Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Psychology Today article says this article can be interpreted as propaganda

[1]https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/rabble-rouser/202103/cultural-marxism-far-right-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theory

I think this needs to be incorporated as at the very least a significant minority view from a reputable neutral source. It captures everything that troubles me about this Wikipedia article, which it explicitly talks about and criticises. (Although it blames the article sources rather than Wikipedia editors.) As an incentive to check out the link, here are some conclusions.

Bottom Lines

1. Antisemitic conspiracy theories are a real thing.

2. Cultural Marxism is a term mostly used to describe an ideological movement, not a conspiracy theory. It did not appear to be associated with online antisemitic conspiracy theories in our recent analysis of online extremism and antisemitism.

3. Some antisemitic bad actors do use the term as a way to condemn Jews in general. However, many of the most prominent sources that have used the term are right-wing, but have not used it as an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

4. The Wikipedia article, and others like it, are plausibly interpreted as propaganda seeking to deflect criticism of an illiberal left-wing movement that some call Cultural Marxism by denigrating those criticisms as constituting an antisemitic conspiracy theory, when they are not. Chris King (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd describe that as an opinion piece rather than an article. An opinion piece from someone who seems, amongst other things, to have a very shallow understanding of diverse currents within left-wing politics. His description of the 'key elements of Marxism' could legitimately itself be described as 'propaganda'. Just not very good propaganda. He's of course entitled to his opinion, but I see no reason why we should present it as coming from a 'neutral source'. Or cite it at all unless it is the subject of secondary commentary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The article links to a report (not an opinion piece) in which "We found no evidence that “cultural Marxism” was associated with online antisemitic conspiracy theories." Chris King (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Assuming this is the report in question, [2], it seems to make no mention of Marxism, 'cultural' or otherwise, at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that's the point: CM doesn't show up in that article, hence this is evidence that CM is not a serious part of the antisemitic conspiracy milieu. I don't know what the point of that observation is, though; I mean, he agrees that CM can be used in an antisemitic conspiracy-mongering sort of way elsewhere in the article. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Given the predelictions of the authors, I don't think the non-mention of CM in that article is evidence of anything at all, really. Newimpartial (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"the authors" you mean the Rutgers Miller Center? Well, in any case I suspect we'd all agree we can't use that source in the way that this blog post is using it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The author, Lee Jussim holds very controverial views on social sciences and is not writing in a peer reviewed publication.

As with any opinion, whether or not to include it depends on WP:WEIGHT, which is the degree of acceptance his opinion of the topic has in reliable sources, which is nil.

You might add a link however to above section, "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations." TFD (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

That piece was written in March 2021. The article he is describing is not the same as the one we have now.[3] TFD is correct about this being an opinion piece and not one that we should give much, or any, weight to. A quick gander at Jussim's Twitter feed shows views about academia that are outside of the mainstream, and a strong sudden interest in Claudine Gay. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The bottom line is that Jussim's comments are WP:RSOPINION at best, and are not DUE for inclusion in this article until and unless they are picked up by actually reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Using something that has antisemitic origins in a non-antisemitic way doesn't negate or remove those origins. Conservatives (Lind and Weyrich) with the Free Congress Foundation launched the conspiracy theory at a 2002 Holocaust Denial conference put on by their friend Willis Carto for The Barnes Review. The duo later made a documentary about the theory that featured a literal Nazi collaborator (War Criminal, Laszlo Pasztor from the Arrow Cross Party)... these are not facts that the conservatives who launched and popularized the theory in this particular way, among these particular groups and people, can come back from, or can remove simply because some unrelated professional writes a blog post. 124.170.173.183 (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not a Psychology Today article but a Rabble Rouser article. Rabble Rouser https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/rabble-rouser/ is Lee Jussim's blog. Also this Rabble Rouser article has been previously mentionned in Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

• Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 16#Split proposal
• Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 25#2023-08 more sources

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

This is basically an argument against the redirect, not this article. item 2 from the "Bottom Lines" section specifically; i think that is correct. This article is about the "To be sure, some writers have used..." paragraph in this blog post, and ~nothing else. But probably not RS as noted above; it's a blog. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

2024-01 oppressors versus oppressed

WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You may already know that conspiracytheories are not grounded in reality so most of conspiracytheories have variants/flavors/flavours. During the last 6 month i have read in reddit many mentions of the «oppressors versus oppressed» variant of the Cultural Marxism narrative. It claim that Marxism is not about analyzing the 19th century economy and concluding that part of the workers work is stolen by factory owners (la plus value), but that Marxism is about viewing society as a fight between oppressors and oppressed persons, so «Cultural Marxism» is just an extension of this framework to other dichotomies such men-women, black-whites, heterosexual-homosexual. I was almost worried that this variant is very little mentioned in Wikipedia, in the wikipedia article about the Cultural Marxism narrative. How fool i was!!!! Today a conspiracytheoric (an adjective i coined this month) reddit user kindly opened my eyes by linking Oppressors–oppressed distinction, which at first look was created in 2011 endorse the aforementioned variant the Cultural Marxism narrative, a far-right conspiracytheory with roots in nazi Germany transgress Wikipedia:No original research If the last 2 points are correct, then maybe maybe the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppressors%E2%80%93oppressed_distinction should become a redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory By the ways, among the wikipedia articles linking Oppressors–oppressed distinction is Woke, which include a paragraph about the aforementioned variant (the woke narrative and the Cultural Marxism narrative are similar and related): French philosopher Pierre-Henri Tavoillot characterizes "wokeism" as a corpus of theories revolving around "identity, gender and race", with the core principle of "revealing and condemning concealed forms of domination", positing that all aspects of society can be reduced to a "dynamic of oppressor and oppressed", with those oblivious to this notion deemed "complicit", while the "awakened (woke)" advocate for the "abolition (cancel) of anything perceived to sustain such oppression", resulting in practical implementations such as adopting inclusive language, reconfiguring education or deconstructing gender norms. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC) I don't really follow most of what you're saying. I'd suggest that page is an unsourced neologism, or, perhaps an essay, and should be deleted. Certainly not redirected here? that would be strange. Why would we even need this redirect? (FWIW of course a lot of people talk about oppressors systematically oppressing the oppressed, the idea that people make this distinction is of course not a conspiracy.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Looks like there's a deletion discussion going on for that page right now. 194.223.27.216 (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC) Indeed. Thanks to @RecardedByzantian:. Thank you too for your comprehensive commennt in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oppressors–oppressed distinction. Also please take a look at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC) I don't see the contradiction. Marx said, "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." He primarily wrote about the struggel between captialist and worker. Conspiracy theorists claim that cultural Marxists view the class struggle today as between white heterosexual Christian middle class men and everyone else. TFD (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC) «I don't see the contradiction.» => Maybe because i did not go into details. First, this variant, like most of variants of the Cultural Marxism narrative, implicitly claim that the goal of Karl Marx and his followers was and is not to improve the life conditions of workers, but to take over the industrialised countries and become the new rulers. Second, this variant claim that the Marxists and the Cultural Marxists view the «oppressors versus oppressed» as a manichaean dichotomy where capitalist owners are always evildoer while workers are always welldoer. Class traitors do not exist. In the current era, men and whites and heterosexuals are always evildoer while women and black and homosexuals are always welldoer, which has the consequences that Taylor Swift is always evildoer because she is white and always welldoer because she is a woman antisemite Kanye West is always evildoer because he is a man and always welldoer because he is black And you do not need to be an expert in Intersectionality (an other bogeyman of the far-right which is ironically summoned by some proponents of this variant of the Cultural Marxism narrative as evidence) to see that this does not stand, that this ridiculously does not stand. Third, not everything in a conspiracytheory is false/wrong/incorrect/misleading. For example, somedy claiming that US president John F. Kennedy was killed in 1963 by the CIA is correct that John F. Kennedy was US president in (most of) 1963 is correct that John F. Kennedy was killed in 1963 Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

“Antisemitic”

not doing this again, increasingly off topic Dronebogus (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This has to be removed from the lead, as clearly one can have a non antisemitic version of this conspiracy theory. For example, the president of Argentina talks about cultural Marxism all the time, and he’s about to convert to Judaism and loves all things Jewish and Israel. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Inb4 someone argues that Jewish people can be antisemitic too. I don't think there's really a non-anti-semitic conspiracy theory about "cultural marxism". The conspiracy theory is basically International Jewish conspiracy or similar, I think. The term is, as our article says, often used just to refer to "critical theory" or adjacent activism, Milei might be using it that way. However, I think Milei is actually talking more about Marxism per se? (I don't know, I haven't read a lot of his work.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC) The conspiracy theory under the title Cultural Marxism (the claim that The Frankfurt School plotted to destroy Western Tradition by infiltrating Woke politics into society) was debuted by it's creator William S. Lind at a Holocaust Denial Conference in 2002 (put on by his friend Willis Carto for the Holocaust Denial magazine, The Barnes Review... Lind was paid to attend. His employer at the time, Paul Weyrich of The Free Congress Foundation (a conservative think tank) later went on to make a documentary on the topic that featured an actual Nazi collaborator and convicted war criminal Laszlo Pazstor (External link to a screen shot of the "documentary"). Here are some examples of the theory being used in antisemitic media (warning some links are to antisemitic websites and authors): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. You can also find many antisemitic memes about it on it's know your meme page. This is in part because it spread from the Holocaust Denial community, onto StormFront, then to neo-nazi 4chan threads, to the alt-right (who made most of those memes)... and then into usage among Trump fans and conservative media (which Milei panders to). On top of all this, there's all the news media and academic content describing it as an antisemitic conspiracy theory. It's also been a part of a myriad of political scandals which describe it as an antisemitic conspiracy theory (see the content about Suella Braverman's, and Ron Paul's scandals). In short, there's far far far more evidence that it is antisemitic, than that it isn't. 220.253.21.21 (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Converting to Judaism means taking "keep the Sabbath" literally, and I don't think that a president of a large country can actually do that. That would mean he is president only six days per week. No lamp, no telephone, no radio, no TV, no internet, no travel by car on Sabbaths. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Usage in The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025

Yesterday an article released by Salon, and carried by Yahoo News, explicitly pointed out that the conspiracy theory "Cultural Marxism" is part of the thinking behind The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 (which is to be expected, considering Paul Weyrich's involvement with both the conspiracy theory, as well as Heritage's foundation).

I'm shopping for opinions on whether this information is pertinent to the article, and whether it might be included.

The Salon paragraphs that contain the phrase "Cultural Marxism" are as follows:

This is evident throughout Mandate for Leadership, the 920-page manifesto published earlier this year by the Heritage Foundation-led 2025 Presidential Transition Project (or Project 2025), which aims to recruit and vet up to 20,000 potential staffers for a future Republican administration after the anticipated purge. Writing in the book’s introduction, project director Paul Dans, who served in Trump’s Office of Personnel Management during his final year, breathlessly proclaims that the “long march of cultural Marxism through our institutions has come to pass,” giving credence to a notorious conspiracy theory that has long floated around white supremacist circles. With the federal government ostensibly captured by "cultural Marxists” and “globalists,” Dans frantically proclaims that it has been "weaponized against American citizens and conservative values, with freedom and liberty under siege as never before.”

Republicans have been harboring fantasies about gutting the federal government since the Reagan era. But what distinguishes today’s right from the past is its greater willingness to employ explicitly authoritarian means to achieve their ends. Indeed, a growing number of conservatives now appear convinced that the next Republican president must be granted something close to dictatorial power if their movement is to stand a chance against the “cultural Marxists” who allegedly control the state.

With the now widespread acceptance among conservatives that the federal government and other major institutions have been captured by "cultural Marxists,” “globalists,” and “wokeists,” Republicans are now pre-programmed to accept more authoritarian leadership. This is especially the case among a younger coterie of Republicans who have come to prominence in the post-Trump era. Unlike some of their older Republican colleagues, these young Trumpians are more open to employing post-Constitutional or “extra-Constitutional” means to achieve their reactionary goals.

Interestingly enough, the Project 2025 policy document ("Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise") only appears to use the phrase cultural Marxism once, on the second page of its general introduction:

It’s not 1980. In 2023, the game has changed. The long march of cultural Marxism through our institutions has come to pass. The federal government is a behemoth, weaponized against American citizens and conservative values, with freedom and liberty under siege as never before. The task at hand to reverse this tide and restore our Republic to its original moorings is too great for any one conservative policy shop to spearhead. It requires the collective action of our movement. With the quickening approach of January 2025, we have two years and one chance to get it right.

After doing a search on google news, other articles noting the connection can be found from CounterPunch, (1), The Daily Beast. (2), Politico, (3), Truthout, (4), and Washington Monthly, (5). Please feel free to contribute further opinions, sources and discussion below. Some of the questions to consider are, is this worthy of inclusion? What section should the content be in, and what should be said about it given the sources available? Thank you for any opinions you have, or help you can offer. 194.223.39.240 (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the sources. I was waiting such sources before mentionning Project 2025 here. Since the mention of Cultural Marxism in its manifesto is only one paragraph and since the media coverture is not yet massive (especially compared ot other endorsements of the Cultural Marxism already mentionned in the wikipedia article), i think that a short mention in the wikipedia article) would suffice, something like one sentence, with all sources of course. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd say leave it out. I suggest the Salon article at least isn't particularly reliable for analyzing whether Heritage is using the term conspiratorially; I don't think Lynch is like an expert in this subject or something, is he? Also it's considered progressive-leaning, so it could be considered biased when it comes to inferring Heritage's intent. In any case, it doesn't seem like a particularly noteworthy example of someone mentioning the term; we have plenty of other more notable examples in the article: WP:UNDUE. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Notability for the antagonistic role of "cultural Marxism" in the "2025 Project" seems to only be increasing with time: Here's a (very recent) article in The Nation. Excerpt:

[...] In his forward, Roberts warns that the “very moral foundations of our society are in peril” from “the totalitarian cult known today as the “The Great Awokening.” This “woke Marxist” cult, Roberts charges, has infiltrated the military, the corporations, the universities, and the bureaucracy. Big Tech is “less a contributor to the US economy than it is a tool of China’s government.” Paul Dans, director of the 2025 project, writes in his introductory note,

The long march of cultural Marxism through our institutions has come to pass. [...]

I would argue this, along with the other sources already mentioned here, warrants inclusion. TucanHolmes (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This source doesn't argue that 2025 is using it in a conspiratorial way, though, it is instead complaining more about 2025 being bad policy. "focus is a war on equity" i.e. it's using the term in the sense of "synonymous with the 'Critical Theory'" as our article puts it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Never said that it argues that, it instead merely documents that the conspiracy theory plays a prominent role in Project 2025. Excerpt:

This “woke Marxist” cult, Roberts charges, has infiltrated the military, the corporations, the universities, and the bureaucracy. [...]

See also the explicit mentioning of Cultural Marxism in the excerpt above. I think that this demonstrates both notability for the conspiracy theory's role in Project 2025 and gives us a further reliable source to cite, if we include it in the article. TucanHolmes (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Image of Anders Breivik

@Thismess: Anders Breivik is clearly the most notable example of a terrorist directly inspired by this conspiracy theory. Per our image use policy:

The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central.

I see no reason why this image, an illustration of the most notable example of the political violence connected with this conspiracy theory, should be removed from the article; please explain. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

We are talking about the picture in the "Political violence" section, right? If so, I think it is on-topic and perfectly reasonable to include it. The linked article, 2011 Norway attacks, makes the relevance clear for anybody who does not find it obvious. The fact that the image is the fake ID card used in the actual violence makes it particularly relevant for this section. It is no more questionable than any of the other images of individuals in the article. What is the actual objection here? That this image doesn't show the actual violence being perpetrated? I don't think it would be any better if it did. Unless there is an even better picture that could be used instead, I think we should retain it. DanielRigal (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Seeing the back and forth on the article page, I was a bit doubtful that the image added much, but the above comments convinced me that the image belongs. It rather drives home the point that this conspiracy theory has a body count. CAVincent (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I never said anything about Breivik, it's the fake police ID I find to be very out of place and out of topic. As a particular item, I don't see its relevance to the topic of Cultural Marxism at all. If there has to be an image associated with Breivik, perhaps the image of the smoke from the explosion at the top of the 2011 Norway attacks article would be more suitable, since it's the attack that is in question and not an article about (fake) police IDs. Thismess (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The text under the picture reads "The counterfeit police identity card used by Breivik to commit the 2011 Norway attacks, which he said were a defense against Cultural Marxism" - which states how the picture is related to the attack, and how the attack is related to the topic of the page. 203.214.56.152 (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

A thing about Breivik is he didn't seem to see this as a Jewish conspiracy, but instead a Muslim conspiracy? (if a conspiracy at all?) more here. (I mean, he was otherwise anti-semitic and identarian, I'm just saying.) I wonder if it would be worth talking about that in that section. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how relevant that is, since the supposed conspiracy in this conspiracy theory is still attributed to a dark and ominous/nebulous force of 'Cultural Marxism'. This still reeks of antisemitism, and I'd argue that, even in the frame of this theory, Muslims are the object, not the subject of the conspiracy, just as much a piece on the board as everything else. Conspiracy theorists are rarely coherent, since their conspiratorial beliefs are irrational, a venue to express something emotional. TucanHolmes (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

"If a conspiracy at all"? Huh? Excuse me? No. It doesn't stop being a conspiracy theory just because you remove parts of it. You would have to remove all the false parts of it that claim a conspiracy in order for it to be a regular theory.

Breivik directly transcribes William S. Lind's writings as if they're his own extensively in "his" manifesto, and the page already covers that Lind's theory was debuted at a Holocaust denial conference, and that the think tank he was working for (The Free Congress Foundation) used an actual Nazi collaborator (the Arrow Cross party member, Laszlo Pasztor [4]) in promoting the conspiracy theory.

There's nothing in your linked source [5] to suggest that Cultural Marxism is somehow no longer a conspiracy theory because you replace "Jews" with "Muslims". 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC) 203.214.56.152 (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

That said it may be useful to mention this on the page, that whilst antisemitism is a large part of the history and usage of the conspiracy theory, there are non-antisemitic variants targeted at other groups, such as trans people and Muslims. 203.214.56.152 (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Editorialization and adding more varied sources

This topic is tricky, it's a bit like the "Criticism of Wikipedia" article but for academia. The result is 94 citations from various academic pieces, but a singular POV. And lets be real, a true encyclopedic description of this topic would need to include the history of this page itself, making this intractably self-referential.

The subject matter is real, but despite numerous citations, there's too little viewpoint diversity. I may add some more sources, but wanted to first post here to hear others' thoughts before submitting any changes. My goal is just to include something to indicate that this is a live issue, and

NPOV: This page conflates the general phrase "cultural marxism" with the specific topic, the "Cultural Marxist conspiracy theory", in a way that editorializes in violation of NPOV. Eg, starting with "'Cultural Marxism' refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School..." immediately conflates the two. We can't just assert "Cultural Marxism is this particular esoteric conspiracy theory", and the cited sources don't even claim that. I'd propose something like "The term 'Cultural Marxism' is associated with a far-right antisemitic conspiracy..."

Weakness of sourced literature: This page glaringly omits the actual coinage of the term. It might be Richard Weiner's Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology (1981), but this book is not mentioned anywhere within this article, despite its whopping 94 citations. Wiki articles frequently include etymology, it's informative and helps establish a neutral starting point. But this is glossed over to jump to the 90's conspiratorial usage of the term.

At first I took this as proof of this page's bias and went to fix it. But unfortunately, the academic literature also glosses over Weiner's work entirely. So it'd be original research if I added a section saying "The term may have been coined in 1981...", since no one has chosen to note this fact anywhere. Frustrating. I'll put Weiner's work aside, but hopefully this is convincing that we should be careful about taking the underlying literature too literally, when it's obviously incomplete.

Addition: I'll look at adding Yascha Mounk to the Analysis section. He criticizes the term "Cultural Marxism", but put forward the term "Identity Synthesis," and published a well-researched book that would help give a broader perspective. Eg, he gives a straightforward description of non-conspiratorial usage of the term: "The idea of cultural Marxism, basically, is that you take the classic Marxist side of ideas, you take out categories like social class, you put in identity categories like race and gender and sexual orientation, and boom."

Btw, I think he describes the post-2016 situation well:

"It's really remarkable that there have been barely any academics who have tried to tell the story of the origin of these ideas. I think it’s part of the way in which serious consideration of these ideas and criticism of these ideas has become taboo in the academy. It’s very strange to me, because our whole universe of intellectualist historians who somehow have not thought that this obviously quite major change in how the left thinks about the world, is worthy of that kind of study. And so, the kinds of people who have stepped into that space are political activists like Chris Rufo." — Preceding comment posted at the request of ParanoidAltoid (talk · contribs) actually added by Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs)

Anyone thinking of following up on this needs to read the history of this Talk page and the discussions cited there from elsewhere (e.g, the original AfD discussion and the subsequent split from Frankfurt School and renaming discussions). I will try to summarize the majority view:

• There is essentially no "real Cultural Marxism" before the term was coined by the conspiracy theory. There was a cultural turn within Marxist scholarship in the 1960s, which overlapped with Marxist Humanism and Critical Theory, but the main label used for people writing in this tradition was never "Cultural Marxist" and the key claims made by the conspiracy theorists and culture warriors about "Cultural Marxists" were never true about the participants in the cultural turn.
• There is no distinction between the conspiracy version of "Cultural Marxism" and some other usage of that term on the "conservative" side of the culture wars. Writers my or may not be aware of or deliberately deploying the antisemitic tropes and cold war narratives that are part of the development of the term by conspiracy theorists, but that is the term they are using and the narrative they are building is still this construction of an imaginary progressive conspiracy to undermine Western values. There simply isn't some "mainstream conservative view" on this that differs from the the conspiracy theory documented in scholarship on this topic.
• Attempts by some editors to pursue their personal vision of NPOV on this topic have very frequently lacked a basis in reliable sources and so, when pushed for sourcing, there editors have typically (i) attempted idiosyncratic and readings or WP:SYNTH based on actual reliable sources, (ii) attempted to cite WP:RSOPINION sources for facts, or (iii) attempted to include reliable sources on other topics as though they were in scope for the topic of this article. None of these options is acceptable by enwiki policy to derived article content.

TL;DR: Without a strong basis in reliable sources that say that "Cultural Marxism" is a real political project, as well as a conspiracy theory, there is no pretext to revisit the foundational questions about the scope of this article that were settled through a long series of RfCs and other community-wide discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

You might want to check any sources you raise against the second AfD that got rid of the Cultural Marxism page. It's long because it was well attended, although there was some accusation that it was brigaded by Gamer Gate. You can check your sources against what's said there. In the case of Richard Weiner's Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology (1981) for instance it's pointed out that it's about culturally oriented Marxism - rather than any set ideology titled "Cultural Marxism" and also includes theorists that "fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement". There's no indication the book is about some set ideology going by the title Cultural Marxism, other than it appears in the title. The phrase 'cultural Marxism' within the 1970s discourse appears to just reference vague cultural ideas about Marxism, or when Marxists talk about culture. Other times it might be a vague illusion to The Frankfurt School, but it doesn't appear to be a topic within its self. So it doesn't have a Wikipedia page. In line with this, the closes thing we have is Marxist cultural analysis.

the academic literature also glosses over Weiner's work entirely you'll find a lot of this, as beyond being a vague illusion to The Frankfurt School, the two words cultural and Marxism when put next to each other - particularly where the first is lower case, and the second is upper case (eg. the only proper noun in the pairing), "Cultural Marxism" isn't really a thing. The Frankfurt School never used the term, and in academia it's usually "cultural Marxism" two words next to each other, rather than a well defined singular concept. It's appeared in the titles of some books (so is capitalized because of that).

The idea of cultural Marxism, basically, is that you take the classic Marxist side of ideas, you take out categories like social class, you put in identity categories like race and gender and sexual orientation, and boom. black civil rights, progressive politics, feminism, gay rights, and trans rights, were all pre-existing movements well before The Frankfurt School even formed. Progressive politics and identity politics don't actually require any Marxist beliefs and have been an organic progression. No one is manipulating ideology as you're suggesting. It's simply that the rightwing has fairly successfully constructed a simplistic narrative that this has been a type of replacement of economic Marxism. It wasn't and it hasn't been. Economic Marxists still exist... and things like Women's Rights actually predate the birth of Karl Marx himself.

What's really going on is an attempt to claim progressive, identity, and liberal politics are all "secretly Marxism", when they're actually separate ideological movements. 14.2.34.45 (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Ty, point taken that the 1981 book falls under the "Marxist cultural analysis" umbrella. IMO this should be mentioned explicitly to clear up any confusion, and establish the context that many people have stuck these words together in a descriptive fashion.

"Cultural Marxism" isn't really a thing Agreed, the original 2014 version that just discussed it as a coherent, self-identified movement was just presenting the conspiracy theory as fact.

I'd just include an Analysis paragraph quoting the perspective (from Mounk or similar) on how "Marxism with identity swapped for class" is a way people have described recent movements. Not as something pushed by an intentional conspiracy, but a mundane result of universities doing their jobs and teaching people students multiple perspectives that shape their worldview. I'll see what quotes I can find. ParanoidAltoid (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, that "mundane result" isn't generally called "Cultural Marxism" except by conspiracy theorists. It is called identity politics (and used to be new social movements), at least when they were new). So I for one am not convinced that that "result" needs to be disambiguated here. Newimpartial (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, that "mundane result" isn't generally called "Cultural Marxism" except by conspiracy theorists. It is called identity politics White nationalism is identity politics.

What I see here is an article that will declare a phrase as antisemitic citing a magazine article that says this:

"Although there is scarcely any direct reference to the ethnic origins of the School's members, subtle hints allow the listener to draw his own conclusions about the provenance of foreigners who tried to combine Marx and Freud, those giants of critical Jewish intelligence. At one point, William Lind asserts that 'once in America they shifted the focus of their work from destroying German society to attacking the society and culture of its new place of refuge..."

Mentioning this is fine, puppet-master conspiracy theorists have swapped out "Jews" for "elites" or "globalists" in recent years. Conspiracy theorists using the term "Cultural Marxism" seem to have done so from the start (hence the lack of actual direct quotes that link this to antisemitism. Either way, sociologists have pointed this out, and it's worth including in the article.

What the article lacks is an accurate description of what most people who use the term are actually describing. Let's add a couple paragraphs quoting sources that do this. It can sit right alongside the paragraphs claiming the theory's key elements are "misogynist anti-feminism, neo-eugenic science (broadly defined as various forms of genetic determinism), genetic and cultural white supremacy". ParanoidAltoid (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

As noted in the third bullet in my first reply above, the problem faced on this page so far is the absence of reliable sources that distinguish between what this article describes (the conspiracy theory) and what you think most people who use the term are actually describing. In fact, the WP:HQRS on this topic often note explicitly that what "conservative" culture warriors are in fact doing, whether consciously or not, is invoking tropes of the far-right conspiracy theory.

This article follows the (independent, secondary, reliable) sources on the topic. Thus far no competing view - that some right-wing writers are deploying a conspiracy theory but others are talking about something different, for example - has been presented with support from anything but a small minority of sources. Anyone who has good sources should present them here, but to date it is the sourcing that has been the problem.

Also, I'm not sure what the white nationalism wikilink given above is meant to indicate - "Marxism with identity swapped for class" is identity politics by definition (and indeed was the topic of most early scholarship on identity politics). The fact that identity politics of one group runs counter to the identity politics of other groups (including reactionary politics) is a truism of identity politics; it is by no means surprising or paradoxical that one identity politics opposes another. Newimpartial (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory under the title Cultural Marxism (the claim that The Frankfurt School plotted to destroy Western Tradition by infiltrating Woke politics into society) was debuted by it's creator William S. Lind at a Holocaust Denial Conference in 2002 (put on by his friend Willis Carto for the Holocaust Denial magazine, The Barnes Review... Lind was paid to attend. His employer at the time, Paul Weyrich of The Free Congress Foundation (a conservative think tank) later went on to make a documentary on the topic that featured an actual Nazi collaborator and convicted war criminal Laszlo Pazstor (External link to a screen shot of the "documentary").

Here are some examples of the theory being used in antisemitic media (warning some links are to antisemitic websites and authors): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

You can also find many antisemitic memes about it on it's know your meme page. This is in part because it spread from the Holocaust Denial community, onto StormFront, then to neo-nazi 4chan threads, to the alt-right (who made most of those memes)... and then into usage among Trump fans and conservative media.

On top of all this, there's all the news media and academic content describing it as an antisemitic conspiracy theory. It's also been a part of a myriad of political scandals which describe it as an antisemitic conspiracy theory (see the content about Suella Braverman's in which she was warned by London's official Jewish organization, and Ron Paul's scandals in which he "accidentally" posted the "Merchant Meme"). In short, there's far far far more evidence that it is antisemitic, than that it isn't. The term for better or for worse has overwhelmingly been given this connotation by the conservatives who popularized the current claims about it. 203.220.141.66 (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

«he gives a straightforward description of non-conspiratorial usage of the term: "The idea of cultural Marxism, basically, is that you take the classic Marxist side of ideas, you take out categories like social class, you put in identity categories like race and gender and sexual orientation, and boom."» => This is the conspiratorial usage of the term. According to Samuel Clowes Huneke, Yascha Mounk’s Woke Straw Man, newrepublic.com, 2023-10-26, https://newrepublic.com/article/175779/yascha-mounks-woke-straw-man the book by Yascha Mounk, The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time, Penguin Press, 2023 endorse the Cultural Marxism narrative. The last article in Yascha Mounk's website is titled How The New York Times Went Woke. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2024

Change the title "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" to just "Cultural Marxism"

All similar conspiracy theory pages on Wikipedia do not mention the words "conspiracy theory" in the title. Apply this change for consistency and to mitigate bias. The fact that it is currently a conspiracy theory is already explained in the definition on the first paragraph. TDBY (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Many, although admittedly not all, of our articles about conspiracy theories have "conspiracy theory" or something similar in the title. This is helpful in cases where readers might not be aware that the topic is a conspiracy theory when they see the article on, say, a See Also list. It also discourages bad actors from trying to reframe the article as not a conspiracy. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Some examples:

CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory

9/11 conspiracy theories

Moon landing conspiracy theories

Masonic conspiracy theories

New World Order (conspiracy theory)

FEMA camps conspiracy theory

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories

Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories

Spygate (conspiracy theory)

International Jewish conspiracy

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

UFO conspiracy theory

Climate change conspiracy theory 220.240.139.105 (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a different kind of conspiracy theory designation. Look, there they only talk about a specific case, which is a conspiracy theory, but here they talk about the phenomenon as a whole, which is a conspiracy theory. 176.120.212.168 (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Masonic conspiracy theories? New World Order (conspiracy theory)? International Jewish conspiracy? Climate change conspiracy theory?

this is a different kind [...]. / this is [...] different. / No it's not. See FAQ Question 1. TucanHolmes (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"This is a different kind of conspiracy theory designation"

This is called special pleading.

In actuality the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory falls into #2 and #3 of Barkun's three types of conspiracy theories. More so #2 than #3.... but the point is, all three types get labelled as conspiracy theories on Wikipedia. There has been no plot or organized take over of society by Marxist theorists. Marxists theorists having conversations about their culture doesn't constitute a take over - it's just free speech. Much like when Libertarians talk about Libertarian culture, it's just free speech, or when Conservatives talk about Conservative culture.

When Marxists analyze culture it's called Marxist cultural analysis. They're free to do this. Claiming it's become a successful plot and has taken over or aimed to involuntarily take over society, when you can't provide evidence/sources/quotes for this being their plan, or being a result of a direct action from a conspiratorial plan - then it's a conspiracy theory. That's what this article is about, conspiracy claims around The Frankfurt School, particularly in regards to them having taken over society or politics (when in actual fact, most of their ideas aren't even popular, and they never detail a plan to take over).

Marxists are free to use the words "cultural Marxism" - this does not mean they're using it in the same way as conservatives use it when they're describing a plan to take over. You have to actually find quotes of Marxists using those words to reference a plan to take over society. But there never has been such a plan, and when society turns to the left it does so voluntarily because leftwing ideas are chosen as more rational, realistic or popular. Not out of some conspiratorial mechanism, plot, or action.

So yes, the contents of the article is about a conservative conspiracy theory, in which conservatives claim progressive politics are secretly controlled by, or caused by a Marxist plot to take over society. In some instances the claim is that this plot has succeeded and controls the media, and large corporations. In some instances it's claimed this plot is caused by Jewish people specifically. Some mass shootings have been caused by this theory. It's a conspiracy theory, and so it's labelled as such on Wikipedia. 115.166.14.213 (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Since some reliable sources use the term cultural Marxism to refer to a group of Marxist scholars who analyze capitalist culture as opposed to capitalist economics, it is necessary to distinguish the two. The conspiracy theorists who first used the term cultural Marxism were unaware that anyone else had used it. I don't know whether that was because they had very little knowledge of Marxism or because the texts were obscure or both. They were updating the Nazi term "cultural Bolshevism," with which they were very familiar. TFD (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It is worth noting that, even if a few people looking for that non-conspiracy stuff end up here by mistake, there is a note at the very top of the article pointing them in the right direction for what they want. DanielRigal (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected Edit Request on 22 June 2024

1. Please change "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" page title to "Cultural Marxism controversy"

2. Please change "...refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for..." to "refers to a controversial theory that characterizes the Frankfurt School as being responsible for..."

3. Please remove the "antisemitism" sidebar.

4. Please change "A contemporary revival of the Nazi propaganda term 'Cultural Bolshevism', the contemporary version of the conspiracy theory originated in the United States during the 1990s" to "The contemporary Cultural Marxism theory originated in the United States during the 1990s. Some scholars have likened it to the Nazi propaganda term "Cultural Bolshevism."

5. Please change the statement "Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact" to "Some scholars believe the controversy has some validity while others conclude that it has no basis in fact."

DETAIL - A. The Frankfurt School is well-documented as being a major driving force in social and political philosophical thought of the 20th and 21st century. See Sources 9, 10, 11, and 12

B. The Frankfurt School is well-documented as being noteworthy for its support of utilizing a “cultural” approach for popularizing Marxism. See Sources 8, 10, 11, and 12

C. It cannot be stated with any definitive authority that the present-day controversy on “cultural marxism” is inherently anti-semtitic, as the subject of discussion is in no way inherently related to Judaism, is not hostile towards Jewish people, and is not hostile towards Jewish beliefs. The subject of controversy in "cultural marxism" debates is Marxism, not Judaism. See Sources 5, 7, and 10.

D. Some of the most influential Marxist thinkers of all time have explicitly advocated for the popularization of Marxist through the overpowering of hegemonic thought through mainstream cultural avenues. This is undeniable fact. See Sources 4, 5, 6, and 10

E. Marxist thinking has indeed been growing in popularity. This is undeniable fact. If the Frankfurt Schools is understood as being the driving force of contemporary Marxian thinking (see point A) with a cultural twist (see points B and D), then it is only logical to connect this growth to Frankfurt School roots. See Sources 1, 2, 3, and 9

Amlans (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. – bradv 05:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)