Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk | contribs) at 08:41, 14 August 2022 (→Moved from other space: +comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:41, 14 August 2022 by Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk | contribs) (→Moved from other space: +comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

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that represent a citogenesis or circular reporting risk to Misplaced Pages as they plagiarize verbatim directly from an outdated draft that came from Misplaced Pages, which can be found here (2006 revision here).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.

United States Low‑importance

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.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative views Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

McKinney, Kara (2021-11-29). "Tipping Point". One America News Network.
David Auerbach (11 December 2014). "Encyclopedia Frown". Slate.

Misleading

"The destruction of American national identity through immigration" is false, the original claim did not contain the word ' American'. Please remove it.

And the poster above is correct, this article is grossly biassed and misrepresentative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.237.131.5 (talk) 13:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, you're right! Unfortunately, that was, I think, the only part of that section that I didn't write. As such, it probably wasn't given proper quality control. Who knows, perhaps some WP:OR was used. Sometimes people just put stuff in that sounds nice, even if there's no source for it. Wouldn't surprise me with this article. It's fixed now anyway. Tewdar 14:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually I didn't write the bit underneath the list either. Caveat lector! Tewdar 14:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

And anyway, I'm pretty sure Matthews is talking about American national identity here... Tewdar 14:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Woods misused in lede

A contemporary revival of the Nazi propaganda term "Cultural Bolshevism", the conspiracy theory originated in the United States during the 1990s.

uses Woods 2019 as evidence of the first clause; however, what Woods says is (emphasis mine),

(Several commentaries) claim that the paleoconservative myth of cultural Marxism is simply an updated version of NAZI propaganda about “cultural Bolshevism” and “Weimar degeneracy” (both tropes depended on obscene and offensive anti-Semitic caricatures). While the Frankfurt School conspiracy has anti-Semitic components, it is inaccurate to call it nothing more than a modernization of cultural Bolshevism propaganda.

In short the article says the opposite of the source. Sennalen (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that the source says it is an updated version of Cultural Bolshevism, along with some other novel features, wouldn't you? Perhaps we should add these details? Tewdar 07:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps 'has some similarities to Cultural Bolshevism' would be a more accurate summary? Tewdar 07:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

We do have Jay calling it "a recycling of the old Weimar conservative charge of 'cultural Bolshevism'"... Tewdar 08:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Woods elaborates that it's not related to Cultural Bolshevism because it's not related to any kind of German or foreign ideology, but a distinctively American homegrown point of view. In fact, that's something he elaborates on in a magazine article about how the conspiracy theory originated with LaRouche. Sennalen (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so how about 'some similarities with Cultural Bolshevism, but a distinctively American ideology (originating in the 1990s...) or something like that? (provisional text) 🤔 Tewdar 13:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a start. Finer nuances can be parsed in the body. I've been thinking that scattered bits about how the CT relates to anti-Semitism and Nazism could be collected from all around the article into a more coherent treatment. Sennalen (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not that anyone would require my blessing, but I'm fine with this approach. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not that anyone would require my blessing... - right. We just need your blessing, TFD's blessing, Aquillion's blessing, MVBaron's blessing, NorthBySouthBaranof's blessing, that IP from Australia's blessing... 😭 Tewdar 18:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Here's a first pass at it. Things have been pulled from around the article to make top level sections of "Terrorism" and "Antisemitism". diff of changes on a userspace draft I think what's left in the rump of "Aspects of the conspiracy theory" could also be distributed differently, but I'll pause here for the spirit of incrementalism. Sennalen (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

phase 2 finished parceling out "Aspects of the conspiracy theory" to other headings Sennalen (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The changes are in article space now. If it stays stable I'll move on to WP:SOURCEMINEing Jay's Dialectic of Counter-enlightenment. The book version is considerably expanded from the web version, and a lot of it should land in the new Antisemitism heading. Sennalen (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.137.102 (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Matthew McManus

There's a source in the article, Liberalism and Socialism: Mortal Enemies Or Embittered Kin? by Matthew McManus. Does someone here have access to it? Google books finds Cultural Marxism on pages 182-191, but not with full text. It could probably say more than it's already saying here. Sennalen (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I have it. Hang on, I'll take a look... Tewdar 19:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean, the bit before it says The term “Cultural Marxism” even had an accepted and primarily descriptive (as opposed to conspiratorial or polemical) usage in the 1930s to refer to Frankfurt School theorists’ general intellectual program of recognizing the impact of economics—particularly under capitalism—on culture and “cultural production.” Huh. Tewdar 19:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It goes on: By the 1990s, however, “Cultural Marxism” took on a conspiratorial meaning, pushed by US-based conservative culture warriors...This notion of “Cultural Marxism” (as “political correctness”) as the application of Marxist or socialist economic illiberalism to the cultural sphere—a kind of cultural illiberalism—is markedly different from the Frankfurt School’s actual program... Tewdar 19:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The bit between the two quotes in the article quotes Jamin a bit, thrn goes on: The conspiracy theory of Cultural Marxism filled the vacuum created by the end of the Cold War, enabling backers not simply of US liberalism, but of a rightward-driving US neoliberalism to lend urgency to their ideological cause. Tewdar 19:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Good to have you back, by the way. 👍 Tewdar 23:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks😊 Sennalen (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Development of the Conspiracy Theory

Minnicino and Lind are broken in half between Origins and Development, so they're basically explained twice. The reason it's that way is people didn't want the Frankfurt School section to be first. That desire can still be respected if all of Minnicino and Lind move entirely to Origins. Breitbart can move to entering the mainstream, since a few sources say it relates to that. Matthews doesn't seem actually that prominent, but he can go in "circulating in the alt-right" since Jay links it with Stormfront. Then everyone will be closer to claims that relate to them. Sennalen (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I was going to merge the 'origins' and 'development' sections a while back, but never got round to it...your restructuring proposal sounds good. I'd rather just ignore people who never edit the article, but then show up once every three months to revert something or blather on the talk page (YKWYA!), but I suppose that's not really an option around here. Tewdar 09:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is a first pass through it. Sennalen (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

From a brief look, it looks good. The "Interpretation of the Frankfurt School as a conspiracy" coming immediately afterwards is a bit late in the day, especially since we've just explained in detail, that all these founders of the conspiracy theory blame the Frankfurt School and their pals, but I'm not sure how we could fix that? Tewdar 20:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I would have liked the article to start with a precis on the philosophers that get named, but at least this is hypermedia. Sennalen (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Content is live. Sennalen (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not like the way your special:diff/1103229088 edit mix moves, deletions and additions. For readibility, i would have prefered that this big change is split into several edits. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Moved from other space

Sorry I wasn't trying to reopen a closed discussion so much as start a new one.

Could you please explain why the cited sources are sufficient to prove that this is the connotation with which the term is necessarily used and not "The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a center-right viewpoint that Western Marxism is the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert classical liberalism. The Frankfurt School is seen to distort modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness, in order to posit zero-sum oppressor-oppressed relations and deny the existence of objective truth or the possibility of deductive reasoning and problem solving independent of one's position in a "power structure" leading to the subversion, accidental or deliberate, of classical liberalism and undermines classical liberal values and replace them, accidentally or deliberately, with the values of the Frankfurt School that first rose to prominence through the New Left in the 1960s". And positing that such a concept exists, whether or not you agree or disagree, is certainly not anti-Semitic, as responding to this concept is a big part of how prominent intellectuals such as Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and Don Kagan, who happen to be Jewish, got "mugged by reality" as Kristol said. Also, people who follow this ideology itself almost always posit a zero-sum oppressor-oppressed relationship between Israelis and Palestinians in which they side with the Palestinians which often requires them to be anti-Semitic, while if you negate this ideology you can care about Palestinians without being anti-Semitic, but I am pretty sure the Israeli government, which irrespective of its stance on the Palestinian issue, is most certainly not anti-Semitic, would also recognize the existence of this ideology and be hostile to it, as with Kristol, Podhoretz and Kagan, contradicting that positing its existence is an "anti-Semitic conspiracy theory". People who debate whether or not "Anne Frank benefited from white privilege" as an Ashkenazi Jew belong to this ideology - that is, they are students of the Frankfurt school - and that is anti-Semitic, not realizing that the Frankfurt School causes people to consider such despicable things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.137.102 (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually I think the main source of neutrality issues for this article are that it cites sources which are not necessarily neutral themselves. I think the way to do that would be to say "this author claims this" in the body of the page rather than state any of these author's perspectives as an objective fact. And then one can present opposing arguments from other authors such as

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/just-because-anti-semites-talk-about-cultural-marxism-doesnt-mean-it-isnt-real

and also talk about how this "conspiracy theory" resembles concepts responded to in places such as here

https://www.commentary.org/articles/george-lichtheim/new-left-marxism/

https://www.hoover.org/research/why-there-culture-war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.137.102 (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

No Misplaced Pages editor is obliged to WP:SATISFY you. What the article has to do is follow the best available sources on its topic - which it does - and follow previously established consensus - which it does. Your original research about what account resembles other concept is not strictly relevant here. Newimpartial (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

"Could you please" doesn't necessarily imply obligation :P

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on the definition of "best available sources" and I am not sure if "previously established consensus" refers to Misplaced Pages editors or is more general. Thank you for the feedback about "original research". I do not think my point is "original research" though my framing might be. But fortunately for you, since you appear to want me to shut up, I won't have time to devote further effort to this. 100.8.137.102 (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

We have to follow Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, which excludes the sources you provided. If you have a different opinion on what are best sources, you have to get Misplaced Pages to change its policies. TFD (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't be the first time Tablet Magazine has been accused of anti-antisemitism. 194.223.54.91 (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that the article could benefit from a more even handed, or nuanced, treatment of the subject. For instance, it claims right from the start that it is a far-right , anti-semitic conspiracy. However if so many jewish public figures adhere to the idea, it should at least suggest that the concept of "cultural marxism" is vague or polysemic enough to allow for different definitions and usages by different groups, wether they are neo-nazis or conservative jewish commentators. I believe ther article would greatly benefit from this kind of nuance. It also seems to posit that "scholarly consensus" revolves around the positions of self proclaimed Critical Theorists which would hardly imply neutrality. Take for instance this sentence in the article: Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact. Source number 10 is an article by Dr. Joan Braune who seems to self-identify as an advocate for Critical Theory, which happens to be one of the main issues of "Cultural Marxist" narratives. From the start, this alone would hardly suggest an unbiased and neutral appraisal of the phenomenon. I understand the difficult and polemical nature of this subject, but from the purely objective standpoint of source selection and treatment of the matter, this article could be improved. I don´t dispute here wether this is a conspiracy theory. I dispute source bias and subject treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.37.69.231 (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The supposition that the conspiracy theory might be partly right is not a policy-relevant reason to modify adricle text, here or elsewhere. Newimpartial (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what I just argued. I did not suggest the theory might be partly right. I quite clearly stated otherwise. 189.37.69.231 (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Then maybe casting doubt on Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact wasn't really the right move for you to make. Newimpartial (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take your time reading what I wrote instead. I questioned source bias, not the conclusion. Maybe you should stay out of this discussion since you seem more passionate about it than necessary scholarly impartiality (look up that word if you will, you seem confused about its meaning) would allow. 189.37.69.231 (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of a source has absolutely nothing to do with the author's opinions. Opinions are opinions, while facts are facts. Saying that the conspiracy theory has no basis in fact is itself a fact. Whatever Dr. Braune's personal views, she is an expert and her article was published in a peer-reviewed journal. If it was factually incorrect, it would not have passed peer review. You of course are free to read and believe whatever you choose. But policy requires that articles are based on facts from expert sources and represent expert findings. It may well be that those sources are all secretly controlled by the cultural Marxists, but until policy is changed, that's what articles will state. TFD (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

If it was factually incorrect, it would not have passed peer review. oh, sweet summer child Sennalen (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The policy page for Verifiability used to read, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." Of course what we accept as fact may turn out to be untrue, in which case we can amend articles. Similarly, the "facts" established in a court of law may turn out to be false. In the meantime, as far as we are concerned, they are the facts. TFD (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

«It also seems to posit that "scholarly consensus" revolves around the positions of self proclaimed Critical Theorists» => What are your evidences that Martin Jay, Jérôme Jamin and Andrew Woods are self proclaimed Critical Theorists? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Categories: