culture and cultural industry isn't good English (it is pretty good Soviet English, but that isn't a recognized WP:ENGVAR). More importantly, it foregrounds a conflict ("against") that is characteristic only of some Marxist cultural analysis and that, in my view, concedes too much to the tropes of the conspiracy theory (which sees all Marxist cultural analysis - and feminism and liberalism besides - as a project to undermine modern/"Western" culture. Newimpartial (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
quick search indicated that other than this description it have only been brought up twice in the past, with one of such mention by an IP user incorrectly used it to justify "Cultural Marxism" being a neologism, which have been rejected by the current version of the article lead, but no one responded to the message at the time, and another mention only used this line as an introduction to their further points about POV issues, and didn't explore on whether the line itself is POV or not or whether it have any other issue. And the description was also not "a couple of years since it was added" as revision in late 2020 didn't have such text so it is at most 1 year or so old.
My edit was also not based on the ground of whether the pre-existing version is controversial or not, but that I see the current version failed to properly convey the content of the linked article, and thus tried to come up with a better summary.
I have considered using other words than "criticism against", but then the article Marxist cultural analysis directly say it is a form of "cultural critique", so I have forgone other candidates and picked this word.
Do you have any source to prove that the use of "Cultural Marxism" to represent Marxism's critical view against capitalistic cultural industry is something used only in the field of cultural studies, as you claim the current explanation imply? That is not in line with my personal understanding in my conversation with Marxists.
Edit: What does "(it is pretty good Soviet English, but that isn't a recognized WP:ENGVAR)" mean? Since Soviet is one of the main Marxist country, and WP:ENGVAR mentioned "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation.", I don't think using Soviet term to describe Marxist cultural analysis which have strong ties with the country, is something not being recognized by the guideline. The guideline didn't mention only English variants of modern countries are accepted. Although using too much their terms might violate Misplaced Pages:Jargon. C933103 (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
To start at the end, Marxist cultural analysis emerges from Western Marxism, and has essentially nothing to do with Soviet Marxism or the former Soviet Union. What I meant by (it is pretty good Soviet English, but that isn't a recognized WP:ENGVAR) is that "Marxist analysis and criticism against modern culture and cultural industry" might be good English for Natasha in Rocky and Bullwinkle, but isn't appropriate for an English-language encyclopaedia. We don't write articles in a "variety of English" that doesn't reflect a significant population actively speaking and writing in English, which is also directly relevant to the article in question. "Soviet English" doesn't meet either criterion. Newimpartial (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Also, I am not going to respond to your whole WP:WALLOFTEXT, but the answers to the questions raised in your points 2. and 4. are to be found in the sources of the Marxist cultural analysis article. As to point 3., there are nuances in the use of the terms "criticism" and "critique" in English, terms that are not necessarily synonyms. In particular, "cultural critique" cannot be replaced by your phrase "criticism of culture and cultural industry" without a significant loss of meaning (quite apart from the hilarious accent it implies). Newimpartial (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
No; I believe that the context of use of the term is more helpful for the reader than the definition from the other article. Please stop edit-warring, observe WP:BRD, and allow at least one other editor to weigh in before you continue. Newimpartial (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
This is a redirect reminder. What readers need to and want to know is whether they might have entered the wrong article, and information on which article is the proper one they should read. Thus I believe definition is more useful. I also question the characterization of my edits as edit warring as my edits are being made in accordance to the progressing result of this discussion, hence also follow the BPD cycle. I find it more counterconstructive to revert all edits despite attempts of improvement. C933103 (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
So far, you have removed the stable (since 2020) text of the redirect three times, I believe. That is two reverts - it doesn't matter that you have inserted two versions of your replacement text, if you remove the stable text again that will be another revert. That's what edit-warring is, and the BRD cycle means that the issue should be discussed and consensus reached here on Talk before you revert again. Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
At most you can count reverting to a previous version as an exception to the revert rule, according to the rule page, I cannot read it in a way that would make it mean improving an article in ways according to discussion flow is something that can be considered edit war. C933103 (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
"Do you have any source to prove that the use of "Cultural Marxism" to represent Marxism's critical view against capitalistic cultural industry is something used only in the field of cultural studies" wouldn't that require proving a negative? "I also question the characterization of my edits as edit warring as my edits are being made in accordance to the progressing result of this discussion" No they're not. You're clearly edit warring. Please stop all edit warring and respect the current consensus, rather than trying to claim a consensus of one. --14.203.170.37 (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I mean, because I don't believe the use of term in places like can be characterized as cultural studies, hence I see the current description as cannot lead people looking for the term in this context to locate what they want to find. C933103 (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Your link is an English Language article from an Indian website, described as "a weekly peer-reviewed academic journal covering all social sciences"... and yet you're complaining that we're using and defining the term as having come from... the social sciences. So your link confirms the term is used in cultural studies, and the social sciences. Which is how the Marxist Cultural Analysis page categorizes the term. Misplaced Pages is currently behaving in a way that is consistent to the facts. The article briefly mentions E.P Thompson... our Marxist Cultural Analysis article also mentions E.P Thompson. Your evidence supports what we're already doing. I do not see your complaint as valid. People want to find out what cultural Marxism means, they can search Misplaced Pages for the term. See the header, and find the correct information. I'm open to the idea of having a disambiguation page, which makes the distinction more obvious... but I don't think there's anything wrong with either article (Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, or Marxist Cultural Analysis). I understand that the header is small, a disambiguation page would make the difference more noticeable. Maybe that would be a solution? --14.203.170.37 (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken.... Cultural studies is just a very small subset of social science. If I wasn't clear enough, I am not having any problem with the content of either articles. What I am trying to address is how the header of this article describe the other article, which might not seems conclusive or clear enough to people want to read about content in that article. I am not advocating any major changes to content of either involved pages nor disambiguation pages. C933103 (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Would "Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For "cultural Marxism" in the context of Sociology, see Marxist cultural analysis." meet your requirements? --14.203.170.37 (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of what the OP feels, "Sociology" seems a good deal less relevant than "Cultural studies". If we have to add anything, I would propose "social theory and cultural studies", which has at least the small merit of being inclusive but not over-inclusive. Newimpartial (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
You know, it's a tough call, because The Frankfurt School (as I understand it) was made up of Sociologists, but their theories went into the development of Cultural Studies, which I suppose is why places like the offered link EPW.in (Economic and Political Weekly) are described as "covering all social sciences"... Which does seem to be the largest umbrella. I don't really think it matters personally. So I'm happy with your version. Well see if a consensus is formed. --14.203.170.37 (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Making the "Cultural Marxism" article into a disambiguation page instead of redirecting it to this article would make sense. The phrase "cultural Marxism" has been used to refer to both of these very different topics and clearly both of the topics are prominent. The two articles have not a lot to do with each other and a disambiguation page would make it redundant to substantially mention the conspiracy theory in the Marxist cultural analysis article, which is a completely different topic. Cultural Marxism is not the topic of this article, it is the cultural Marxist conspiracy theory. Cultural Marxism, as often defined by the proponents of the conspiracy theory, simply does not exist. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The tradition of Marxist cultural analysis has occasionally also been referred to as "cultural Marxism", in reference to Marxist ideas about culture. This is a direct quote from the Marxist cultural analysis article. There are a multitude of academic sources referring to Marxist cultural analysis as "cultural Marxism". 98.192.82.105 (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no prominent usage of "Cultural Marxism" prior to the conspiracy theory usage. Occasionally does not mean prominent. Misplaced Pages has a policy on notability which defined the notability requirements. Culture studies is just not a very prominent discourse in of it's self. The usages that do refer to things via "cultural Marxism" are using cultural as an adjective (English language modifier), not a pronoun (proper name). Cultural Marxism (pronoun) is the conspiracy theory, cultural Marxism is just an English language usage, non specific and never defined anywhere. Find a definition of cultural Marxism if that's your position.
Some protests, such as Occupy Wallstreet could be called cultural Marxism, but they're not Cultural Marxism... and they didn't really have anything to do with the Frankfurt School, Birmingham School, or the work of E.P. Thompson (eg. Marxist Cultural Analysis). Also, re-creating the old page (which only had 3 solid sources) would violate WP:SALT. Even a usage that seems prominent, like "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain" mostly ends up discussing E.P Thompson. Hence that reference appearing as further reading in the E. P. Thompson article. 14.203.74.203 (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
“There is no prominent usage of "Cultural Marxism" prior to the conspiracy theory usage” That is simply not true. The word has been in use before the conspiracy theory emerged and gained popularity. The word has been used and is still used (more prominently in Europe and Britain) in a very particular sense to refer to Marxist approaches to cultural analysis as it was prominent in 20th century Europe. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
“Re-creating the old page (which only had 3 solid sources) would violate WP:SALT.” I am not advocating for recreating the old page.
“Some protests, such as Occupy Wallstreet could be called cultural Marxism, but they're not Cultural Marxism” Cultural Marxism, as a historic form of Marxian cultural analysis, has nothing to do with Occupy Wallstreet, the US, modern conservatism, or contemporary sociopolitics.
There is a long tradition of scholarly analysis starting all the way from Gramsci and Lukacs, which incorporated ideas such as historical contingency, cultural hegemony, and Hegel’s dialectic of history, which eventually came to be referred as cultural Marxism. The early tradition had a strong influence on British cultural Marxism (Birmingham school) and influenced later thinkers such as Barbara Taylor and Sheila Rowbotham. Cultural Marxist analysis has had a profound influence on some Neo-Marxist schools of thought. The field long predates the emergence of the contemporary conspiracy theory.
The way fringe, delusional, American far-right conspiracy theorists have recently appropriated and subverted the meaning of the phrase is an affront to the historically-rich academic field of anti-capitalist Marxist cultural critique. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Let's look at your references that supposedly defy the claim "There is no prominent usage of "Cultural Marxism" prior to the conspiracy theory usage"...
...Reference 1 (Kellner, using 'cultural Marxism') is from 2021, well after the conspiracy theory usage came along. Reference 2 (Dworkin, using 'British cultural Marxism' within the cover) I've already dealt with in my previous reply, but regardless on page 3 it states "My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline" so actually works against your claim that it's a pre-established and well known theory, ideology or mode. You yourself describe it as a "Marxian cultural analysis" hence it's current article title. Reference 3 is the same as Reference 2 (Dworkin, let's not waste our time with repeats). Reference 4 (Jameson, using Cultural Marxism as it's a book title) doesn't actually include or discuss the term beyond the appearance in the title (disappointing I know). Reference 5 (Feng-dan Li, using British cultural Marxism) is interesting, but not really enough to prove your case. Especially considering it mixes the term with Western Marxism, and focuses on the same area as Dworkin (British cultural Marxism). Reference 6 (Nick Stevenson, using cultural Marxism) is from 2016, so just after the conspiracy theory usage hit the mainstream alt-right. Reference 7 (Kellner) is just Reference 1 again, another repeat.
So I don't think there's enough here to upgrade Marxist Cultural Analysis to a disambiguation page focusing on a different term (not without a British cultural Marxism article involved). You yourself describe cultural Marxism as Marxian cultural analysis which supports the current categorization. 2 of your References were repeats. One doesn't contain the term within its pages at all, one claims to be the "first intellectual history" so works against your claim that it's a unique, specific or well known lineage, and one wedges it in with Western Marxism (by the way, Marx was a westerner, he is part of Western Marxist history). Most of the new sources you're providing here focus specifically on British cultural Marxism, and you're welcome to create a Misplaced Pages article under that title. Almost all of them use the form 'cultural Marxism' (an adjective modifying a pronoun, not a proper name).
But Misplaced Pages is not here simply to satisfy your particular nomenclatural preferences or terminological desires. Your sources have come up lacking (for instance, none give a solid definition that includes all three 'schools'), and they even somewhat support the current article headings. I'm sorry, there's just not enough meat here to make your case. The long march through the institutions will have to continue without Misplaced Pages implementing this suggested change to Namespace. We are currently treating the term as a poorly defined WP:NEO Neologism, with a more prominent usage in the conspiracy theory world (thanks to the popularity of the American alt-right). Perhaps in a decade or so "cultural Marxism" will have fleshed it's self out in western academia enough to justify your desires. But so far, it stands where it is; as Marxist Cultural Analysis, shared between The Birmingham School, The Frankfurt School and E.P Thompson (with a liberal dash of Gramscian influence). By the way, these theorists don't all necessarily agree with each other. Their works progressed to inform the development of the New Left, and of Cultural Studies. The lineage has moved on to other terms. Misplaced Pages reflects the academic history as best as it can given the popular right wing assault on the discourse/name. The current hatnote will have to suffice to direct people to the content they're after. Keep in mind, we also have a page on The Frankfurt School, a page on E.P. Thompson, a page on Gramsci, a page on Western Marxism, a redirect for The Birmingham School, as well as sub pages for thinkers within each school... as well as pages for the new left, and cultural studies. I suggest improving those pages would be a better use of your time. Or as I suggested earlier, seeing how far you can get creating a page for British cultural Marxism. For now, the previous consensus on the names stands. 14.203.74.203 (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Here are some other examples of 'cultural Marxism' used in a non-conspiratorial sense. The referencing is a bit scrappy (no years, sorry, but there are doi/isbn) Tewdar 08:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Actually, none of the examples in your link use the term 'Cultural Marxism' they all use the term 'cultural Marxists' - so a claim about The Frankfurt School et al. a third hand interpretation. Thus it would be WP:OR to construct a whole ideological movement or understanding based on Schroyer's claims alone. He's not even a Marxist. Likewise The Frankfurt School never even referred to themselves as The Frankfurt School, let alone as "cultural Marxists" let alone discussing anything called "Cultural Marxism" (double caps). So to create an article under that title would require a lot of WP:SYNTH. Hence why we only have a more general page called Marxist Cultural Analysis - a term you can also find multiple references for, and pretend is a single ideology. That's not what the article is about, but it's certainly something you could do if you wanted to sit around violating WP:OR, WP:N and WP:SYNTH. Not to mention WP:NEO which states a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title. Which is what we've done. 14.203.74.203 (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Also, I am not entirely convinced that this term would necessarily need to have a copper-bottomed definition in a Marxist dictionary to count as 'prominent usage', as seems to be suggested above. Tewdar 08:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Finally, it would be nice if the article started with "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory..." instead of "Cultural Marxism..." Tewdar 08:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
"The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory..." instead of "Cultural Marxism..." I agree. I think making 'Cultural Marxism' a disambiguation page ("may refer to: (1) Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory or (2) Marxist cultural analysis") is a pretty good suggestion.
I agree with your first point (about rephrasing the intro), not so much the second (the disambiguation page). Feel free to go ahead and make that first change. Also feel free to try to create a consensus here about the disambiguation page. I suggest putting it to an RfC or other voting mechanism. 14.203.74.203 (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Also, the claim was that there's no prominent usage of Cultural Marxism (double caps) prior to the conspiracy theory version... extending that the claim is that "cultural Marxism" (single cap) isn't a set, well defined, or localizable discourse. It's just the word Marxism (an existing discourse/ideology) with the word 'cultural' put in front of it. Equally I could use the term industrial Marxism, but it wouldn't necessarily warrant a Misplaced Pages page. Or say wikipedia Marxism, internet Marxism, cabinet Marxism, aquatic Marxism, articulate Marxism, aesthetic Marxism, abstract Marxism. Some of these you could probably find writings about - it doesn't mean they're notable enough to construct a Misplaced Pages article around. 14.203.74.203 (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't know whether or not you have read the (fairly frequently) discussions of this topic, but from the evidence presented to date, "cultural Marxism" was never the COMMONNAME of any certain movement, in contrast to Marxist cultural analysis, or the Frankfurt School, or Western Marxism, or Marxist humanism (or Freudo-Marxism, which still seems to me a less relevant construct than Frodo Marxism, but I digress). Each of these other, more "certain" movements, has a fairly clearly delineated scope and denotarion, but "cultural Marxism" did not, until the conspiracy theory came along. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
For "cultural Marxism" in the context of social theory and cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis. - if there is no prominent usage of "cultural Marxism" in this context, why do we take the trouble to say this? Tewdar 09:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I explicitly said that the term has been used in the non-conspirational sense before (dating back to at least the 1970s) and after the popularity of the conspiracy theory. When it was used after the conspiracy theory had become popular it was used in a sense that had nothing to do with the conspiracy theory.
I have not claimed that “cultural Marxism” was a widely known and singularly prominent ideology by that name, it was simply a term often used to refer to cultural Marxist analysis, by some in a way to differentiate it from earlier forms of orthodox Marxism and dialectical materialism. Marxist cultural analysis, in its separate but related manifestations throughout 20th century Europe, has been often referred to as cultural Marxism by different scholars in the last 50 years.
The topic of the current article is the “Cultural Marxist conspiracy theory”, not the term cultural Marxism, a term which has had at least two prominent uses recently, of which the conspiratorial sense is the neologism. The topic of this article has become more widely known among conspiracy theorists by the name "Cultural Marxism" in the mainstream since the early 2010s. Earlier conspiracy theorists more heavily focused on scapegoating the Frankfurt School specifically. It might as well be named the "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory", but obvious that is not the name by which the conspiracy theory has become popular.
"I think making 'Cultural Marxism' a disambiguation page (…) is a pretty good suggestion (…) Finally, it would be nice if the article started with "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory..." instead of "Cultural Marxism..."" This summarizes my point and these changes would be useful too for current and future learners of Marxism and cultural studies who search using the term “cultural Marxism”. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Your suggestion - that we reconstitute Marxist cultural analysis into a new article titled 'Cultural Marxism' violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NEO - that last policy states In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title. Here cultural Marxism (single capitalization) is a notable topic, not a well defined concept or ideology, but a notable topic (not a pronoun indicating a thing, but a topic). Cultural Marxism is not an "accepted short-hand term" due to the conspiracy usage, due to the limited number of sources, and due to the fact it's not a pre-existing pronoun or well defined concept. It's a topic or area. Capitalizing it would be crossing a line and attempting to make it something more than it is. So we must follow Misplaced Pages policy which; as you can read in plain English states: Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title. - so we use Marxist cultural analysis. Not an ideology, or well defined, but also not contentious, there's no conspiracy theory by that name, nothing to argue or object to about it. It is a plain English language description, being used as the title. Pushing any further with this would violate multiple Misplaced Pages policies. I hope that makes things clearer for you. 14.203.74.203 (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
You misunderstand my suggestion. I am not advocating for a new article titled “Cultural Marxism”. The “Marxist cultural analysis” article’s title and topic are proper and informative the way they are. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
You'd be best trying to start an RfC on the idea then. WP:RfC details that process (I've never done one personally, so can't help too much). But I believe something like RfC|soc|lang|media|pol would be appropriate, as the topic covers a wide range of categories. A question like "Should Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and Marxist cultural analysis have a disambiguation page to further distinguish legitimate and illegitimate usages?" might be good (although, is that what a Cultural Marxism disambig would do?) - I'm personally not convinced that the term cultural Marxism had wide currency or usage. I suspect that users end up on this article after having encountered the Conspiracy Theory usage. If Misplaced Pages policy is - as I suggest above - that cultural Marxism was a non-specific combination of two words, rather than a pronoun use defining a consistent movement or ideological approach, such as is suggested by the double capitalized form "Cultural Marxism", then constructing the usage of Cultural Marxism further would (in my view anyways) constitute a violation of WP:NEO, Marxist cultural analysis, with a simple hat note and no disambiguation page (whilst less impactful) seems fine to me. But if you want to try to start an RfC, that would be the quickest way to attempt to gather a consensus. I wonder if it's possible to have cultural Marxism be the disambiguation location - or does Misplaced Pages automatically capitalize articles? I have no clue. Good luck. 14.203.74.203 (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
While I understand your concerns in regard to user searches (this is the exact same concern I had regarding the other article), note that users who have encountered the conspiratorial use of the term and search on Misplaced Pages using the “cultural Marxism” term, would still end up on this article because 1) Misplaced Pages autofills the search bar with the names of existing articles (thus if you search using the term “cultural Marxism”, the “Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory” article suggestion appears. This would not change even if a disambiguation page existed), 2) even if they ended up on the disambiguation page, that page would redirect them here.
Neither of the two articles in dispute should have the natural title “Cultural Marxism” and neither of them does, I think we can both can agree on this. WP:NEO concerns article titles and defines neologisms as words that “have little or no usage in reliable sources”. This is clearly not the case here.
The topic of this article for a long time (from 2013 to late 2020) was under the title of “Frankfurt School conspiracy theory” variably as a standalone article or as a redirect to the “Conspiracy Theory” section of the Frankfurt School article. This article with its current title has only existed since the end of 2020. This alone indicates just how recently the conspiracy theory become associated with the “cultural Marxist” term.
I agree with your suggestion to have “cultural Marxism” instead of the “Cultural Marxism” as the disambiguation page. However, I do believe that Misplaced Pages automatically capitalizes the first letter of each title. On the disambiguation page, the non-capitalized version “cultural Marxism” should exclusively refer to Marxist cultural analysis, while “Cultural Marxism (conspiracy theory)” to this article.
If you don’t mind, I would like to take some additional time to see if we can arrive at a solution here that is acceptable for the both of us. If we cannot, and given that this is mainly a dispute between the two of us and about a choice between disambiguation and redirect on another page, I would first suggest to resolve this by using the third opinion (WP:3O) process. If, after the conclusion of the third opinion process we still cannot arrive at a satisfactory solution, we can always initiate a more time-consuming and complex RfC. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Re: This article with its current title has only existed since the end of 2020. This alone indicates just how recently the conspiracy theory become associated with the “cultural Marxist” term - this is a nonsense statement. Prior to 2014, there was an article on Misplaced Pages entitled "Cultural Marxism" which, to varying degrees at various times, accepted uncritically the understanding of "Cultural Marxism" put forth by conspiracy theorists. That article was then deleted following a widely-participated AfD which, essentially, reached consensus that "Cultural Marxism" (as the object of the conspiracy theory) was not an encyclopaedic topic but that the conspiracy theory itself could be discussed elsewhere, such as Frankfurt School conspiracy theory. So the term "Cultural Marxism" was associated with the conspiracy theory well before the creation of the current article (and indeed, as the current article documents, this connection was established by conspiracy theorists in the 1990s) Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestion to have “cultural Marxism” instead of the “Cultural Marxism” as the disambiguation page. However, I do believe that Misplaced Pages automatically capitalizes the first letter of each title. for me, that's a bit of a deal breaker - as the linguistic distinction between cultural Marxism and Cultural Marxism is so consistent (as we saw with those references above).
The talk pages for this topic have always noted the imperfect coverage on Misplaced Pages. So we've gone for a model of picking the least imperfect solution.
1) Misplaced Pages autofills the search bar with the names of existing articles (thus if you search using the term “cultural Marxism”, the “Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory” article suggestion appears. This would not change even if a disambiguation page existed), 2) even if they ended up on the disambiguation page, that page would redirect them here. For myself, the current solution is at least mitigated by the hatnote which states "Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For "cultural Marxism" in the context of social theory and cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis." - and a hatnote has the added benefit of being unlikely to get edited out. Where as if we used Cultural Marxism as the functional disambig for cultural Marxism, the nuance of the cultural Marxism and Cultural Marxism distinction might easily get edited away by well intentioned users who assume that because it has a Misplaced Pages article, it must therefore be a pronoun or proper name. The current solution also has the added benefit of being backed by both consensus AND policy.
Back in 2013, the article titled Cultural Marxism only had 3 sources which actually used the term, all three were using cultural Marxism. 2 of those 3 were from Douglas Kellner (so really only 2 sources which used the term). The third couldn't be found in full (as it was a printed text medium out of date/print). I wouldn't look back for better models. Previous solutions were very unstable, weren't well sourced, and were politically charged. I don't really see utility in returning to those older solutions. Right now we're maximizing policy backed consensus, and using a good variety of sources to distinguish the terms. I believe this to be the best possible current solution. Which is why I was suggesting you attempt an RfC. This topic has gained wide interest on Misplaced Pages, hence having 13 pages of talk page archives here, and another 18 on the Frankfurt School article. All dealing with this one topic. A 3 person consensus (which we don't even currently have) - just wouldn't be enough in my opinion. I'm interested in wide community based consensus on Misplaced Pages (like the one we currently have), hence suggesting an RfC if you believe WP:CCC. 14.203.74.203 (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
“Where as if we used Cultural Marxism as the functional disambig for cultural Marxism, the nuance of the cultural Marxism and Cultural Marxism distinction might easily get edited away by well intentioned users who assume that because it has a Misplaced Pages article, it must therefore be a pronoun or proper name" “cultural Marxism” does not have a Misplaced Pages article and editing away that distinction would be WP:OR and go against nearly all sources cited in relevance to the Marxist cultural analysis article. A simple solution to mitigate against this is by making the disambiguation page fully protected so it cannot be edited or modified by anyone (just as the current Cultural Marxism page is fully protected).
”Back in 2013, the article titled Cultural Marxism only had 3 sources which actually used the term, all three were using cultural Marxism.” Those might have been the 3 sources that were cited on Misplaced Pages but, as we have went over this, the term “cultural Marxism” has been present in sources going back to the 1970s.
I believe the Marxist cultural analysis article should focus on the wider scholarly topic and the actions, thoughts, and writings of those who engaged in that, largely 20th century European and British thinkers and their followers. The fringe, right-wing conspiracy theory that become well-known in last 10 years has zero relevance to that article, yet that article has a whole section on it. The only reason that article includes the conspiracy theory is because the conspiracy theory is named using a term that has also been referred to Marxist cultural analysis. If that term was not prominent as a synonym for cultural Marxist analysis, there would be no reason to even mention the conspiracy theory that has nothing to do with that article’s topic, let alone have a whole section on it. You don’t see any substantial mention of Marxist cultural analysis in this article’s lede or body.
There is a reason this issue has come up before and likely would come up again and again in the future. The only reasonable solution I see is to untangle and disambiguate the two different meanings of the same phrase. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
TL:DR summary of the below - I agree with your point on MCA being a general term which shouldn't be limited to the three schools of 'cultural Marxism'. I think we can either define the problem further (who is outside of MCA's wider meaning who is in) - OR we can merge MCA to sections of cultural studies (perhaps new sections like 'development' or 'theoretical history'). OR we can re-title MCA to cultural Socialism (or perhaps Social Marxism) and escape the 'Cultural Marxism' right wing quagmire entirely (still attempting to follow WP:NEO. These are the remedies as I see them. 14.203.74.203 (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- What? I read the longer version, but that WP:WALLOFTEXT does not merit extensive discussion. If there is a proposal to dismember Marxist cultural analysis, the place to discuss that is on its Talk page, not this one, and some reason would have to be given other than people's feelings about the term "C/cultural Marxism", a term that is not the primary topic of that other page.
The fact remains that "Cultural Marxism" in its nearly-universal contemporary usage is the name of a conspiracy theory and also the central trope of said conspiracy theory (hence the name), a trope that is also a shibboleth in contemporary culture wars. That's it. That's what all reliable sources say, essentially, and is also what Misplaced Pages has determined as WP:CONSENSUS through repeated, formal processes. Nothing said on this Talk page is going to change that in any way without a community process (RfC, RM or whatever) with similarly wide participation. I would advise other editors not to waste their time on special pleading here. Newimpartial (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Those might have been the 3 sources that were cited on Misplaced Pages but, as we have went over this, the term “cultural Marxism” has been present in sources going back to the 1970s. Present, but not notable. Present in a handful of sources, in terms of the 70s, I'd say there's less than 3 usages (from that decade) that I've come across. I can only think of Schroyer, and one line in a highly obscure book about feminism. So I don't think it's in notable/prominent usage back then.
I believe the Marxist cultural analysis article should focus on the wider scholarly topic and the actions, thoughts, and writings of those who engaged in that, largely 20th century European and British thinkers and their followers. I think that's a legitimate point to make. But what you said after it, isn't as compelling (after all, if they're largely British then British cultural Marxism is still available for creation). Onto what's not compelling; the fact that the conspiracy is mentioned on the MCA article, but MCA doesn't have a full paragraph on the Conspiracy Theory page is due to notability, and which meaning is more widely used. Unfortunately the conspiracy theory usage is just more well known, than the relatively obscure and non-notable academic usage, which is more casual and has less definition. That very fact, in a strange way, is in support of your argument, I agree it's unfair that wider Marxist cultural analysis (beyond the limited scope of The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School and E.P Thompson) now will somewhat be limited on Misplaced Pages. Displaced if you will... and I think that's a genuine and legitimate argument against having Marxist Cultural Analysis as the title. So there - we agree on this problem, from this perspective on (that MCA should be wider) and on this legitimate point you've made.
The next step must then extend to the MCA talk page. This point has to be raised there. Then reasons and remedies must be explored. This problem you've raised specifically warrants community discussion, asking for instance; 1) if we are to ostensibly limit MCA to those 3 schools/theorists, who is being left out? Who are the Marxist cultural analysts being obscured by Misplaced Pages's errant titling. Zizek comes to mind for instance, as someone who is not directly from, or anything to do with those schools but claims to be Marxist, and analyzes culture. Foucault, as well, is specifically not connected to those three schools (stating so on page 116 of "Remarks on Marx"). But these theorists aren't for me to come up with.
You'd also need some way of defining or categorizing which Marxist cultural theorists, are dealing with culture, and which are more general philosophers, wider cultural theorists, or purely economic theorists. I'm not sure how you'd do that (Douglas Lain and Richard David Wolff come to mind as test cases). Only then, once you've defined your problem correctly - explored it - can we look for appropriate remedies, as the remedies should suit the actual fleshed out, substantiated problem. Because one remedy for example (an example I don't think you'd like) might be letting go of the original non-notable and general-English language usage of cultural Marxism all together! Avoiding WP:OR by recognizing it as having never been satisfactorily defined in academia, or agreed on by a series of experts, and then, from this fact, simply: Adding all Marxist cultural analysts you wish to the MCA page (seeing if Zizek, fouccault et al. can be added in somehow). Because I agree, it's not Misplaced Pages's job to limit such a general umbrella term (this is perhaps a flaw in WP:NEO's recommended action). Whilst I appreciate that there is some relationship of ideas or "constellation of thought" between The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School and E.P Thompson, history has not provided a well defined or well discussed term for that connection, beyond say "The history and development of Cultural Studies" or some such. Perhaps there'll need to be some merging between Marxist cultural analysis and Cultural studies - in order to clean up both pages. That would free up your hand to add whatever theorists you want, to Marxist cultural analysis, and have it be more of a general umbrella. More work right now behind the scenes, but less work for Wikipedians in the long run. Give the category more accuracy, saves people having to defend the category as artifically limited, when it's not IRL.
So we have presented this new problem, and a new (competitive) solution is now on the table. One that might end Misplaced Pages having or needing any page called, touching on, or attempting to define (by name or otherwise) a constellation of thought associated with the term "cultural Marxism" what so ever. I support this, because "cultural Marxism" never found notable usage, and I agree Marxist cultural analysis is a general term that shouldn't be limited to those three schools.
For me, the original usage is a form of labor history of the plight of cultural workers, producers, and consumers. This fits in with Stuart Hall's Encoding/decoding_model_of_communication - there in lays the rub. This concept - of what these school were on about, touches on cultural studies, communication theory and sociology - but isn't quite summed up by any of them. I think because those subjects (and many of their theorists) moved on from Marxism which is, in my opinion, a doggard but exhausted terminology for modern political discussion. Perhaps cultural Socialism might be an alternate term for the MCA page. Thus MCA can become for general theorists, and cultural Socialism can be Misplaced Pages's general english language attempt at employing WP:NEO and escaping the "cultural Marxism" alt-right quagmire all together. Huh, so that's 2 or 3 remedies now. Sorry for the wall of text. 14.203.74.203 (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree with a lot of what you have said, but I believe any kind of discussion in regards to the content and the naming of the MCA article should be first discussed on that page's talk. That being said, defining the problem further seems to be a better option to me than renaming or moving the article. Most of the proposed solutions (renaming or moving the MCA article) most likely would constitue WP:NEO. I do not think that "cultural socialism" would be a satisfactory term because 1) it would be fall under WP:NEO lacking much of academic sources, and 2) socialism is a term that encompasses a wide range of political, economic, and cultural doctrines and is not equivalent to Marxism (althought it does have roots in Marxian and Engelian ideas).
My point in regards to the mention of the conspiratory use of "cultural Marxism" on the MCA article was that the two meanings of the phrase are separate and unrelated (e.g. Cultural materialism). Different topics, even if they have the same name (which is not true in this case here), are dealt with on different articles without conflating the two meanings within one article. The two topics should not be conflated and should be treated separately on different articles, especially given the fact the MCA is not titled "cultural Marxism" and the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" does not have any notability as a topic to be discussed on that page, but again this would be something to be discussed or done about on the MCA article and not on this article talk page.
I also agree with your point that the MCA article deserves expansion and should not solely be limited to the three school that are currently featured. Those schools, which have been associated with cultural analysis following or deriving from Marxist philosophy in sources (in line with Misplaced Pages's policy), could be included. It would be a good idea to have some overlap and synthesis between the cultural studies and Marxist cultural analysis articles, just like you said, to the extent that both deal with Marxism and culture. I also agree with you that British cultutal Marxism is a notable topic that deserves further expansion, perhaps first by extending the relevant section of the MCA article and then if that section becomes too voluminous, it would probably deserve its own article.
You have raised an interesting point about Zizek and Foucault. Zizek is a famous contemporary political and cultural theorist whose influences are very diverse, and include Hegel, Marx, and Lacan. He clearly has been influenced not just by Marxism, but by psychoanalysis and German idealism. I am not sure if he could simplistically be cast as a cultural Marxist. Foucault, in my opinion, is more closely associated with postmodernism and skepticism, although he did have Hegelian and Marxian influences, just like Zizek. Again, calling him a cultural Marxist would be too simplistic.
I agree that "cultural Marxism" is somewhat of an umbrella term in the sense that it refers to separate but related schools of thought which all prominently use culture as a substrate of analysis using Marxian methods. This, however, does not mean that the use of the phrase in this sense cannot be notable or if there was nothing by which the development of cultural Marxist thought added to previous orthodox Marxism or contributed to future modern cultural studies. I still believe that a fully protected disambiguation page would serve as the best solution to untangle and clarify the two prominent meanings of the phrase. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I for one have seen no policy-relevant rationale for turning the Cultural Marxism page from a redirect into disambiguation; the phrase has a very clear primary meaning (designating the conspiracy theory) and whatever small traffic might be following dated references to Thompson and Lukacs using this key phrase (which was never more than an ill-defined alternate label, at most) can follow the disambiguation notice at the top of this page. Newimpartial (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
From your link: Ensure that redirects and hatnotes that are likely to be useful are in place. If a user wants to know about the branch of a well-known international hotel chain in the French capital, they may type "Paris Hilton" into the search box. This will, of course, take them to the page associated with a well-known socialite called Paris Hilton. Luckily, though, a hatnote at the top of that article exists in order to point our user to an article which they will find more useful... ...We cannot control all astonishment – the point of an encyclopedia is to learn things, after all. But limiting the surprises our readers find within our articles' text will encourage rather than frustrate our readers.210.185.122.149 (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain which particular passages in those essays prevents us from renaming "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" to "Cultural Marxism", IP? Tewdar 12:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
FRINGE isn’t about article titles, but it says that we need to present fringe thought unambiguously as fringe. The current article title does that much better than the proposed change, IMO. "Cultural Marxism" is ambiguous about referring to the name of the conspiracy theory or the object of the conspiracy theory. The current title isn't. Newimpartial (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Our sources, however, which are not FRINGE, generally use "Cultural Marxism". By which they mean, the conspiracy theory. Not the object of the conspiracy theory. Tewdar 13:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
To your first reply: yes. My phone is possessed. Fixed (the word, not my phone...)
To the second, if you look more carefully, I think you will find the reliable sources using "Cultural Marxism/Cultural Marxists" for the object and supposed protagonists of the conspiracy to a very large extent. Newimpartial (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Braune, Woods, Jamin, and Busbridge all use "Cultural Marxism" to mean the conspiracy theory itself. Some of these also use the term in other ways. Tewdar 14:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Where can I find a phone exorcist? Also, I never said that the RS don't use the term as the name of the conspiracy theory, I said they also use it for the theory's object (and "Cultural Marxists" for its protagonists). That's what makes the bald phrase "Cultural Marxism" ambitious ambiguous. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
But Tewdar, the name of the conspiracy theory and the object of the conspiracy theory are both on-topic for this page, and off-topic for other pages. You don't need to disamimbiguate within a single page (I hope). Newimpartial (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
No, you're right, you probably wouldn't need a disambiguation page if those were the only meanings of ultural Marxism. Perhaps the existing hatnote is good enough disambiguation to fulfill WP:policy without the need for a separate disambiguation page. Doesn't look like there is much support for the idea, anyway. ☹️ Tewdar 16:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
After such a long discussion, I am still convinced that a fully protected disambiguation page would serve as the best solution to untangle and clarify the two prominent meanings of the phrase. I was too surprised to end up on this page after typing in "cultural Marxism". There are people (especially outside the Anglo-American political world) who are not familiar with the conspiratorial use of "Cultural Marxism" but are familiar with the sense that refers to the topic of Marxist cultural analysis. Also, can we start the lede with the bolded "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" instead of "Cultural Marxism", as has been previously proposed and more in line with other similar Misplaced Pages articles (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4)? I thought we have already had an agreement about this. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe your suggestion for a disambiguation page has been discussed and dismissed adequately above. For the lead sentence, you mean something like this? Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: Your change is a slight improvement, but unsatisfactory. I would probably be reasonably content if the term 'Cultural Marxism' was completely replaced with 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory', at least in the lede sentence, which might be a bit tricky given the current wording. The term 'cultural Marxism' is ambiguous, even if it doesn't technically need a disambiguation page (which I would still prefer). Tewdar 08:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I've not been following this huge discussion in detail. I'd just like to say that if anybody does come to this article by mistake the very first thing they will see is a disambiguation notice pointing them directly to the article that they most likely want instead. Its not like they get stuck in a dead end and can't find what they want. I'm not saying that minor improvement is impossible but I don't see a fundamental problem here and I'm not sure why this discussion is so long. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
especially outside the Anglo-American political world - en.wikipedia.org is for Anglophones. There are other versions for other languages, such as hif.wikipedia.org if you want a Hindi version. A full list can be found here: List_of_Wikipedias. Only a handful of languages relate to both articles, which has to do with where the theorists came from, what languages they wrote in - but as this is the Conspiracy Theory page - I'll note; all of the conspiracy theorists who initiated the theory were English speaking. 203.221.45.24 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
en.wikipedia.org is for Anglophones, but it is not supposed to be Anglocentric. Perhaps I have failed to understand the relevance of your comment. Tewdar 08:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Newimpartial, while it has been discussed in length, the idea of a disambiguation have not been “adequately dismissed” at all. There have been support for both keeping the redirect and changing the redirect to a disambiguation (both in the past and in the current discussion). I feel that a new RfC might be warranted.
As for the first sentence of the lede, I agree with Tewdar. The change is unsatisfactory. I am not sure if you looked at any of the conspiracy theory articles I linked. That is not how they handle the first sentence of the lede. Tewdar’s previous suggestion of starting the lede with "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory..." instead of "Cultural Marxism..." would be a satisfactory solution. We could say, for example, that
As far as the lede is concerned, I would propose an RfC with three options: the status quo ante, the proposal I recently made (which is current), and one of you proposals. I favor your first over your second because I don't like The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory...is a conspiracy theory, but that's up to whoever drafts the RfC.
As far as a disambiguation page is concerned, changing the status of Cultural Marxism would require a widely-participated community process, given the decisions that have gone before. Do you really think anyone has given a policy-grounded reason why it would make sense to consider disambiguation? The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Cultural Marxism" seems (painfully) clear (and it's not my long-lost friends at Birmingham). I for one haven't seen anyone put forward a case for a disambiguation page that isn't, in the end, WP:ILIKEIT. Newimpartial (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I gave you twenty-seven reasonably decent sources that use the term 'cultural Marxism' differently to how this article uses the term... how is that "ILIKEIT"? Tewdar 20:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Those twenty-seven sources don't even use 'cultural Marxism' the same way (and many of them are not recent, reliable sources that would count for WEIGHT). And even if they were employing a consistent denotarion and were appropriately recent RS (and they don't and aren't) - they would be entirely outweighed by the many, many RS using 'Cultural Marxism' in relation to the conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Fine, but WP:ILIKEIT, really? Oh well, I suppose I should be thankful that I didn't get directed to WP:CIR... Tewdar 08:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
"cultural Marxism" is a critique of "Marx's concepts of the relations and forces of production for inadequate attention to the conscious experience of institutions and creative practical reasoning"
"cultural Marxism”: the view that after Marxism's death as a programme for social change...it lives on as a fruitful form of cultural diagnosis.
Not that these are particularly good "definitions". On a related matter, does anyone have a watertight definition of "Marxist cultural analysis" to hand? The sources used on that article's lede appear to completely fail verification, one citation is the entirety of Communicative Action, and one of them appears to be defining the Frankfurt School, rather than "Marxist cultural analysis". Tewdar 12:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
We do not have watertight definitions in social sciences. For example, according to the Historical Dictionary of Socialism (2006), the Dictionary of Socialism (1924) listed 40 definitions of socialism. But the second book was able to identify common themes. And of course there are books and articles about socialism, so we have enough to write an article about it. But we don't have enough to write an article about cultural Marxism, other than how it is defined by conspiracy theorists, i.e., as part of the international Communist conspiracy. And we know that they coined (or re-coined) the term before they found that Marxists had used it. And they created the concept before they coined the term. They probably developed it by altering the term "cultural liberalism," which is actually closer to their concept. To them, cultural liberalism is the method by which the Communists are trying to destroy Western civilization. TFD (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
we don't have enough to write an article about cultural Marxism - nobody is suggesting this. Or discussing the other stuff you mention. And where is the definition, watertight or not, of "Marxist cultural analysis"?
All I am suggesting, is that (i) we reword the lede so that it starts with "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory..." rather than "Cultural Marxism...", (ii) a disambiguation page (rather than a mere hatnote, which obviously implies already that there is some ambiguity with the term), which I have already noted, finds little support, and (iii) that people ought not to summarize the collection of 27 sources with example usage of a term as "WP:ILIKEIT", as I find this somewhat dismissive. Tewdar 13:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
On (iii), most of your collection of 27 sources appear to use "cultural Marxism" as a simple adjective+noun grouping, rather than as a phrase referring to something clearly defined. Why should we not be somewhat dismissive of such a list? Newimpartial (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
That would imply that there was a concept in reliable sources that was the subject of the conspiracy theory. So a few writers added the adjective cultural to Marxism in the past. I am sure that before the U.S. Civil War, some writer must have used the words "West Virginia" to refer to the western part of the state. but we don't begin that article as "The state of West Virginia" in order to distinguish it from some earlier usage. TFD (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Here's a random 2022 PhD thesis, which uses a capital letter for "Cultural", and even comes from Canada: The development of Cultural Marxism was an attempt to address these shortcomings of Marxism without departing from Marxism entirely. Brenkman (1983) posits, “Cultural Marxism is the theoretical and interpretive project that approaches culture in its dialectic relation to the social totality” (p. 22). As Jamin (2018) describes, “Cultural Marxism considers cultures and ideologies as inextricably linked to the economic, social, and political context: they are tools in the hands of the powerful to control the people” (p. 4). Put these ways, Cultural Marxism moves away from the teleological perspectives of traditional Marxism (Cohen, 1992) and away from views that see economics as the core shaper of the various facets of society. It begins to see more interconnected relationships between people and systems. In acknowledging various contexts, this branch of Marxism gives attention to difference, as with different contexts come different cultures. Taking a stance that aligns with Cultural Marxism, but referring to Marxism more generally, Bakan (2014) argues that although Marxism is critiqued as devoid of a politics of difference, “difference can be understood to refer to various forms of conflictual social relationships that occur within the totality of capitalist society it is implicitly integrated into the categories of human suffering identified in Marx’s work” (p. 97). Cultural Marxism may better address relationships than traditional Marxism, and it may acknowledge contexts and difference in ways that traditional Marxism ignored. However, as Davies (1991) recalls, “by the 1980s, British Cultural Marxism became more culturist and less Marxist” (p. 324). While the Marxism element remained part of some critical lenses analyzing culture, it was not as central to all, and thus, Cultural Studies evolved (Davies, 1991; Kellner, 2003). Tewdar 15:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Ouch; that is far too close to home (physically, not intellectually). This is part of the borrowing by scholarship from the conspiracy theory following Jamin. Still, it is very far from the scholarly consensus, nor widespread enough to validate your concerns, by being present in a sloppy doctoral dissertation. Newimpartial (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
You could probably call round next week and ask (Dr?) Dr Currie whether this is indeed part of the borrowing by scholarship from the conspiracy theory following Jamin, couldn't you? Tewdar 16:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Much as I have enjoyed needling marginal (and not so marginal) scholars in the past, I think I'll give one a miss, thanks. I remember one time I got Gad Horowitz quite worked up, and Shannon Bell stepped in to defend me. :p. Newimpartial (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Passing mentions in a thesis (not yet approved) of the few scholars who used the expression Cultural Marxism doesn't prove widespread usage. Also, the expression as used by these scholars is strange. We don't expect Cultural conservatism to refer to the study of Communist art and literature. TFD (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I believe Tewdar was simply trying to provide one example of the non-conspiratorial usage (although not in a reliable source) where the phrase was clearly defined. I do not particularly see any issue with the usage of the phrase in the “adjective+noun grouping” as long as the sources that use it refer to the same or similar concepts, that is, the analysis of culture using Marxist methods. That topic is notable, which is the reason we have an article on it.
Newimpartial, while I disagree with, I do understand your reasoning and rationale for opposing turning the redirect into a disambiguation. As for the start of the lede, I just don’t seem to get why you are so opposed to starting the lede with the actual name of the article instead of a term that is ambiguous (evidenced at minimum by the hatnote). Per WP:DICDEF, articles should be focused on topics, not terms. WP:MOSLEAD and WP:SBE explicitly say that ”an article's title is typically repeated at the opening of the article's first sentence (in bold) usually followed by is or was and a definition”.
Even if there was no additional usage of the term "cultural Marxism", it is the generally accepted standard to start an article with the article’s title. Take a look at the example of Chemtrail. The term “chemtrail” has no secondary use and refers strictly to a conspiracy theory. Chemtrail is a redirect to the Chemtrail conspiracy theory article. That article starts with the following sentence: “The chemtrail conspiracy theory posits the erroneous belief that…”.
For my part, it wouldn't be the worst possible thing, but (1) a new lead sentence should go to RfC; (2) I like my text better, perhaps just because it's mine, and (3) almost all of the alternatives I think of begin "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory...", which seems like it should be the opening lyric of an Eric Idle song or something. Newimpartial (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
That's a problem with the suggested phrasing. The chemtrails phrasing ("which posits that") is terrible prose too. I think it is or should be more common to use phrasing such as ""Pizzagate" is a debunked conspiracy theory." The other problem is that the wording validates the argument by more recent advocates of the conspiracy theory that while there is a conspiracy theory, cultural Marxism actually exists. In reality, it's a rarely used description for something entirely different. TFD (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I don’t think a change would validate the conspiratorial usage. How can you have an entire article titled “Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory” recognizing and debunking the claims of the proponents of the conspiracy theory and, at the same time, validating (in any way) the veracity of those claims? The topic of “cultural Marxism”, as in Marxist cultural analysis, has an entirely different focus of content, in regards to both geography and time. As long as “Cultural Marxism” is not the namespace or title of either of the discussed articles, I’m not really concerned about the far-right deriving validation from or hijacking the content of them. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Why would a Natural Language distinction stick around AFTER the conspiracy usage has been mainstreamed? "cultural Marxism" (lower case, upper case) was a product of the term being in casual use (not having a set definition, but instead being the due course of the English language). The capitalized form "Cultural Marxism" only came about as the Conspiracy Theory usage came to prominence. Hence I wouldn't expect the cultural Marxism/Cultural Marxism distinction to stick around. It was a product of Natural Language, not an academic distinction. So citing a PhD thesis from 2022 (well after the CT was mainstreamed) is irrelevant. The distinction is only good prior to mainstreaming. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Of the non-conspiracy usage, I could not find their first reference (which just reads as 1949Mod. Q. Autumn 381/2). I assume it's a journal, but it's very old, and I've never heard of it. Their second reference is here - it's from 1979 by a Catholic Theologian who became a Sociologist. So is in the correct field. I doubt it provides a definition of "cultural Marxism" though. Their third reference is here - but according to the author's own webpage, was actually written in 1989... so again that's quite old.
What did you want to do with this information? What point do you feel this information serves? We've already acknowledged that there was this previous usage. That it uses the lower case, upper case mode, and that the term is seldom, if ever, well defined. I'm not sure what these new sources are meant to resolve. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
What did you want to do with this information? - I've already told you. At least twice.
What point do you feel this information serves? - it tells us that there are two notable senses of the dictionary headword 'cultural Marxism' in the OED, and that the second sense is not 'rare', as has been falsely claimed numerous times, because else it would be marked rare.
We've already acknowledged that there was this previous usage. That it uses the lower case, upper case mode, and that the term is seldom, if ever, well defined. - the professional lexicographers at the OED seem to have done a reasonable job defining the second sense of this term. Tewdar 11:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
The OED definition of 'cultural Marxism' - "The theory that the oppression of the working class is effected through social and cultural means." doesn't exactly give us a lot to work with. I'm also not sure that it sums up what The Frankfurt School wrote about. I think a major problem is that the authors who the term is attributed to - never used the phrase 'cultural Marxism'... so again, the problem of defining the term without violating WP:OR still stands in my opinion. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I've read some funny stuff on here, but I think the implication that using the OED as a source qualifies as original research wins the prize... Tewdar 12:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
What can I say, I think if you want to construct a page titled Cultural Marxism that is about the philosophies of The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, and E.P Thompson, then you should actually reference those authors - rather than just the OED and its two sources. I'd find such a stub article rather unsatisfactory myself. This is not Wiktionary (which has lower standards) - this is Misplaced Pages. You have to be WP:HERE for the right reasons. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
What in the name of Perkwunos are you on about, nobody has ever suggested that, stop claiming that people are trying to do that, nobody wants to do that, barely 10% of your comments even make any sense, please read what is written more carefully. Thanks. Tewdar 13:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
You know what, I'm not actually against using Cultural Marxism as a disambiguation page - that links to both Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and Marxist cultural analysis. As long as Cultural Marxism is never the namespace of either linked article, I'm fine with that. So I'm going to bow out of this discussion. I'll keep an eye out for the RfC if anyone ever gets around to making one though. Hell, at this point I think people should consider being WP:Bold and seeing what happens. Struck my comments, as Tewdar's vitriol has since convinced me they're on a WP:SOAPBOX crusade, and not here in WP:GOODFAITH. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
That's right, I'm on a secret mission on behalf of the far-right in collaboration with the Oxford English Dictionary to create a disambiguation page for cultural Marxism. That's just stage one of our cunning plan, of course. Next, we're gonna add "citation needed" tags to the lede of the Marxist cultural analysis article. Bwahahahahahaaaa. 😐 Tewdar 22:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: I actually prefer to discuss and workshop first, if change is likely to be controversial. As we did when we collaboratively restructured this article and added the 'Development of the conspiracy theory' section, which resulted in very tangible improvements and took place in a very pleasant atmosphere of camaraderie, at least from my perspective. Tewdar 11:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Sure, I mean... we can disagree without calling other editors children, trolls, right-wing conspiracy theorists, etc. right? Unlike certain anonymous (talk page-only) editors... Tewdar 11:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll put the 2 senses of cultural Marxism from the OED here, on the off-chance that anyone wants to talk about that, instead of ridiculous nonsense:
(1) Used depreciatively, chiefly among right-wing commentators: a political agenda advocating radical social reform, said to be promoted within western cultural institutions by liberal or left-wing ideologues intent on eroding traditional social values and imposing a dogmatic form of progressivism on society. Later also more generally: a perceived left-wing bias in social or cultural institutions, characterized as doctrinaire and pernicious.
(2) The theory that the oppression of the working class is effected through social and cultural means.
Perhaps I should point out, yet again, that I am *******not******* proposing that we have a brand new cultural Marxism article based on this definition. Obviously. (to most people, I hope) Tewdar 14:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOT#DICT Of the non-conspiracy usage, I could not find the OED's first reference (which just reads as 1949Mod. Q. Autumn 381/2). I assume it's a journal, but it's very old, and I've never heard of it. The OED's second reference is here - it's from 1979 by a Catholic Theologian who became a Sociologist. So is in the correct field. It doesn't provide a definition of "cultural Marxism" though. Their third reference is here - but according to the author's own webpage, was actually written in 1989... so again that's quite old. These two "new" sources don't offer anything new. No definitions are given in these sources. Both use the casual version cultural Marxism (lower case, upper case). There's no new information here, despite Tewdar's game of WP:DEADHORSE. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Also, this is not the correct "Modern Quarterly". Please try harder, you're starting to convince me that the conspiracy theory might have some substance. Tewdar 08:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I think you've made your position pretty clear that you're a fan of the conspiracy theory. I see you crafting your little WP:SOAPBOX. It's pretty obvious. You're not here in good faith, hence saying dumb things like citing WP:OR for a talk page comment. Be less obvious, quit complaining "I'll be reverted" - you get reverted because you're WP:TEND. You're a child, trying to goad people for some reason. Basically a troll. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
For the record, I think that the conspiracy theory is utter bullshit. Please point out where I have told you you'll be reverted - I've never said this to anyone on Misplaced Pages. Tewdar 08:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
You were confused. You had the wrong journal. Misplaced Pages even has a disambiguation page for Modern Quarterly... Tewdar 09:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
"Also an American anti-communist magazine" doesn't indicate a confusion. I'm merely highlighting that words get used in conjunction with other words regularly. Modern Quarterly, cultural Marxism, that doesn't make them substantially unified. "Also an" doesn't indicate confusion. But thanks for imposing your opinion of my internal state. Speaking as you know. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
New OED definition
Despite the controversy introduced last time I attempted to talk about this, one useful feature of the new OED entry for cultural Marxism is that it gives us a source for a SYNTHy assertion that was recently removed:
In sense 1, apparently with allusion to English cultural bolshevism (1932 or earlier), itself after German Kulturbolschewismus, denoting any cultural movement or practice perceived (and dismissed) as left-leaning or progressive (1919 or earlier, subsequently often in Nazi use). Compare German Kulturmarxismus (1924, in an attack on a Marxist philosopher, or earlier; rare before the late 20th cent. and in recent use probably after English)
Yes, wherever it was that this claim was removed. 😁 Perhaps I'll do it myself if there are no objections by tomorrow evening... Tewdar 22:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
The OED is a dictionary. All it tells us is that a British Fascist used the term cultural Marxism in the 1930s. But there is no evidence it influenced any future writers so there is no reason to include it, unless relevant sources do. It might be worth including in Wiktionary, but that has to be discussed over there. TFD (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
The recent RfC removed a long-standing claim about the etymology of 'Cultural Marxism', which was SYNTH, and was there for a long time. We now have a source, from the OED, experts in etymology. But this source cannot be used to support this claim? Tewdar 10:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
It's already been explained to you that all of the OED's references predate the mainstreaming of the conspiracy usage:
Of the non-conspiracy usage, I could not find their first reference (which just reads as 1949 Mod. Q. Autumn 381/2). I assume it's a journal, but it's very old, and I've never heard of it. Their second reference is here - it's from 1979 by a Catholic Theologian who became a Sociologist. So is in the correct field. I doubt it provides a definition of "cultural Marxism" though. Their third reference is here - but according to the author's own webpage, was actually written in 1989... so again that's quite old.
Accordingly they all use 'cultural Marxism', which is just and adjective and a pronoun. Not an ideology, plan, or school of thought. They're just Marxist cultural analysis, and that already has a page. You're just trying everything to substantiate the term because you're a believer in the conspiracy. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Please explain how anything I have said, any edits I have done, or any sources I have provided, make you believe that I am trying to substantiate the term because a believer in the conspiracy. You won't be able to, because it is a FUCKING LIE. Stop this harassment immediately, Jobrot, or you will be taken to ANI. Tewdar 11:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Also, someone else says we need to discuss whether we can add The term is also used depreciatively by proponents of the theory to refer to this purported agenda itself now. We probably do need this info, even if OED cannot be used as a source. Sigh. Tewdar 15:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the inclusion of that sentence but I found the arguments for not using the OED definitions convincing. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
We can probably add that without a source in the lede actually, as it is covered by other sources used already in the article. Tewdar 19:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
A When a conspiracy theory is about something real, then we add the term conspiracy theory. When it is about something imaginary, it is optional. I prefer leaving it out because it may mislead readers into believing that that the conspiracy theory is about something real. TFD (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
A; that version is more succinct and better worded, and, as mentioned, this article is the primary topic of Cultural Marxism. Furthermore, this is the only significant usage of the term - it is false, as some people below have implied, that there is sufficient significant usage of the term in other contexts sufficient for us to take it into consideration in the lead of the article; no significant usage of the term to refer to Marxist analysis of culture exists, and we should avoid WP:OR that would string together those mostly-unrelated and unconnected usages in a way that would imply that they are a topic in their own right. As the massive discussion above shows, proponents of that argument have repeatedly tried and repeatedly failed to argue that there is significant usage of the term outside the conspiracy theory, finding only a smattering of usages cited to things like PHD theses and other generally low-quality sources. Oppose all the "compromises" suggested below, which to me do not seem like compromises at all, since they flatly side with B on the main point. --Aquillion (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Option B
As per the discussion above. I prefer "starting the lede with the actual name of the article instead of a term that is ambiguous (evidenced at minimum by the hatnote). Per WP:DICDEF, articles should be focused on topics, not terms. WP:MOSLEAD and WP:SBE explicitly say that ”an article's title is typically repeated at the opening of the article's first sentence (in bold) usually followed by is or was and a definition”. Even if there was no additional usage of the term "cultural Marxism", it is the generally accepted standard to start an article with the article’s title. Take a look at the example of Chemtrail. The term “chemtrail” has no secondary use and refers strictly to a conspiracy theory. Chemtrail is a redirect to the Chemtrail conspiracy theory article. That article starts with the following sentence: “The chemtrail conspiracy theory posits the erroneous belief that…”." This would be more in line with other similar Misplaced Pages articles on conspiracy theories (for example 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). As we have discussed previously here there is a secondary, academic usage of the term "cultural Marxism" which has nothing to do with the conspiracy theory (see hatnote and Marxist cultural analysis, a list of some sources, the Oxford English Dictionary definiton), although that is not the only reason why option B would be preferred. The name for the conspiracy theory is somewhat arbitrary, and unfortunately, synonymous with another term that has, for a long time, referred to Marxist cultural analysis and associated schools of thought. The topic of this article is not the phrase "cultural Marxism", it is the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory". 98.192.82.105 (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
B - While both 'Cultural Marxism' and 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory' are used by RS to describe the conspiracy theory itself, 'cultural Marxism' is also used in academic sources to refer to something else - inter alia, Marxist analysis of culture. Using 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory' in the lede is less ambiguous, and also happens to be the title of the article. If you believe adding the words 'conspiracy theory' implies that 'Cultural Marxism' (the conspiracy theory) is somehow real (as suggested below), then perhaps we need an RfC on a page move. (addendum : also, as I am currently attempting to include in the lede, apparently to no avail, 'Cultural Marxism' is also used depreciatively by proponents of the theory to refer to this purported agenda itself; using the extended form 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory' allows us to distinguish the conspiracy theory and the supposed object of the conspiracy.) Tewdar 08:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC) edited Tewdar 18:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
B Strong arguments already made. Agree with both the point that similar articles re-state the title of the article in the lede, and that the term 'cultural Marxism' is also used outside of the conspiracy theory, making its use in the lede ambiguous. Quetosfh2489 (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Neither
Neutral, mixed, or other
Discussion (first sentence)
Newipartial, I did not include the status quo ante option because I believe we all felt like your change to that previous version was an improvement. That being said, if you would like to add that option (or any other alternative options that may satisfy the consensus) and have a good argument for it, I would not be against expanding the list of available options. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Chemtrails The difference is that there really are contrails, the vapor you see following some planes in the sky which conspiracy theorists misinterpret as chemtrails. IOW they think they are seeing chemicals rather than vapor. We want to clarify that we are not referring to what they see (which is real), but to their interpretation. Similarly, we talk about JFK assassination conspiracy theories because his assassination was an actual event. Some CM conspiracy theorists use the disingenuous argument that although there is a CM conspiracy theory, there is also a real CM. By implying that there is a real CM, the article would be advancing the their version of the conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe that omitting (i) adding the words 'conspiracy theory' implies that the object of the conspiracy theory actually exists or that (ii) omitting the words 'conspiracy theory' helps to clarify that the object of the conspiracy theory does not exist. Tewdar 08:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, you seem to have it the wrong way round. Adding (not omitting) the words "conspiracy theory" implies that the object of the conspiracy actually exists. In this case, you believe that the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is about something that actually exists, which is why you want the words conspiracy added - to distinguish it from actual cultural Marxism. My view is that is that the cultural Marxism exists only in the imagination. The fact that some writers have used the expression cultural Marxism to discuss an entirely different topic doesn't mean that the object of the far right's conspiracy theory actually exists.
In your example, calling the article White Genocide Conspiracy Theory might imply that it was a conspiracy theory about an actually genocide of white people.
I really don't know where to begin replying to this...
(i) The article title contains the words 'conspiracy theory'. According to what you have just written, you believe this implies that 'Cultural Marxism' (as described by conspiracy theorists) actually exists (I do not believe the title implies this, and I do not believe that CM as described by conspiracy theorists exists)
(ii) The lede does not have the words 'conspiracy theory' attached to 'Cultural Marxism', which according to what you have just written, helps us to demonstrate that 'Cultural Marxism' (as described by conspiracy theorists) is Not a Real Thing (which I agree with, but I do not agree with your logic)
(iii) I want the words 'conspiracy theory' added to maximally distinguish the conspiracy theory from Marxist cultural analysis aka 'cultural Marxism' (NOT as described by the conspiracy theorists)
(iv) The article IS called White genocide conspiracy theory!!! White genocide conspiracy theory has a title which, according to what you have just written above, implies that there REALLY IS a white genocide, which is false. There isn't a white genocide, nor does the title imply this
(v) You seem to be suggesting, despite all evidence to the contrary (please check my contributions to this article), that I am a believer in the conspiracy. This is false. I believe that Marxist cultural analysis is a Thing, and that 'cultural Marxism' is a valid synonym for this (but wouldn't be a good article name, which is why the article is called Marxist cultural analysis...) However, 'Cultural Marxism' (the object of the conspiracy theory, ie Marxists run the universe using drugs and Beatles songs) is most definitely not a Thing, and does not exist...
Including the bolded words "conspiracy theory" does not validate the veracity of the conspiracy theory (there is a reason it is included in the title and namespace of this article). If anything, it puts emphasis on it being just that, a conspiracy theory. As far as the current and previous versions are concerned, they, to some degree, invalidate the use of "cultural Marxism" as synonym for Marxist cultural analysis and its academic topic, which has nothing to do with the conspiratorial usage or this article.
Yes, contrails exist and chemtrails are a direct misinterpretation of them. Marxist cultural analysis and scholars that use Marxist methods to analyze and interpret culture exist. The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory indirectly and grossly misinterprets the term by equating it with the Frankfurt School and by fabricating a narrative around it that has no basis on reality whatsoever. This is the same way conspiracy theorists misinterpret the Frankfurt School as a conspiracy, although in a more direct and conspicuous manner. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
As repeatedly explained above, the conspiracy theory is not about cultural analysis. It is an update of the international conspiracy theory. the origin of the term as used by the far right either comes from cultural Bolshevism or cultural liberalism but definitely does not come from any usage by Marxist writers. TFD (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I have never claimed that the conspiracy theory is about cultural analysis or that the origin of this sense of the term as used by the far right comes from Marxist writers. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
The second sentence The believers of the far-right, antisemitic conspiracy theory posit that an elite of Marxist theorists... is a bit clunky, but I still prefer option B. Perhaps this sentence can be reworded a bit? Tewdar 08:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Please go ahead, edit, and improve the prose of that sentence (or those sentences) if you feel like it is clunky. It is a first draft. Also, I am not a native English speaker. 98.192.82.105 (talk)
I'd actually be reasonably happy with something like, The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, also known as the Frankfurt School conspiracy or simply 'Cultural Marxism', is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims that Western Marxism is the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture. Perhaps that breaks up the consecutive 'conspiracy theory' usage so that it no longer reminds Newimpartial of some songwriter I've never heard of a song by a member of Monty Python? Tewdar 19:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The description would also have to explain what was the cultural Marxism that was the object of the conspiracy theory. How would you do that? TFD (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Something like 'Cultural Marxism' is also a term used depreciatively by proponents (who are very probably far-right and anti-Semitic) of the theory to refer to the totally false and utterly discredited purported political agenda (which remember, doesn't exist, children!) which according to them (they are wrong, remember!) has ruined 'Merika, caused Gay, created Obama, made everyone take drugs, and does the work of Satan himself.
Also, why is material which is currently not part of the the lede, which I only recently suggested we should add, then tried to add, and was reverted, now suddenly something we urgently have to explain? Why not re-add my recently reverted change, right now, if this is something we have to explain? Tewdar 09:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Your suggestions are not encyclopedic writing because they show an exaggerated lack of neutral tone. Do you have any serious suggestions? TFD (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Why suggestions (plural)? My first suggestion is encyclopaedic writing, and indeed differs very little from the current lede. My second suggestion is indeed not meant to be taken entirely seriously. 'Cultural Marxism' is also used depreciatively by proponents of the theory to refer to this purported agenda itself would seem to fit the bill. Again, why is information that is not currently part of the lede suddenly deemed to be essential? Tewdar 13:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I believe Tewdar’s first suggestion (about the first sentence of the lede) would be a good compromise. Those of us who support Option B, or think that the current wording invalidates Marxist cultural analysis as an academic field, could accept it as long as the title of the article is included and the term “Cultural Marxism” remains capitalized. The new sentence would leave the phrase “Cultural Marxism” as is in the status quo, which (I believe) would be acceptable to supporters of option A.
As for the second suggestion, 1) That topic is outside of the scope of the current RfC and should be discussed as a new topic somewhere else (the RfC is about the first sentence of the status quo), 2) I personally do not believe it is necessary as the current lede does explain the object of the conspiracy theory (that being said, I am not necessarily opposed to adding something along those lines as suggested by TFD or proposed by Tewdar). 98.192.82.105 (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I would support my compromise suggestion above as a first choice, followed by option B. Unfortunately the constant goalpost-moving, baseless implications, repeated strawman-responses to stuff nobody ever said, and, at this point, I'm even beginning to suspect possible intentional gaslighting, has left me mentally unable to continue this ridiculous discussion about a very minor change and so hopefully I will not be tempted to continue this discussion any further. Tewdar 14:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I suggest you re-read your suggestion at 08:53, 10 April 2022. If that was meant seriously, then you need to learn to use a neutral tone. If it is meant sarcastically, please note that humor does not translate well and is not constructive. TFD (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I am almost certain that Tewdar meant it as a joke. I have noticed that both Tewdar and Newimpartial use humor on the talk page occasionally. So far, I have not had a problem with those instances of light humor, which sometimes added a lighter tone to discussions. That being said, I agree that humor, especially in the crass form used by Tewdar here (08:53, 10 April 2022), does not always translate well over text, can be unconstructive, and could be offputting to editors who are not familiar with the style of certain other editors. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I thought it was a reasonable parody of both the existing article and the conspiracy theory, myself. Anyway, I'm really not joining in anymore after this. 🤐 Tewdar 15:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
To be fair to Tewdar, we do have at least one source for the role of Satan, a source that has previously been proposed for use in this article (just look for "Satan" or "magic helmet" in the Talk archives). Newimpartial (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Straight from current article: In Timothy Matthews' version of the conspiracy, originally published in The Wanderer in December 2008, the Frankfurt School came to America to carry out "Satan's work". According to Matthews, the Frankfurt School, under the influence of Satan, seek to destroy the traditional Christian family by starting a culture war, using critical theory and Marcuse's polymorphous perversity to encourage women's rights, homosexuality, and the breakdown of patriarchy by creating a female-centered culture. (please, someone, ban me...) Tewdar 15:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
TFD, would you support moving closer to a compromise of this wording of the first sentence "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, also known as the Frankfurt School conspiracy, or simply Cultural Marxism, is a far-rightantisemiticconspiracy theory which claims that Western Marxism is the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture.”, or something along these lines? 98.192.82.105 (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
And yet, reliable sources may refer to this topic as Cultural Marxism, Frankfurt School conspiracy, or Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Even if you don't want to agree with the arguments that 'Cultural Marxism' also means something else to an arbitrary level of so-called "significance", per MOS:LEADALT, When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" is a significant alternative name for the topic, found in the sources already used, and is the title of the article. Tewdar 08:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Also, unless you think that the SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Theory should be included under things like PHD theses and other generally low-quality sources, take a look at the entry "CULTURAL MARXISM AND BRITISH CULTURAL STUDIES" (Volume 1, pp 171-177) (which I suppose I'd better add to the sandbox) Tewdar 11:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
