Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 73.52.47.222 (talk) at 04:38, 21 December 2021 (sorry I'm new, fixed formatting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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that represent a citogenesis or circular reporting risk to Misplaced Pages as they plagiarize verbatim directly from an outdated draft that came from Misplaced Pages, which can be found here (2006 revision here).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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts 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 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 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 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 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.

Evidence for antisemitism

This article claims that the conspiracy theory is antisemitic. However, there is no evidence provided anywhere within. This speculation should either be substantiated or removed. Wthompson2009 (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The article says it is so because the WP:RS say that it is so - no RS on the topic disagree. Newimpartial (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

There are definite parallels between Cultural Marxism, Cultural Bolshevism (a theory from the Nazis), and more general anti-semetic conspiracy theories (Jews rule the world, Jews run the media, Jews are trying to destroy Western/Christian civilization). In fact, there have been several suggestions to merge the articles on Cultural Bolshevism with the articles on Cultural Marxism (See Talk:Cultural_Bolshevism#Merger_Proposal). William S. Lind gave a talk on "Cultural Marxism" to a Holocaust Denial Conference, and hence Paleo-conservatives are responsible for early efforts to popularize the theory among antisemites (Lind even claims the origins of the theory were the politics of the Wiemar Republic era of Germany). Academics have also commented on these various connections to Nazism and antisemitism. Finally, it's been popularized on 4chan, and the topic of the antisemitic connections came up around the Suella Braverman scandal. All of these events/facts have reliable sources, and so that commentary is valid to include and is not WP:OR. --115.64.184.49 (talk)

You are objectively wrong. French Post Modernism is also called cultural marxism and it had very few if any jews involved. And it's not a conspiracy theory when the foundational "intellectuals" of the Frankfurt school can be quoted verbatim as saying that it is their intention to infiltrate schools of the west and promote marxist theory. Lind could give a talk on video games to a Holocaust Denial Conference, that wouldn't make video games a far right antisemitic activity. Your entire premise relies on tenuous equivocations from varying sources of a wide disparity, effectively culminating in a conspiracy theory of its own that it's somehow the "far right" responsible for promoting an idea that's been promoted out-right in the published letters and works of Adorno and Horkheimer.Crun31 (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that argument isn't going to fly. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

French Post Modernism is also called cultural marxism - just one problem there, the sources focus on The Frankfurt School, who explicitly and within open academic works opposed French Post Modernism. What's more you've given no evidence for your claims. --203.221.166.218 (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Martin Heidegger who can be said to be the inspiration behind postmodernism wasn't a Jew or a Marxist, but a member of the Nazi Party. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

So? TFD (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

So, it is highly unlikely that he was involved in a Judaeo-Marxist conspiracy. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The article ties the theory to ideas that are anti-Semitic. It doesn't have to explain why those ideas are anti-Semitic. TFD (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably the ideas you address are anti-Semitic. However, it is falacious to assure thay, since components of A are anti-Semitic (or related to anti-Semitism) ergo, A is anti-Semitic.

The point is that there is no evidence to state the concept of cultural marxism is anti-Semitic. Patriarca de Alejandria Santiago I (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

That could possibly be true, but Misplaced Pages lets WP:RS speak, we never ventilate our own opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Accusing people of Anti-Semitism is a not a neutral viewpoint. Pointing out that a large number of members shared Jewish heritage is similar to pointing out that members of the Thule Society all had German heritage. or that the 9/11 Hijackers were all Muslims. Jaygo113 (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Empiricism is neutral. Jaygo113 (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise, we could call Feminism Misandrist, because the feminist movement and its ideology are often accused of being such. Jaygo113 (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Get that published in reliable sources, and get the other reliable sources to retract what they said about antisemitism, and we can consider changing the article. Until then, you are just a random person on the internet whose irrelevant opinions are outweighed by reliable sources.

Read WP:RS to start learning how Misplaced Pages works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

You should read reliable sources about the topic, instead of articles written by proponents of the theory. Conspiracy theorists can write very convincingly and people who have no other knowledge about a topic are easily mislead.

You should also be aware that most anti-Semitic literature is not overt.

TFD (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The irony present here, on a page on a website which is arguably one of the battlefields of culture wars in general, is hilarious. As a Jew who believes in the political concept of culture wars as a matter of fact, historical record and sound political strategy , it's astounding that anyone would even attempt to argue that Marxists, as a politically organized group for over one hundred years, would not engage in a culture war of their own. To fail to engage in a culture war as an organized political group would be such an enormous misstep and strategic blunder that the concept would not have lasted more than a few months had propaganda ("Cultural warfare") not been a part of the strategy. Clarissacolgate (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple pages for Marxist theorist, activists and "culture warriors" (The Frankfurt School for instance). There's also the page Marxist_cultural_analysis for the theories of The Frankfurt School, Birmingham School, and Gramsci in particular. So unless you have a more specific complaint, your comments will more than likely be removed as WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM. --203.221.166.218 (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

So what if other pages on different topics exist? This page was originally about a specific political theory called Cultural Marxism. My post is extremely on-topic and follows the rules of WP:NOTFORUM:"In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles". This article would be improved if it was accurate.

Not only do none of the sources listed accuse the source of the theory, which this exact article claims is Michael Minnicinno, of being anti-Semitic, but none of the sources even prove it's a conspiracy theory, or even claim it to be so. Things can be wrong without being anti-Semitic, and also without being Conspiracy Theories. That doesn't mean that any theory you disagree with is either, which seems to be what happened here. There's even evidence of Orthodox Jews like Ben Shapiro supporting the theory .

Further, the section "Political correctness and antisemitic canards" cites an opinion piece (ha) in the NYT, which, without sourcing, essentially claims that racists have used this theory. So what? Even if we take the opinion piece as truth, the fact that someone who is Anti-Semitic talks about a theory does not make that theory anti-Semitic. They can talk about ABC conjecture. That doesn't make math anti-Semitic. Again - none of the sources listed claim that the original source for the theory is anti-Semitic. Nor does the original source by Minnicinno have any obvious anti-Semitic claims.Clarissacolgate (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You are objecting to a correctly cited expert source (per WP:RSOPINION and offering your own original interpretarion/critique of other RS. Why would this be relevant to the article? Newimpartial

And by the way, there was no specific political theory called Cultural Marxism. At most there was a synonym for Marxist cultural analysis used by very few commentators, but then turned into a conspiracy theory in the '90s - or at least, that is what all RS on the topic tell us. (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The rules within WP:RSOPINION only further my point: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact."

Out of all of the sources listed in the article, the only ones calling Cultural Marxism an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory are, in fact, opinion pieces which may not be used as "statements asserted as fact".

Clarissacolgate (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

How "post-truth" of you. Actually, the academic sources given for antisemitism (notably refs. 11-14 in the current article version) are not opinion pieces. Newimpartial (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Accusations of 'antisemitism' has become a huge lesson in false equivalence. Just because some Nazis promote some conspiracy theory does not make that conspiracy theory antisemitic. I no longer take antisemitism seriously now because of articles like this, it's just absurd paranoid name-calling to discredit conspiracy theories. DovicKnoble (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@DovicKnoble: Robby.is.on (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: DovicKnoble (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As someone who has been editing Misplaced Pages since 2014 you should be familiar enough with Misplaced Pages's sourcing requirements to know that none of those three sources meet reliable sources criteria. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

That's true and not a problem for me. I do not agree with Misplaced Pages's reliable source policy and I question what a 'reliable source' even means. For the editors, it will be obvious for the philosophers perhaps not and I ask you which one is more committed to knowing the truth.DovicKnoble (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want to edit Misplaced Pages, you will need to adhere to the policy. Complaining about article content here on the Talk page without bringing reliable sources to back up your views is a waste of everyone's time.

The meaning of "reliable source" is explained in great detail at the link I gave. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a look at WP:NOTTRUTH, as well. Newimpartial (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Culture_war
2. https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/em-2-what-is-propaganda-(1944)/war-propaganda#:~:text=Propaganda%20in%20wartime%20must%20seek,successes%20on%20the%20propagandist's%20side.
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Ngy2aU_QY&t=50s
4. https://mondoweiss.net/2020/12/the-antisemitism-industry-how-antisemitism-is-being-politicized-and-weaponized-in-europe-to-defend-israel/
5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YqCiR9awsE
6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi4oLUVKjIY

The evidence for the antisemitism seems pretty clear to me. A key proponent (William S. Lind) gave a talk on The Cultural Marxism "theory" very early on - at a holocaust denial conference. There's sources for that, and Lind doesn't deny it. Likewise, after Suella Braverman (the British MP) used the term Cultural Marxism in parliament, several news sources called the theory antisemitic. She was also warned by The Board of Deputies of British Jews - that the term was antisemitic. Of course, perhaps the most compelling evidence for the theory being antisemitic - is that it's very popular among neo-Nazis and the alt-right. That's at least 3 lines of evidence external to Misplaced Pages. You have to remember Misplaced Pages in part reports what's in the sources. If it's commonly enough called antisemitic by authoritative sources, such as specialists in hate-groups, the conspiracy theorists themselves, and the media... then it's likely to be called such on Misplaced Pages (that's the nature of WP:RS). Truth be told is that there are versions of the conspiracy theory which tie it directly into things like the Banking/NWO conspiracy theory, and the Jewish Blood Libel conspiracy theory. All in all, there's more evidence for it being antisemitic, than not.

Holocaust denial reference:

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2002/ally-christian-right-heavyweight-paul-weyrich-addresses-holocaust-denial-conference

Suella Braverman warning:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/26/tory-mp-criticised-for-using-antisemitic-term-cultural-marxism

Academic, Joan Braune noting that the conspiracy theory appears along side other antisemitic tropes:

http://transformativestudies.org/wp-content/uploads/Joan-Braune.pdf

Here's just, some of the related propaganda:

http://www.henrymakow.com/upload_images/Horkheimer.png

...Here's some more:

https://news.knowyourmeme.com/photos/999371-cultural-marxism

So yeah, it definitely appears in the antisemitic milieu.

Anyways, there it is. Evidence. --203.221.166.218 (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot all about that time Ron Paul accidentally tweeted the Merchant meme (which The Times of Israel called racist):

https://svenlutticken.org/2018/09/15/cultural-marxism-and-ironic-fascism/

and I'll include this one just because it ties concepts together:

https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/999370-cultural-marxism

To quote the knowyourmeme website: "Online the term is frequently used on political image and message boards such as 4chan's /pol/ board." --203.221.166.218 (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Consider Re-naming Article.

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

this isn't a conspiracy theory in the typical sense. It's literally an interpretation of the ideology propogated by the Frankfurt School Philosophers. "Conspiracy" requires connection between the participants. the Frankfurt School gives us that connection. if anything, the word "Theory" should be used, but Conspiracy does not fit. Jaygo113 (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As I note in the subsequent section, this article, its title and its sourcing have been extensively discussed and have been subject to repeated, widely-parricipated RfCs. Your edits-which amount to the POV that "Cultural Marxism" is an intellectual movement and not the trope of a conspiracy theory- run counter to this broadly-based consensus. I have therefore reverted your BOLD changes. Newimpartial (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The claims of the conspiracy theory and the claims of The Frankfurt School don't line up. For instance, The Frankfurt School claimed an elite of corporate interests rule over the Culture Industry. Where as the conspiracy theory claims The Frankfurt School themselves are in control of the media, culture and academia. There's no semantics about it, it's a conspiracy theory, and runs contrary to what The Frankfurt School actually espoused. --194.193.147.6 (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Frankfurt School scholars that created Critical Theory, whether derogatively or pejoratively called "cultural marxism" or not, are no longer exclusively or even primarily confined to "the frankfurt school". However the Scholar Antonio Gramsci and Rudi Dutschke both recognized that influence in the societal institutions was necessary to bring forth a more "marxist" or egalitarian world. see e.g. https://www.conservapedia.com/Cultural_Marxism#Dutschke 75.164.170.25 (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

″The Long march through the institutions is a Marxist concept formulated in 1967 by the West German student movement leader Rudi Dutschke. Dutschke reformulated Antonio Gramsci's philosophy of cultural Marxism with the phrase the long march through the institutions (German: Marsch durch die Institutionen) to identify the political war of position or incrementalism, an allusion to the Long March (1934–35) of the Communist Chinese People's Liberation Army, by means of which, the working class or "oppressed" would produce their own intellectuals, civil servants, and culture (dominant ideology) to replace those imposed by the bourgeoisie or "oppressor class."″ 75.164.170.25 (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a suggestion that should be made at the Talk Page of Marxist Cultural Analysis. I don't believe Gramsci or Dutschke ever used the term Cultural Marxism, he used the term hegemonic. --194.193.147.6 (talk)

Conservapedia is not a legitimate source according to WP:RS, due to it not being WP:NPOV. Misplaced Pages avoids politics this way. --194.193.147.6 (talk)

Since the article is about a conspiracy theory, the article should actually source what the conspiracy theorists claim, not what other people claim that the conspiracy theorists claim. The conspiracy theorists should be considered reliable sources for the content of their own theory, rather than use strawmen arguments and ad-hominem arguments about the theory, such as that Anders Brevik the mass murderer believed in it. Endomorphosis (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the page for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. If you want to make a new page with sources that define Cultural Marxism outside of the conspiracy theory - you'd need to put in an article request elsewhere Misplaced Pages:Requested_articles. Currently the decision standing is that the term is non-notable in WP:RS left-wing writings. You'd need reliable academic sources defining exactly what "Cultural Marxism" is, otherwise you're doing something called WP:OR Original Research, which means coming to your own thoughts, rather than reporting the thoughts of qualified others. Misplaced Pages seeks to report facts and public opinion, stuff that's been expressed and vetted by an editor. You'd need something official which defines it. No one at The Frankfurt School used the term, and it's a fairly obscure term. It should be confined to those who actually used it (rather than The Frankfurt School). Not sure any major figure has used it to describe themselves. --194.193.147.6 (talk)

Conservapedia is not a legitimate source according to WP:RS, due to it not being WP:NPOV – indeed, and I strongly feel that any attempt to rename or otherwise rewrite this article to imply that "Cultural Marxism" has any existence beyond a bogeyman created by far-right conspiracy theorists (such as probably write half of Conservapedia) is likely to be summarily dismissed as nothing more than naked POV-pushing. Suggest abandoning this per WP:SNOW and the canonical Misplaced Pages approach to conspiracy theorists and other species of lunatic charlatans. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is a mainstream source that calls it "cultural marxism" https://www.dukeupress.edu/Cultural-Marxism-in-Postwar-Britain Title: Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies Author: Dennis Dworkin Published: April 1997, Cited by 534. This actually appears to be the first use of "cultural marxism" that I can find so far. Endomorphosis (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and if you look at page 3 you can read the words: "My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline" (pg. 3) meaning it's a neologism, not longstanding discourse or plan. Besides which, this talk page isn't for the Misplaced Pages page "Cultural Marxism", it's for the conspiracy theory. If you want to recreate the old page (which only had 3 valid sources on the topic) - then this is not the place to do it. It's a WP:SNOW case. The discussion has already been had. Also we use the sources we do because they're notable or came early in the conspiracy discourse. Lind for instance. Breivik's usage is notable and has a lot of news stories that cite it. --194.193.147.6 (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I went to the origination of the "conspiracy theory", it was apparently NOT cited in the wikipedia page, only a criticism of the work. https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_91-96/921_frankfurt.html. The claim made, was based on a rhetoric exaggerated hyperbole, including claims: "This is not the academy of a republic; this is Hitler's Gestapo and Stalin's NKVD rooting out "deviationists," and banning books—the only thing missing is the public bonfire". It also does not actually use the words "cultural marxism" anywhere in the article. Moreover nothing in the article has any anti-semitism whatsoever, and even goes to claim that marxism is antisemitic " Their goal was not the protection of Jews from prejudice, but the creation of a definition of authoritarianism and anti-Semitism which could be exploited to force the "scientifically planned reeducation" of Americans and Europeans away from the principles of Judeo-Christian civilization, which the Frankfurt School despised." Endomorphosis (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

How about you quit with the original research, and read the many, many discussions of these issues in the Talk page archives here and at Talk:Frankfurt School. Also, perhaps, take a look at Marxist cultural analysis, since you seem to be confusing that with the trope of the conspiracy theory. If you do that, and still believe you've identified any issues that haven't already been dealt with by many, well-informed editors, you could bring that back here. But it isn't necessary to rehash the basics every time a n00b editor appears on this Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This is what the page reads "Cultural Marxism is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims Western Marxism as the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture." that is not the definition of a conspiracy. The definition of a conspiracy is when two or more people agree to a concrete course of conduct, not a criticism of a allegedly subversive ideology, merely because a couple academics "conspired" to create the ideology. This article claims the above cited article is the origin of the conspiracy , but the origin itself is not actually cited by wikipedia, but rather a separate writer criticising the author of the original, and when you look at the citation its literally from the "Quarterly Journal of Poetry, Science and Statecraft" https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_97-01/fidelio.html, and the journal claims the frankfurt school adherants are antisemetic, and behave like the nazis / nkvd, and it is clearly rhetorical hyperbole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endomorphosis (talk • contribs) 00:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take the time to read WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. At Misplaced Pages, we prefer to use secondary sources (and tertiary ones, when available). Reliance on primary sources in articles is frowned upon. Perhaps you would prefer to contribute to a user-generated encyclopedia based on different principles...Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Relying on a document written by a literal nobody that states "This is not entertainment. This is the deeply paranoid hallucination of the LSD acid head. The worst of what happened in the 1960's is now daily fare. Owing to the Frankfurt School and its co-conspirators, the West is on a "bad trip" from which it is not being allowed to come down." and critisizing the frankfurt school as anti-Semitic, as the basis of an anti-semetic conspiracy theory is not reliable and contradictory. In fact there is a 1997 book called "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies" by Dennis Dworkin who is a history professor, which seems much more relevant as the far as the origin of "Cultural Marxism", because the original document does not reference "cultural marxism" but the "Frankfurt school". Endomorphosis (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages relies on secondary sources to describe the origins of the conspiracy, not primary sources. As far as Dworkin goes, do me a favor and search the Talk:Frankfurt School archives as well as those for this page. Thus has been amply discussed before - Dworkin is not giving an account of the conspiracy theory's origins. Newimpartial (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

But what is the "conspiracy", to create an ideology? who are the conspirers, the originators of the ideology? The only difference is that one side says the effects of the ideology is bad, and the other side says the effects of ideology is not bad, so therefore the idea that people "conspired" to create an ideology with harmful effects is a "conspiracy theory". Also here is another book from 1981 by another professor using the term "cultural marxism", this implies that the term did not originate with "cultural bolshevism" of the nazis or the 90's evangelicals see https://books.google.com/books/about/Cultural_Marxism_and_Political_Sociology.html?id=ArLaAAAAMAAJ&source=kp_book_description see also https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=cultural+marxism&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccultural%20marxism%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Ccultural%20marxism%3B%2Cc0 I do not find these sources to be reliable because they're plainly contradicted. Endomorphosis (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

More WP:OR. That just isn't what we do on WP. And if you can't tell the differences between sources on "Cultural Marxism" as a trope of the conspiracy theory and sources on Marxist cultural analysis, you really shouldn't be proposing changes to this article, much less offering your personal opinion about which sources are "reliable". Newimpartial (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Relying on dictionary defintions is not WP:OR. Here is: A Dictionary of the social sciences - Page 392 published in 1964 https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Dictionary_of_the_social_sciences/ "the cultural marxism of Antonio Gramsci examines similar practices in relation to forms of social control" here is the definition of "conspiracy theory" https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy-theory "a theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot". So what is the "theory"? That a bunch of intellectuals came up with an ideology, is the "theory" that the effects of the ideology are harmful? Where is the "conspiracy", people openly publishing ideas about their ideology? This would be similiar to having a page on the "fascist conspiracy theory", stating that many left wing activists claim that all the bad things they dont like are caused by "fascism", and that their ideological opponents are "fascist", instead of just recognizing that people are just LABELING the thing as "cultural marxism" / "fascism", and LABELING it as "harmful", in term of speech called exaggerated hyperbole https://en.wikipedia.org/Hyperbole. Nobody actually cited implied that Karl Marx and Engels conspired in a room some elaborate plan, that would inevitably lead to famines in the soviet union, nor that the frankfurt school conspired in a room to "destroy western civilization", because they obviously thought very highly of marxism and its utopian ideals. Endomorphosis (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Endomorphosis, you seem to feel some fundamental error is occurring. I concur with Newimpartial that the sources here are clear on what the conspiracy theory is and what its roots are. If all the sources are making the same fundamental error, you should find other reliable sources that point out the mistake. If they don't exist, you might seek out publication elsewhere as the first to identify the issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Endomorphosis, I really doubt that you have read WP:OR. If you had, you would most likely have recognized that your dictionary-based example could have been used in our policy as a textbook example of SYNTH. Newimpartial (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

this is not needed, being the sources I provided demonstrate that "critical theory" was classically called "cultural marxism" by its proponents to the extent that it was in the dictionary, the fact that there are people such as NewImpartial who said he publishes in the topic who want to portray criticisms of the ideology as anti-semetic conspiracy theorists who believe they want "to destroy Western civilization", when the chinese communist party marxist writers come to the same conclusions as the "conspiracy theorists" with regard to "It is a carefully arranged attack on Western civilization. Its main goals are Christian faith and moral values; the other is narrow white men, especially white men. Considered to be the source of most violence and exploitation in the world." see The History and Enlightenment of Cultural Marxism, Jianghai Journal Copy Issue Number: 2014, Issue 12 by Dang Shengyuan. I believe that it must be warranted to change the page to include the Chinese as among the people who believe in the "conspiracy theory".... I mean criticism of the ideology. http://rdbk1.ynlib.cn:6251/Qw/Paper/570796 Endomorphosis (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Martin Jay, a historian of The Frankfurt School is being used as the source for the Larouche article being the origins of Cultural Marxism. If it originated the concept it doesn't need to use the term, as the claim is only that the concept came from that article. There's a trope of Larouche being a conspiracy nut, this isn't the only conspiracy that it's been suggested originated there (See Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement for details). Personally I beleive Lind being asked by Weyrich to research The Frankfurt School was the origin. I believe Lind and Buchanan popularized the term on the right. Lind who appeared at a holocaust denial conference, and Buchanan who can be shown to be lying in his book Death of The West (specifically making false quotes that were later put into a youtube documentary). So it is a conspiracy theory. By the way the standard for that we're using is Barkun's three types, and it's a "Systemic conspiracy theory" - to quote the Misplaced Pages page Conspiracy Theory "The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. The goals are sweeping, whilst the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, Communism, or the Catholic Church."

But yeah, your claims articles are just jokes or hyperbole - is WP:OR. We're here to report, not interpret. --194.193.147.6 (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2021

• Conservapedia doesn't just fail WP:RS because of WP:NPOV, it fails because it is an open wiki. No open wiki counts as WP:RS. Bear in mind, I am a contributor at both Misplaced Pages and Conservapedia; there's no anti-Conservapedia bias here or anything, but it can't be used as a source in Misplaced Pages articles. PCHS-NJROTC 03:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Did someone mention switching back to the 2014 version of the "Cultural Marxism" page? Here's all that's changed since the 2014 version - https://i.redd.it/3sjg14xin8381.jpg --00:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.113.170 (talk)

This page didn't exist in 2014 (It was created in 2017 as a redirect) :D Maybe you need to look for yourself first before trusting a random reddit article? --Mvbaron (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

« This page didn't exist in 2014 » => I disagree.

• The Cultural Marxism page did exist in 2014 cf. https://web.archive.org/web/20141104053904/http://en.wikipedia.org/Cultural_Marxism
• The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article did exist in 2014 cf. special:permalink/608592820

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Consider Deleting Page

verblendungzussamenhang

I know, it's written this way in the cited article, but they have a bad typo in the word. It should only have one s and be "verblendungzusamenhang". The correct orthography can be found here for example: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/Verblendung_(Geistesgeschichte)

And even (German) Google autocorrects the word when using the variant with typo. 2001:9E8:4C54:700:213F:31AF:D04F:24BC (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to make the change. Am I correct in thinking that we should also double the m and make it "verblendungzusammenhang"? Firefangledfeathers 03:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The correct German term is Verblendungszusammenhang. See e.g. here: That is: Verblendungs+zusammenhang with one s after Verblendung, one s and two m in zusammen-hang Mvbaron (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I corrected it in the article. Thanks for catching that! Mvbaron (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

2021-11 reddit

This talk page is slashdotted by reddit.com

• https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/r3ipdk/cultural_marxism_articles_on_wikipedia_in_2014/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/r2wq92/its_not_a_conspiracy_even_lol/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/r3k236/one_of_the_reasons_i_dont_trust_wikipedia_anymore/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/r3ojic/the_petersonians_are_at_it_again_read_my_comment/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/kotakuinaction2/comments/r4apwm/cultural_marxism_is_just_a_far_right_theory_bro/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/r4fz6f/reddit_wikipedia_and_cultural_marxism/

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

That's pretty natural for conspiracy related pages though. As far as "slashdotting", I don't think it's a large amount of people (certainly not enough to crash servers). They're certainly welcome to come here and discuss the facts of the content as it stands. That's the nature of Misplaced Pages. It relies on editorial standards and public efforts in order to remain neutral and honest. That's the foundation of Misplaced Pages, how it works. --203.221.166.218 (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

No, they are welcome to suggest improvements to the article. Discussing the facts would be misusing this page as a forum. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened in the last few days. The inappropriate contributions have been reverted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Far-Right?? Yeah right!!

Op-eds alone aren't being used to justify the anti-semitism categorization (see the section titled "Evidence for antisemitism" for details).

No, 'Op-eds' aren't enough to make the statement "Cultural Marxism is being taught in schools" ..."Cultural Marxism" is a conspiracy theory which makes claims about The Frankfurt School having taken over the world. For a short time, it was called "The Frankfurt School Conspiracy".

If you want to state that Marxism is being taught in schools, there are multiple pages to do that on: Because Marxism is taught in classes on politics, in classes on world history, in classes that relate to politics and political theory. Sure, Marxism is taught in schools, often along side conservatism, progressivism, neoliberalism, fascism, and numerous other "isms". That's the nature of schools, they're institutes of education, learning and knowledge. That's why we rely them for certain truth claims. --61.68.219.18 (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding addition information

Hello, In the 'Political correctness and antisemitic canards' there is a segment from an article by Samuel Moyn. I would like to add this article which is a direct rebuttal to the Moyns article. I believe this is a good addition because while it credits Moyn on some points, it argues against others and that having both articles will give a more complete and accurate understanding of the subject for the reader.

There is also the 'origin' section of the which cites an article that claims that the term itself originates from 'New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness' (1992), but the earliest use of the term is actually from a book published in 1973 on page 15. All opinions aside, the claim that the term originates from 'New Dark Age' in 1992 is just factually not true, I think this should be corrected.

I would also like to add this by Frankfurt School and Critical Theories academic Douglass Kellner with his description of what 'Cultural Marxism' is.

I see that the article is locked. What is the process I would need to go through in order to add this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital Herodotus (talk • contribs) 00:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Digital Herodotus - Thanks for that. You can use the template Template:Edit semi-protected to signal other editors to take a look. Otherwise, this talk page has watchers who regularly check in to converse on stuff like this. I will note here that the article doesn't actually say "the term" originates from 'New Dark Age,' but that the conspiracy theory this article is about originates there. You might be confusing this article with Marxist cultural analysis, which used to be under this title until the conspiracy theory overshadowed it in prominence. ThadeusOfNazereth 00:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Tablet Magazine is funded by a sole individual via the publishing house 'Nextbook'; "The New York Jewish Week describes Keren Keshet as a "powerhouse" in Jewish philanthropy that provided essentially all of Tablet's $5 million annual budget." - Zubatov has no relevant qualifications in the social sciences nor as noteworthy commenter, and appears to just be a random lawyer. It has been argued before that the inclusion of his opinion is WP:UNDUE and seeks to provide a WP:FALSEBALANCE. You can search the archives at The Frankfurt School talk page, as well as this one, to find previous attempts at inclusion and why it's been rejected previously.

Also, this page is for the conspiracy theory version of the term, so doesn't aim at finding the academic origins (the academic usage was later replaced by Cultural Studies BTW). This page only seeks to document the origins of the conspiracy theory regarding The Frankfurt School. --14.201.132.122 (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, it appears that Zubatov is a conservative leaning lawyer, and writes for thefederalist - a website that often sprukes for the conspiracy theory: https://thefederalist.com/author/alexander-zubatov/ --14.201.132.122 (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, apparently Zubatov used to write for The Republic Standard, a far-right, antisemitic website which no longer exists. --14.201.132.122 (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you might personally disagree with the political views of Zubatov is completely irrelevant. Im not really familiar with the rules of this website, but simply stating that you dont like certain publications that he has written for seems meaningless to me, as does the charge that he is a conservative.

"Also, this page is for the conspiracy theory version of the term, so doesn't aim at finding the academic origins" But the problem with the article is that it includes factually incorrect information and readers of the article may be mislead into believing this false information. The main problem I see it that this article makes it seem like there is no actual academic school of thought called 'Cultural Marxism' no where in the article does it even mention that the term was first used by a Critical Theorist in 1973, and instead gives the impression that it was coined in 1993 by a far right conspiracy theorist.

Trent Schroyer's usage has been included in the article before, and I don't oppose it. Nor do I oppose the inclusion of Kellner. Zubatov however has no chance due to WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE having previously written for far-right publications, and having no background in sociology or the structure/study of conspiracy theories. --14.201.132.122 (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, as I recall Schroyer has come up before. He writes about cultural Marxism, as in what is the culture of Marxism. I don't believe he's writing about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Likewise, his writing is not about a Frankfurt School take over. I'm probably more okay with noting his work as a possible origin of the term... but I believe others won't be fine with this, which is fair enough, as it's questionable whether he's talking about Cultural Marxism, or Marxist Cultural Analysis. I'd say the latter. But I'm not the only user of this website. --14.201.132.122 (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Please look at the Talk page archives, here and at Frankfurt School: these sources have all been discussed before. The consensus (both on-wiki and of the Reliable Sources) is that the usage of "Cultural Marxism" in the sense of the conspiracy theory does not derive from the "cultural Marxism" of mid-century (which was a less-common synonym for Marxist Cultural Analysis) but rather from Lind etc. No amount of original research or far-right RSOPINION pieces are going to change that reality. Newimpartial (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It doesnt really matter what a few wikipedia editors might think, the reality is that the term 'Cultural Marxism' was not created by Lind, that term first appeared in a book by Critical Theorist Trent Schroyer, this isnt a case of my opinion vs their opinion. Im not trying to argue if Schroyer or anyone else is right or wrong, the reality is that Schroyer coined the term first in 1973. I linked to his book and in the table of content of it, it states 'Cultural Marxism' that exact wording, not 'Marxist Cultural Analysis' or whatever else. Also, according to Kellner, another Critical Theorist academic whos field is all about the Frankfurt School, Cultural Marxism (again, the exact wording he uses) was "Many different versions of cultural studies have emerged in the past decades. While during its dramatic period of global expansion in the 1980s and 1990s, cultural studies was often identified with the approach to culture and society developed by the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, England, their sociological, materialist, and political approaches to culture had predecessors in a number of currents of cultural Marxism. Many 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life. Traditions of cultural Marxism are thus important to the trajectory of cultural studies and to understanding its various types and forms in the present age."

The point is that this article has blatantly false or at best misleading information that makes it seem that Cultural Marxism is just this boogeyman or 'phantasmogoria' as Moyn says made up in the early 1990s, when in fact its an actual school of thought and was given that name, and later used by, academics in that field to label their own field of study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital Herodotus (talk • contribs) 12:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you missed the point, it's not about the wording - it's about capitalization. Proper nouns are capitalized. So 'cultural Marxism' (referring to either the cultural elements of Marxism, or the Marxist elements of the early development of Cultural Studies) is different than 'Cultural Marxism' (capitalized, referring to the supposed Marxist conspiracy plot to overthrow culture, the media and academia). If you look, you'll see Kellner and I believe Schroyer use cultural Marxism. So if you want to discuss the views of Kellner or Schroyer, you'll have to do it on the page Marxist Cultural Analysis, or on their own pages (see [WP:BLP).

Further more, all of the Marxist authors you listed already have Misplaced Pages pages, only two of those authors actually use the term "cultural Marxism" in their writings(Jameson and Kellner) - and only one of those bothers to go into it in detail (Kellner). So yeah, what are you asking for exactly? A special page which groups these thinkers together with a little devil hat on each of them?

There's no denial of the Marxism involved in The Frankfurt School's development, or of The Birmingham School, or Culture Studies. You can go look at their relative pages - they all clearly and directly describe their Marxism. That however does not justify the conservative claim that Marxism or Marxists controls academia, or the media, or Hollywood, or Politics, which is the claim of the conspiracy theory. --14.201.132.122 (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, to my knowledge, the field of study is titled "Cultural Studies" - there's no such field as "Cultural Marxism" nor does anyone self describe themselves using that term... and there's already a Misplaced Pages page titled "Cultural Studies" which details its development, and a lot of what you're saying. Maybe you can go update it, but THIS page is for the Conservative Conspiracy Theory titled "Cultural Marxism" - hence the title of the page "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory". If you wish to discuss the Marxist foundations of Cultural Studies, I suggest you do it there (although you'll find it's already quite detailed and honest). --14.201.132.122 (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

In my view, neither The Birmingham School (cultural studies) article nor the Cultural Studies article really does justice to the intellectual history of the Birmingham School itself, But that isn't a topic for this page... Newimpartial (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Far-right

LaRouche was a socialist and a Democrat. He was not on the right and the article on him even states this. 37.252.92.67 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Even if that were true, this article doesn’t even say that LaRouche was “on the right”… Mvbaron (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It does say fringe American right-wing political activist Lyndon LaRouche, because that's how the sources for that bit describe him. But that gets to the real answer here (which was discussed above) - LaRouche was, yes, at one point a socialist and a Democrat in his youth, before he was notable. But his politics shifted over time, and by the time he became well-known, most reputable sources considered him firmly on the fringes of the right. Therefore, sources largely treat him as right-wing, and we have to reflect that - arguing that he was actually secretly still left-wing in this period (when the source describes him as a fringe right-wing figure, in the context of the specific stuff we're discussing about him in this article) would obviously be WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

While Larouche began on the left, he became far right by the 1970s. TFD (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory??

Not even looking at whether aspects of this are true or not, how can a social theory be a conspiracy theory? No one says objectively false social theories are "conspiracies". The definition of conspiracy is "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." Does this page imply there is a secret cabal somewhere trying to invent a term just to disagree with? Wouldn't that make a LOT of things "conspiracies"? Why would someone invent a school of thought (that many people subscribe to) just to argue with? If that was true, and there really was no "other side," why is there so much disagreement on this? There are people who identify as Social Marxists. That at least makes it not a "conspiracy theory". Even if there were zero people who had ever agreed with the idea that "Cultural Marxism is a term used to describe the idea that our society is best interpreted as being a power struggle between different identity groups or cultures (women, men, gay, straight, black, white)" (Urban Dictionary), which is certainly not true, there is at least an ideology there that someone could have, someday. The political implications of labeling this a conspiracy theory are quite evident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.97.16 (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This page is indeed about the conspiracy theory. If you are looking for various Marxist positions on Culture and Society, you can start at the articles on Marxism and Marxist cultural analysis.

Btw, urban dictionary is a user generate site, anyone can add an entry on anything there, so the contents are often completely wrong and it shouldn't be used like a real dictionary. Best, -- Mvbaron (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I do quite like the image of Social Marxists, though. I'm thinking of cute guys in black turtlenecks with round glasses, posing as Maoists or Frankfurters to get laid and yet, inexplicably failing to do so. Newimpartial (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The concept of conspiracy theory does not imply that the named conspirators do not exist, in fact they usually do. TFD (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Time for a FAQ

Regulars here are painfully aware of how the same arguments come up over and over again. We should create a FAQ in order to respond to some of the perennial questions, including why the article has this name, and others. I've started a FAQ subpage here just to get the conversation going: please modify/expand it as you see fit.

As far as style, I've been roughly following the model used at Talk:Climate change. Here are links to that one, plus some examples of other FAQs in Talk page context showing different FAQ page style choices:

Some Talk page FAQ examples

All have bolded, numbered Q & A labels (e.g., Q1/A1, etc.) unless otherwise mentioned. Talk:Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis – 8 questions; answers individually collapsed Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories – 4 questions in a collapsed section Talk:Climate change – 24 questions in a collapsed section, answers individually collapsed Talk:Democratic socialism – 3 unnumbered questions in a collapsed section, with long, expanded answers Talk:Historicity of Jesus – 7 questions (some with subparts to them), with long answers, some with multiple bullet points in the answer and lists of sources Talk:Homeopathy – 11 yes/no questions with brief, parenthetical answer shown; longer answer individually collapsed. Talk:Intelligent design – 6 questions, answers individually collapsed; collapsed references section included with 15 footnotes. Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories – 10 unlabeled yes/no questions with brief, parenthetical answer shown; extended answers individually collapsed. Talk:Nazi Party – 3 unnumbered questions with long answers. Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory – 5 questions, answers individually collapsed Here's how the current draft would look when rendered on the Talk page: view · edit Frequently asked questions Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing how to improve this article. To view an explanation of the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Frequently asked questions about Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory Q1: Why is this topic called a "conspiracy theory" in the title? A1: Because that's what the reliable sources call it, and Misplaced Pages follows what reliable, independent, secondary sources say. See the sources listed in the footnotes in the lead of the article, for example. Q2: Why is it labeled "far-right" and "antisemitic" in the first sentence? Doesn't that show a biased, leftist point of view? A2: See answer #1; because that's what the reliable sources call it; see the citations for the first sentence. Q3: Dworkin (1997) has the term in the title of his book, so the field clearly must exist. A3: Not if he's the first one to talk about it. Dworkin said (on page 3) that "My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline". If he's the first, then either it's not a preexisting field, or no one has discovered or named it before him. Either way, that would be a different topic; this article is about the conspiracy theory dating to the 1990s. Q4: I came here to read (or edit) about scholars who apply Marxist theory to the study of culture. A4: Much of this is covered at a different article, Marxist cultural analysis. Q5: Why is this labeled "antisemitic"? Plenty of people involved with the Frankfurt school were Jewish! A5: This article is about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory dating to the 1990s, and the reliable sources consistently identify it as antisemitic. The Frankfurt school is a different topic, and dates back to Germany in the 1920s. Please expand/adjust as needed.

Once there is something useful there, we can render it in the Talk header at the top of the page with {{FAQ}}. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not the most knowledgeable about this article, and I don't plan to take the draft FAQ too much further; I'm relying on more involved editors to step up (if interested) and carry it forward. The FAQ is here. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Good work taking the initiative! I'm sure regulars will expand on questions/answers soon enough! --203.221.148.126 (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel like I have the competency to contribute much here yet, but I feel like this contribution by an IP editor, which may or may not be below likely covers some of the more common comments I've seen removed over the last few days. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources that show that Cultural Marxism isn't a conspiracy theory, article should be renamed, and anti-Semitic tag should be removed

The section title is a bit over-broad. Yes, cultural Marxism is a part of many conspiracy theories, but that in and of itself does not make cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory.

For decades, cultural Marxism has been an established political belief, applying the economic views of Marxism to the paradigms of identities other than economic class, such as sexuality, gender identity, and race. It's existence is acknowledged in both academia and commercial publication for decades from both conservative and liberal sources.

Brenkman, J. (1983). Theses on Cultural Marxism. Social Text, 7, 19–33. - from Duke University publication, primarily conservative leaning university which actually isn't critical of cultural Marxism, but simply takes a look at it

Gross, N. (2007, September 24). The Social and Political and Political Views of American Professors. Ucla.Edu. - published by UCLA, a primarily liberal university which openly admits that a significant proportion of professor in the field of Social Sciences are Marxists

And stepping away from academia, we can find publications that acknowledge cultural Marxism as a school of though, again on both sides of the political spectrum:

Mendenhall, A. (2019, January 7). Cultural Marxism Is Real. The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal. - A conservative non-profit, which references a Yale University(another primarily liberal university) publication that also acknowledges cultural Marxism as an actual school of thought

Just because conspiracy theorists use cultural Marxism to support their theories does not mean cultural Marxism itself is a conspiracy theory.

Just because anti=Semites use cultural Marxism to support their agenda, does not mean cultural Marxism is itself anti-Semitic.

Cultural Marxism is the application of Marx's theories on economics and class to other paradigms such as race, gender, and sexuality, is a very real school of thought that are acknowledged by both proponents and critics.

The idea that "ACADEMIA IS TRYING TO MAKE OUR KIDS GAY!" is a conspiracy theory. The idea that many of the people working as educators are applying Marxist class theory to these other social paradigms is very real, and dismissing that idea as a conspiracy theory is doing a disservice to people who come to this site looking for an NPOV look at what cultural Marxism is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.52.47.222 (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Application of Marxist theory to culture is covered at Marxist cultural analysis. None of that effectively refutes the existence of a conspiracy theory. Firefangledfeathers 04:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is named "Cultural Marxist conspiracy theory", and the article that actually addresses cultural Marxism is named "Marxist cultural analysis". Why the differentiation? In the name of maintaining consistency, either this article should be renamed to "Marxist cultural analysis conspiracy theory" or the other article should be renamed to "Cultural Marxism".

I don't deny that there are reputable sources to show that there are conspiracy theories based on cultural Marxism, just pointing out that cultural Marxism itself isn't a conspiracy theory. As an aside, I've noticed that the most prolific editor on both pages are the same person, and I can't help but suspect some sort of bias is influencing the difference in the titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.52.47.222 (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• C-Class socialism articles
• Low-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Low-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Discrimination articles
• Low-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• C-Class Judaism articles
• Low-importance Judaism articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press