Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

Antisemitic?

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.

---

The article claims it is anti-Semitic, (without really giving a good justification for the claim) then goes on to talk about Jewish supporters. If it is anti-semitic, how can it have Jewish supporters? BenW (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope that this section will not be closed for notaforum.

«without really giving a good justification for the claim» => Wikipedia goes from sources and the majority of reliable sources commenting about Cultural Marxism conspiracytheory during the first twenty years of reliable sources commenting about Cultural Marxism conspiracytheory claim that the Cultural Marxism conspiracytheory is antisemite. Please notice that scientific consensus can change.

«If it is anti-semitic, how can it have Jewish supporters?» => There is not logical link between the two half of this sentence. See a also

• Association of German National Jews
• Yair Netanyahu relaying an antisemite drawing in 2017
• Ben Shapiro having a same-sex spouse
• https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/
• Nephew of Shoah denier Robert Faurisson rejoin the political campaign team of Éric Zemmour who is jewish

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"If it is anti-semitic, how can it have Jewish supporters?" Easily enough. We have an entire article on the self-hating Jew. Since the 19th century, multiple Jews have supported anti-semitic ideologies and policies. The article also includes several Jews who are vocal supporters of Holocaust trivialization, or who have supported anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. I am not certain why it also includes Jews who simply oppose Israel or who question its occupation of Palestinian territories. Dimadick (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

If it is anti-semitic, how can it have Jewish supporters?

The same way non-whites fall into white supremacy. They're feeling isolated and vulnerable, and the bigots slide up with "Wow, you're one of the good ones, not like those people." Giving them a community to join, one which heaps praise on them, while filling their head with conspiracy theories and targets to blame. Then, if the minority member ever questions the narrative, or simply is no longer useful as a token, they get thrown to the wolves.

See also: Quisling, Useful idiot, and many other examples of people falling for the lies & having it come back to bite them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

You hit on IMO a serious problem with this article. The term is used by people who promote Henry-Ford-style anti-semitic conspiracy theories a-la International Jewish conspiracy to describe e.g. (the not-particularly-marxist) Critical Theory and adjacent ideas. See, the tactic is "marxism is bad, and these people are trying to use it to destroy our civilization for their own nefarious purposes/gains". It's also used by non-anti-semites to describe, usually negatively, those same ideas in a way that has nothing to do with any conspiracies. (The thinkers in the field are quite open about it and happy to sell you their books or enroll you in their classes! But IMO it's not a great term to use for these ideas, for a variety of reasons as some of the sources in the article describe.) This article tries to lump the two usages together, but in doing so a lot of content that is not about the anti-semitic conspiracy theory usage ends up in the article, leading to the disconnect you observe. There's a lot of discussion in the archives about trying to tease these apart, but you can see where that's gotten us. (extra confusion: the concept described has little to do with Marxist cultural analysis.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a difficulty with dog whistles in general. Maybe some people really do just have a problem with 'international bankers' specifically, but there's really no way to tell them apart from the anti-semites. All we can do is follow the reliable sources rather than trying to work it out ourselves. MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I suppose we never know somoene's true motives. But unfortunately for us the frequency and usage of niche political rhetoric like this isn't something you'd expect to find good sources spending much time dissecting. Anti-semitism is arguably a far more important topic than "right wingers whining about identity politics" or whatever, so of course there are more sources discussing the anti-semitic usage. SPLC's articles, for example, focus on that, for obvious reasons – but don't seem to say things like, for example, "Ben Shapiro uses the phrase "cultural marxism" so he is therefore anti-semitic", like they might do if they actually thought that was a valid thing to say. As a result, wikipedia's articles on topics like this sometimes end up like this mess. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyway to OP's concern here: the article, in its defense, does say: "Apart from any conspiratorial usage, the phrase... is sometimes treated as synonymous with the 'Critical Theory'". And CT is not any kind of anti-semitic conspiracy thing, of course. Hopefully that clarifies. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

You can still find quite a few references to "Cultural Marxist Jews" if you simply look on popular search engines. The conspiracy theory version of the phrase "Cultural Marxism" was popularized early on by William S. Lind at a 2002 Holocaust Denial conference, and this led to it being spread on stormfront, and 4chan, and into the alt-right. Likewise you can still see many antisemitic memes on the "Cultural Marxism" know your meme page, and there are more standard antisemetic conspiracy theories about The Frankfurt School too. There's also a section of the article about this. It's a feature of the conspiracy theory. Not sure how much I'd put it in "Part of a series on Antisemetism" but I'm not really an expert on that part of Wikipedia (how articles get put into those series, and the requirements behind that process), but the term has certainly been used in Antisemetic spaces and discourses for the past decade or more, and is a quite well known Dogwhistle, Bête noire, or Boogieman among white supremacist groups. 194.223.9.146 (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Some of what you still see in the article, especially in the lede, is from an older version of the article that was disorganized and slanted towards a particular point of view. Clearly, there are some anti-Semites who take up the discourse of "cultural Marxism" in a way that is inseperable from their anti-Semitism. There are others who unquestionably talk about "cultural Marxism", but have no obvious connection to anti-Semitism. Then there are plenty in between whose positions are unclear or disuputed. The article should not oversimplify this spectrum. Sennalen (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not necessarily spend much time in explaining the conclusions they report. A book on reports by people who claim to have been abducted by aliens for example may not explain how the authors concluded the stories are fake.

There is a lot of literature drawing a connection between conspiracism and anti-Semitism. See for example, "Recycled Bigotry: Antisemitic Conspiracy Theories Go Mainstream."

"Mainstream far-right politicians, media personalities, and other influencers often promote diluted versions of antisemitic conspiracy theories that do not explicitly name Jews but use dog whistles and historical anti-Jewish tropes." (Human Rights First June 2023.)

The article specifically mentions "cultural Marxism."

Cultural Marxism is a modern adaptation of a Nazi conspiracy theory which ascribes the conspiracy to a group of Jews adhering to an ideology the far right associates with Jews. The fact they don't explicitly mention the Jews are behind it doesn't mean it isn't anti-Semitic.

TFD (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

This is thoroughly cited in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If the theory is inherently antisemetic, then there should be a citation. After reviewing the article all I have found is guilt by association. "Several antisemites were seen wearing boots at a conference. Thus we conclude that boots are generally antisemetic." This is an error of categorization. Faulty logic. Worse yet, it is the same abuse of logic bigots use to rationalize their deranged beliefs. We can put aside the bit about "What about the Jewish proponents" as a red herring. Where are the actual citations describing how the theory is inherently antisemetic? If none can be produced, there is a problem. Simple as. Thanks. 27.34.64.150 (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Does the article state that the theory is inherently antisemitic? If yes, then the citations need to say that but if not, they need simply state that the theory is antisemitic. For which purpose I think the sources in the article are more than sufficient. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC) And therefore guilt by association is permissible? "We didn't say boots are inherently antisemetic, just antisemetic generally. After all, several antisemites are known to wear boots." 27.34.64.150 (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Drop the "boots" nonsense, that's not going to fly as an analogy. Our article cites several sources which identify the theory as antisemitic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Apologies if you find this nonsensical. FWIW the sentiment is mutual. As difficult as it may be, let us maintain a facade of good faith. We can drop the analogy and move onto the meat of the issue. Although some antisemites may promote this "conspiracy theory", not all adherents are antisemetic. More directly, there's no mention of how this critiques of cultural marxism are antisemetic. There are only references to the theory being advanced by antisemites. The theory itself is not antisemetic. The critiques of "cultural marxism" have nothing to say about Judaism or the Jewish people. If you have a source citing as much, please kindly put it front and center in that section. I could not find it at all. A direct quote would be helpful. Arguing about the identity of the speakers, i.e. Jewish adherents of the "cultural marxist conspiracy theory" is illustrative. This is somewhat off-putting as in most contexts the identity of the speaker shouldn't be relevant. Above in this same talk page, the psychologizing starts. "Oh he may be self-hating" This is troublesome territory. Guilt by association is a favorite abuse of logic for bigots, but this is a further leap. I won't use up more of your time, and it goes without saying that I wouldn't be editing 'your' page. Please take a few moments to consider the juncture where you have arrived. If possible, take a few steps back and try viewing this work from an outside perspective. I imagine that many people will read this article as more of the, "Everyone who disagrees with me is a racist" line of smearing. A little distinction between antisemites who have associated themselves with this theory and the contents of the theory itself may help to resolve this. Thank you for your consideration. 27.34.64.150 (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC) I imagine that many people will read this article as more of the, "Everyone who disagrees with me is a racist" line of smearing. Those people have already made up their minds. I don't care to bash my head against the wall trying to convince them otherwise. It's the classic "You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into." The theory itself is rooted in antisemitism. Individual proponents may not be antisemites, but they've latched onto an antisemitic conspiracy theory. This is not "guilt by association," as you keep parroting, as we are not branding all people who believe the theory as antisemites. That's an assumption you have made, with no merit. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC) The problem is that you have yet to provide a source explaining how the theory itself is antisemetic. It has nothing to say about Judaism or the Jewish people. This is like claiming the Volkswagen beetle is rooted in antisemitism. 27.34.64.150 (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC) There are many such sources in the article, helpfully collected in the section titled 'Antisemitism'. You may access them by clicking on the little numbers. MrOllie (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC) (e-c) Do we have any articles on boots whose sources document an undisputed connection between boots and antisemitism? If not, your analogy does not hold - on enwiki, we are supposed follow the highest quality RS available on each topic, rather than inventing our own standards of Truth(tm). Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Unfair depiction

"which has captivated several alt-right figures including [Donald] Trump, Jordan Peterson"- I believe this is an unfair characterisation of both these figures. I would have searched the source for explanation, but it's paid content. I believe the term should be changed to right-wing rather than alt-right. 31.125.85.28 (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Please don't think that I am being rude by referring you to the FAQ. It is a frequently asked question.

DanielRigal (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump and Jordan Peterson are both figures who are associated as being "alt-right". Jordan Peterson essentially emerged as an anti-leftist talking head, went on Joe Rogan to defend "The boys from kekistan" and is a member of the "intellectual dark web" (an alt-right group).

Donald Trump... I mean, he's basically the leader of the alt-right, isn't he?

But all of this is besides the point as the part of the article you have a problem with is a QUOTE. Wikipedia is just reporting someone's opinion/statement. It's not being said in Wikivoice as if it's fact, or from Wikipedia's perspective. We can't change what someone else has said or written. We simply report it if it qualifies as a reliable source on a topic.... and Stuart Jefferies is somewhat of an expert on The Frankfurt School conspiracy theory.. 220.235.234.196 (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a great point. And we have other analysis of Peterson's use of this or other terms in the article for balance. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is it an unfair characterization? Because it implies they're antisemites? We actually have other sources – used by the article! – that say e.g. Peterson isn't anti-semitic; see the "Popularization" section, where the article says something about Peterson that seems to conflict with the quote you're complaining about. *gasp* how can reliable sources conflict? Surely they must all be correct! It turns out a lot of sources like to use magical powers to determine beliefs that someone else has never endorsed or even outright repudiated. It's weird. But, here we are: this isn't the only WP article messed up by this. I'm not really sure how to address it; WP is just going to say what RS say – that's our brand, right? There's a broader problem here in this article wrt. RS: it's a lot more interesting to talk about anti-semitic use of this phrase than it is to talk about how tons of conservatives/etc use the phrase (imprecisely?) to talk about critical theory or whatever, so there are probably more RS that talk about how this phrase is used by anti-semitic conspiracy theorists even though the other meaning is probably far more common. (To its credit this article does mention the other meaning, but I seriously doubt the actual balance of usage justifies redirecting cultural marxism to this page – but like what else would we redirect it to? Western Marxism maybe? Critical theory? We have a lot of very similar articles, which I think is a related problem.)

Side note about the above: Peterson talks a *lot* about the topic described by this article as 'Cultural Marxism' is sometimes treated as synonymous with the 'Critical Theory' that originated in the Frankfurt School – but Peterson almost always calls it "postmodernism". (This is what the "Popularization" section discusses.)

Also consider that "alt-right" has a few different definitions, so e.g. saying Trump is alt-right may or may not be accurate depending on which definition you use. I think calling Trump and Peterson alt-right is using a quite unusual definition that has fallen out of favor, though. (Tons of "alt right" (as in, white supremacist/antisemitic) writers really don't like Peterson, FWIW.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

According to the alt-right Wikipedia article, not all members of the alt-right are automatically anti-semetic:

Some alt-rightists are antisemitic, promoting a conspiracy theory that there is a Jewish plot to bring about white genocide, although other alt-rightists view most Jews as members of the white race.

As noted above Jordan Peterson has previously affiliated himself with alt-right groups ("boys from kekistan", "Intellectual Dark Web"), as well as sharing stories which endorse a belief in the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, for instance he's shared the DailyCaller article "Cultural-Marxism is Destroying America, and the stated that Radical Feminism is "Marxism in yet another guise". More recently he's titled one of his podcast videos "How Marxism is Disguised as Woke Morality". So there's plenty of grounds for his inclusion in the article. 220.240.157.160 (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the far right has recast the conspiracy theory from overtly to implicitly anti-Semitic does not mean it is not anti-Semitic. As described by Human Rights First, it is a "diluted version" of an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that does not "explicitly name Jews but use dog whistles and historical anti-Jewish tropes."

Incidentally, the conspiracy theorists did not adopt the term "cultural Marxist" from critical theory literature, but merely updated the term "cultural Bolshevism," which had been used by the Nazis.

TFD (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a whole lot of mind reading imo. 70.80.175.232 (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

There's a lot of that in articles like this. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

A whole lot of what? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

2023-08 more sources

• section Cultural Marxist Conspiracism in Rees, James, et al. “Alt-Right ‘Cultural Purity’, Ideology and Mainstream Social Policy Discourse: Towards a Political Anthropology of ‘Mainstremeist’ Ideology.” Social Policy Review 31: Analysis and Debate in Social Policy, 2019, edited by James Rees et al., 1st ed., Bristol University Press, 2019, pp. 151–76. JSTOR, DOI:10.2307/j.ctvkwnq5n.13 [1] [2]
• Lee Jussim, Cultural Marxism: Far Right Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory?, Rabble Rouser, 2021-03-08, [3]
• chapter 7 Cultural Marxism in Devon Del Vecchio [4] [5], Antonio Gramsci & The Socialist Intellectual Ecosystem, ShortFatOtaku, 2023-04-06 [6]

The last 2 comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory and could be added in the This article has been mentioned... part of the head of Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. I have no twitter account so i do not know if this forum statement is accurate. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Lee Jussim's blog post has been discussed here before, and is not a reliable source. The Devon Del Vecchio posts to YouTube appear to be even less reliable. The peer-reviewed sources look better. Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

ShortFatOtaku does things like pretending The Barnes Review wasn't anti-semetic. Their video operates on re-characterizing events to make them seem more connected then they are, and it's a video which will keep getting views and perpetuating the theory. Unfortunate, but not much Wikipedia can do about it. 124.168.219.70 (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Also an article that i got from a proponent of the conspiracytheory (!): Andrew Lynn, Cultural Marxism, The Hedgehog Review, https://hedgehogreview.com/issues/the-evening-of-life/articles/cultural-marxism Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Balancing treatment of anti-Semitism within cultural Marxism

Per request, here is a new section under which to continue to discuss improving the article's presentation of anti-Semitism. There are undeniably anti-Semitic currents in this topic, but it is over-simplifcation to say that cultural Marxism simply is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. This needs to be handled in better accordance with NPOV policy. For comparison, there's enough material for an article on Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, but we don't simply call that an anti-Semitic organization in wikivoice. This is an issue that will have to be confronted head-on in order to bring the lede into harmony with the body text and sources. As a simpler first step, I suggest moving the anchor of the anti-Semitism sidebar to the anti-Semitism section rather than the top of the page. I don't see that it is actually providing any value to a reader at all, but moving it should be more acceptable compromise than deleting it. Sennalen (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

If the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory isn't an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory what is it? TBH your question doesn't make much sense, perhaps you are just confused and are babbling in confusion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

"cultural Marxism" is a value-neutral term of art within scholarship. There are some people who consider this thing called "cultural Marxism" to be good, while others consider it bad. Many of those who consider it bad are right-wing. Some of those are additionally anti-Semitic, and some additionally engage in conspiracy theories. The Venn diagram of all this is not a circle. Sennalen (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

"Cultural Marxism" isn't a neutral term of art. It's a loaded term with tons of negative connotations, since many right-wing conspiracy theorists believe the Frankfurt school or a Jewish conspiracy is trying to subvert Western society and turn it Communist, or some such. Andre🚐 17:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not a page about academic concept sometimes referred to as Cultural Marxism, this is a page about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory which is an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and most of the time when high-quality sources are referring to "cultural marxism", they are covering the antisemitic conspiracy theory. This is therefore the primary topic for Cultural Marxism. Our article on Marxist cultural analysis should—and does—reference that "cultural Marxism" is sometimes used as an alternate name. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This does not appear to be what Sennalen is referring to though, they appear to be conflating the conspiracy theory with criticism of the Frankfurt School writ large. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It is true that I'm unclear on what Sennalen is referring to. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is conflating the conspiracy theory with criticism of the Frankfurt School writ large. That is the root cause issue. Sennalen (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

If there is any criticism of the Frankfurt School writ large in this article, it should be removed, since this is the article about the conspiracy theory. MrOllie (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

In what way is it doing that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

If you'd like to start the article along the lines, "When discussion of cultural Marxism takes an anti-Semitic or conspiratorial turn, then it is a cultural Marxism conspiracy theory," then sure. Otherwise you are attempting to maintain a WP:POVFUNNEL that restricts the article to a point of view. The main topic is always cultural Marxism writ large, and the article should be helping the reader to understand it. Sennalen (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The POVFUNNEL accusation here seems very strange. This is an article about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. To my knowledge, it is not about anything else. So the question "is this conspiracy theory antisemitic" is on-topic (in principle) here, but the question "is the discussion of this (supposedly) value-neutral term of art a conspiracy theory" is not - that isn't an imposition of a POVFUNNEL; it is literally a question of article scope. Newimpartial (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you think about starting the very first sentence of the article with "A cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is..."? Sennalen (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, the sourcing in the article supports the existing lead sentence, and reflects the state of the HQRS, so I don't see a reason to change it. Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you believe, Sennalen, that the current consenus of high-quality sources is that "cultural Marxism" is a value-neutral term of art? If you believe this, what are the sources supporting your assertion? If they aren't strong, and you continue to edit in line with your belief, that is a transparent violation of WP:NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Ahh yes, Sennalen still trying to fulfill the desires outlined in their essay "Write the Infinite Article". If only the Free Congress Foundation hadn't paid William S. Lind to give his lecture to the Barnes Review, if only the theory hadn't been so popular on Stormfront.org, or with the alt-right. If only it didn't involve the claim that a small group of foreign Jewish folk were trying to infiltrate Western Institutions in order to destroy Western Civilization and Christendom.[7] If only it didn't have so much similarity to Nazi rhetoric... but it does, and they did.

Also; by way of comparison, many Holocaust deniers claim their theories aren't antisemitic either, but as you know, Wikipedia goes on what Reliable Sources say, not what advocates of the Conspiracy Theory say. 124.168.219.70 (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I think moving the sidebar is OK. Lets see what the wider consensus is about the rest. DanielRigal (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

«it is over-simplifcation to say that cultural Marxism simply is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.» => Yet the majority of reliable sources talking about Cultural Marxism during the first 20 years label it as antisemite. Maybe try again in 2033? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a fairly significant anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, so it belongs here. Basically the proponents have stopped identifying the cabal behind the conspiracy as "the Jews," but it's pretty clear who {{{they}}} are. TFD (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Sennalen I'm not quite sure what you want to have happen here. tl;dr – to me, the problem is the redirect from Cultural Marxism. Wikipedia is conflating the conspiracy theory with criticism of the Frankfurt School writ large. That is the root cause issue. – I agree, FWIW. But this article is explicitly just about the sort of niche usage of the term by anti-semitic conspiracy theorists, so given that, it makes sense to talk about anti-semitism quite a bit here. (I'd suggest the article might even spend too much time talking about non-anti-semitic uses of the term! It probably does this because by far most usage of the term is, as you say Sennalen, just "criticism of FS writ large".) But then – what is the remedy; what are you trying to make happen here? To me the weird part here is that Cultural Marxism redirects here, since this article isn't the main usage of the term. I guess it's the main usage in "reliable sources" (those are indeed scare quotes), because it's a lot more interesting to write scholarly articles about anti-semitism and people like Breivik than it is to write about conservatives whining about idpol, especially when CM is only one of many imprecise politically-charged phrases they use. So how do you "fix" this, given WP rules/norms? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Largely agree with Erik. That there is confusion and conflation with anything other than an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, and the fact that the term Cultural Marxism without the identifying suffix is part of that confusion, means that the redirect from Cultural Marxism to the top of the article is a mistake, because it violates WP:RPURPOSE, and leads to more confusion, not less. The solution, imho, is to add a small section to the article on the confusion itself as a subtopic, and alter the redirect to point to that section instead of the top of the article.

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

There's plenty of stuff available about it. Mathglot (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I get what Sennalen is talking about. There's lots of fairly mainstream conservative commenters who will use the phrase "Cultural Marxism" or similar (e.g. Jordan Peterson uses "postmodern neo-Marxism" but means something very similar) to refer to a related conspiracy theory, but who don't seem to personally have any anti-semitic intent or really even to target the Frankfurt School specifically.

This feels like a WP:DBTF situation to me: Cultural Bolshevism the Nazi conspiracy theory is obviously and intentionally anti-semitic. The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as originally promoted by William Lind is a descendant of that explicitly anti-semitic conspiracy theory, where Lind toned down the anti-semitism some but definitely not entirely. Then the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as promoted by a bunch of modern conservative commenters, several of whom are themselves Jewish, is a step removed again from William Lind. The article treats these three things as if they are all the same thing and therefore all equally anti-semitic, when it seems like they are in fact related but separate things. So it feels like the article is saying the equivalent of "the iPhone has a 3.5mm headphone jack": well, some iPhones definitely did but those iPhones and the current version of the iPhone aren't identical and it's irresponsible to treat them as if they were.

I don't know what to do about this, because there doesn't seem to be a lot of sourcing on the modern version of the theory at all. And even when there is sourcing, it's hard to tell which version they're talking about since every version is called the same thing and not all sources even acknowledge that different people mean different things by this term. Loki (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm convinced by your premise, Loki. One could make a parallel argument on the same grounds, asserting that some alt-right figures (including Jewish and Latino ones) disseminate versions of the Soros conspiracy theories and the Great Replacement conspiracy theory that are not explicitly antisemitic or white supremacist, that therefore these should be treated as different "versions" and that "different people mean different things" by the tropes they use. Really? These sound like equally EXTRAORDINARY claims in all three cases.

Given this, I would like to see high-quality, recent sources stating that the iPhone has really got rid of the 3.5mm headphone jack rather than hiding it under a smooth rubber plug for watertightness - the latter being a more apt metaphor, I think, for what "modern conservative commentators" have actually done. A dogwhistle is still a dogwhistle whether or not the one using it really means it, and even whether or not they actually understand it as such. They need only invoke its effects. Newimpartial (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that everyone that accuses George Soros of something is anti-semitic. Obviously, some of them are, but left-wingers accuse the Koch Brothers of similar things all the time, and for similar reasons.

The Great Replacement conspiracy theory, on the other hand, is in itself racist. There's no non-racist version of it because any version that was changed enough to remove the racism would also necessarily remove the Great Replacement part of the theory.

That's not true with Cultural Marxism: it's a "shadow government" style of conspiracy theory, and the common theme of those is that they tend to have explicitly anti-semitic versions where the "shadow government" is explicitly the Jews, that co-exist with non-antisemitic or at least not explicitly anti-semitic versions where the identity of the "shadow government" is stated to be someone else.

(Great Replacement is also one of those but it's so blatantly racist and so closely tied to the core parts of fascist ideology that there isn't really a "non-hateful" version out there.) Loki (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Or "Cultural Marxism" often refers to something other than shadow governments, of course. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

"Shadow government" here meaning that the conspiracy is about a vaguely defined group of people who nevertheless have mysterious amounts of power to manipulate giant institutions. As opposed to, say, MKULTRA conspiracy theories or moon landing conspiracy theories, where the conspiracy is clearly about a very well defined group (in those cases, the CIA and NASA respectively). Loki (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the relevant distinction for "shadow governement" conspiracy theories is between "explicit" and implicit antisemitism (Jamin's "overt" and covert antisemitism), and not between antisemitic and "non-antisemitic". And I believe the sources back me up on this - and not only for the Cultural Marxism CT. Newimpartial (talk) 09:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Wait, your example of the fact that different people use the term differently is Jordan Peterson who doesn't use the term at all? Also, I'm not so sure that Post-Modern Neo-Marxism is the same thing as The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, Jordan Peterson at least does discuss Post-Modernism at say 14:50 to 19:00 of this video.

But also, in more general terms (and I'm only saying this on the talk page, not suggesting it appears on the page), but in general conservatives use the idea of Cultural Marxism as a construct to allow them to attack the same groups the Nazis did. Hitler's headquarters after marching on Berlin was after all in the famous cross dressing establishment The Elderado Club (known for it's gender bending). The most photographed book burning was in no small part made up of books ransacked from Magnus Hirschfeld's sexology institute (an early LGBTQ organization). So the Nazis in no small part started out by persecuting the queer, cross dressing, and trans community - just like the right wing do today.

The groups put into concentration camps by the Nazis have a massive degree of overlap with those accused of being Cultural Marxists by the far right, hard right, and alt-right today... and now also (via this conspiracy theory) by mainstream conservatives and right-wing Christians: Gays, Jews, Communists and Subversives. Even down to the usage of the term 'degenerate' being the same. Basically I'm not sure I see a usage that doesn't align with the Nazi's values regardless of whether it includes antisemitism directly or not. So the question for me becomes: Can you have a Nazi who isn't antisemitic, and perhaps doesn't even think of themselves as a Nazi?

In the end, Wikipedia goes on what reliable sources say, not what advocates to the conspiracy theory say. Going against WP:RS and WP:FRINGE would require us to perform WP:OR and I just don't think that's going to happen. 60.242.53.119 (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Most bigots don't consider themselves bigots, that doesn't mean they aren't bigots. Someone can genuinely believe that they aren't antisemitic while doing and saying extremely antisemitic things... Those associated with this conspiracy will often say something like "its not about the Jews its about the ______" and then use a synonym for Jews like bankers or globalists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

«Jordan Peterson at least does discuss Post-Modernism at say 14:50 to 19:00 of this video.» => You can point a specific timecode with an URI fragment such https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gDKL2JSFis#t=14m50s Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

«Wait, your example of the fact that different people use the term differently is Jordan Peterson who doesn't use the term at all?» => Yes, Jordan Peterson almost never say the term «Cultural Marxism». Yet he repeat the Cultural Marxism narrative cf.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LquIQisaZFU
• https://www.prageru.com/video/who-is-teaching-your-kids
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFk4335S2Bs
• first 10 minutes of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVUnUnWfHI#t=1m
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO3MLpJhcxw
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jef2C4T1_A
• https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/23/1828527/-How-the-cultural-Marxism-hoax-began-and-why-it-s-spreading-into-the-mainstream
• https://psmag.com/education/jordan-peterson-sliding-toward-fascism
• https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/04/jordan-peterson-capitalism-postmodernism-ideology
• https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest
• https://viewpointmag.com/2018/01/23/postmodernism-not-take-place-jordan-petersons-12-rules-life/
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muNKs3Dxw1Q
• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

«I don't know what to do about this, because there doesn't seem to be a lot of sourcing on the modern version of the theory at all.» => Ask, and you shall receive:

• https://journals.openedition.org/amnis/2004
• Jérôme Jamin, Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137396211_4
• Tanner Mirrlees, The Alt-right's Discourse on "Cultural Marxism": A Political Instrument of Intersectional Hate, https://journals.msvu.ca/index.php/atlantis/article/view/5403
• Martin Jay, Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment: The Frankfurt School as Scapegoat of the Lunatic Fringe, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41638676
• Andrew Woods, Cultural Marxism and the Cathedral: Two Alt-Right Perspectives on Critical Theory, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-18753-8_3
• Jérôme Jamin, Cultural Marxism: A survey, https://doi.org/10.1111/rec3.12258
• Rachel Busbridge, Cultural Marxism: far-right conspiracy theory in Australia’s culture wars, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504630.2020.1787822
• Joan Braune, Who's Afraid of the Frankfurt School? 'Cultural Marxism' as an Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory, http://transformativestudies.org/publications/journal-of-social-justice/past-issues-jsj/journal-of-social-justice-volume-9-2019/
• Andrew Lynn, Cultural Marxism, The Hedgehog Review, https://hedgehogreview.com/issues/the-evening-of-life/articles/cultural-marxism
• John E. Richardson, ‘Cultural Marxism' and the British National Party, Cultures of Post-War British Fascism, https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/10.4324/9781315727257-12
• https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching
• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html
• https://www.smh.com.au/world/cultural-marxism--the-ultimate-postfactual-dog-whistle-20171102-gzd7lq.html
• https://www.salon.com/2019/05/05/a-users-guide-to-cultural-marxism-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theory-reloaded/
• https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2019/08/28/le-marxisme-culturel-fantasme-prefere-de-l-extreme-droite_5503567_3232.html
• https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/78mnny/unwrapping-the-conspiracy-theory-that-drives-the-alt-right
• https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/23/1828527/-How-the-cultural-Marxism-hoax-began-and-why-it-s-spreading-into-the-mainstream
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/22/tories-conspiracy-theories-cultural-marxism-party
• https://uk.news.yahoo.com/tory-mp-brings-antisemitic-conspiracy-115850269.html
• https://fair.org/home/cultural-marxism-the-mainstreaming-of-a-nazi-trope/
• https://jewishcurrents.org/the-lethal-antisemitism-of-cultural-marxism

The first 10 articles are academic articles and the last website is a jewish website. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

While I don't have time to analyze them all in detail right now, from what I can skim the large majority of those are explicitly about William Lind's version of the conspiracy theory, and not about Jordan Peterson/Ben Shapiro's version of the conspiracy theory. And a lot of them are opinion pieces or not in reliable sources. Loki (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Without a source saying so it's WP:OR to conclude that the "Jordan Peterson/Ben Shapiro version of the conspiracy" is the same as the conspiracy theory which does use the term. The current page notes that Jordan Peterson had a hand in spreading the conspiracy - not because he has his own version, but because he has shared articles about the "Cultural Marxism" version of it. So as far as I know of the sources, Jordan Peterson discusses Post-Modern Neo-Marxism, where as the page is about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. 220.253.26.189 (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, a memory has just come up... I believe Jordan Peterson did go on Sky News Australia, and was interviewed by Rita Panahi about Cultural Marxism... that could probably be used as a source. Here it is, he does indeed explicitly endorse the concept. 220.253.26.189 (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

In that clip Peterson proposes that all of Leftism is Marxism (and hence there's been an academic take over of academia, by Marxists), this of course ignores the fact that (as discussed here for instance), Leftism existed before Marx was born. 220.253.26.189 (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it's accurate to say Peterson usually uses different terms instead, like "postmodernism" to describe what others might describe as "cultural marxism", but he occasionally does call it "cultural marxism". (possibly usually when prompted to do so by someone else?) Does it matter? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It mostly matters here because we require sources. Now that we have one, we can include information about his endorsement/usage. 220.253.26.189 (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

We already have that in the article, with sources? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

«I guess it's the main usage in "reliable sources" (those are indeed scare quotes), because it's a lot more interesting to write scholarly articles about anti-semitism and people like Breivik than it is to write about conservatives whining about idpol» => When somebody whine about idpol mentioning the term «Cultural Marxism» they are endorsing the Cultural Marxism conspiracytheory. Wikipedia having separate articles about political correctness, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, woke, instead having one article covering all those far-right talking point, is an editorial choice of Wikipedia that could and can be challenged. But i oppose that Wikipedia has separate articles covering

• Cultural Marxism when Frankfurt School is mentioned
• Cultural Marxism when idpol is mentioned
• Cultural Marxism when Derrida is mentioned
• Cultural Marxism in other cases

because that would be too narrow/specific/splitting hairs/small granulometry in my opinion. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

When people ascribe idpol to the "cultural Marxists," they are espousing a conspiracy theory because the cultural Marxists never wrote about idpol. Idpol is merely the U.S. tradition of both parties building coalitions among different demographic groups by offering them rewards. It's not part of a plan by Jewish Communists to destroy the West. TFD (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

nah. Clearly a sloppy label doesn't necessarily imply "espousing a conspiracy theory"? That can't be what you meant, TFD? I think usually when someone writes about alleged "cultural marxists" saying something, they are not accusing them of anything sneaky; there's no conspiracy involved. The alleged cultural marxists are happy to sell you books and so on. It's all in the open. e.g. this article says Cultural Marxism, also known as Critical Race Theory, and also encapsulated in the historical travesty called “The 1619 Project,” – see? You might think this is article is total garbage, but Nikole Hannah-Jones or Kimberlé Crenshaw etc. aren't being secret, right? Does Horowitz imply they're trying to do something that they aren't explicitly stating they're trying to do? I don't see it if he is; LMK if you disagree. I don't see any hint of conspiracy mongering here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The conspiracy is that it's a unified group or movement traveling under a shared conception of what to do as a unified force, and that it's unified under a philosophy/ideology known as "Cultural Marxism" which was created by The Frankfurt School, to destroy America. This is a conspiracy theory because plenty of left-wing academics haven't heard of, and aren't interested in The Frankfurt School, they all have their own motivations for what they do (motivations which are often issues based), and none of them call themselves Cultural Marxists. Ergo, the claim that it's a unified movement with these attributes, is a conspiracy theory.

So if you don't see any hint of conspiracy mongering in say, this text from the article you're citing:

Today’s Left is driven by a Cultural Marxist ideology, which is itself a product of the transformation of America’s universities and schools into one-party training and recruitment centers for the political Left. A similar colonization of America’s philanthropic institutions and corporate cultures has taken place enabling this ideology to become a conventional wisdom nationally and the strategic outlook of the Democrat Party.

Then I would say you're somewhat blind to the concepts being discussed here, and should probably figure out what the page is about before participating further. 220.253.26.189 (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't address what I said. Trying again: "conspiracy" implies done in secret. None of the activism Horowitz is talking about there is remotely secretive. If it helps clarify: this page isn't about how Horowitz is using the term; which is fine. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

"None of the activism Horowitz is talking about there is remotely secretive." -ErikHaugen said in regards to:

Today’s Left is driven by a Cultural Marxist ideology, which is itself a product of the transformation of America’s universities and schools into one-party training and recruitment centers for the political Left.

So you believe that Universities have written down somewhere that they are in fact "one-party training and recruitment centers for the political Left" ??? - and that if you ask ANY leftists of ANY stripe they'll say they're "driven by a Cultural Marxist ideology" ???

I don't think that's the case, nor do I think that's a sane opinion you've expressed. YOU will have to provide EVIDENCE for YOUR CLAIM that it's happening, has happened and occurred out in the open some how, and likewise that THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM of leftwing thought has been behaving in a coordinated colonization as the quoted text puts it.

Of course you won't be able to provide such grandiose and broad reaching proof of this supposedly complete take over, you're only making the claim that it's "open knowledge" because you appear to be completely biased towards the conspiracy theory, and against the facts. You (going on what you're saying alone) appear to have lost objectivity on the matter, and are no longer speaking from reliable sources, evidence, and logic. Despite my pointing to the fact that Leftism predates Marxism, Feminism Predates Marxism, and there are Leftists that disagree with Identity Politics. What's more there are conservative, Mormon, Catholic, and traditionalist universities and highschools.

If YOU are making the claim that it's an open conspiracy and successful conspiracy (in line with the quote we're discussing) YOU will have to provide evidence of this. Until then you're going to look quite foolish for putting your support behind a conspiracy theory. 115.166.4.242 (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Horowitz wrote those things about "recruitment centers" and the dominance of "CM" of the Left, not I? Calm down there, my friend. I don't think Horowitz is biased toward thinking there's any conspiratorial aspect of this – I could easily be wrong, though. And I'm kind of weirded out that you're suggesting I am; I insist you stop. Other than that, I think I've written too much already here on this page that addresses most of the rest of this. LMK if you feel the need to ask me something specific and I'll try to respond. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Horowitz also isn't implying some kind of "unified movement". Activism can succeed without hierarchical secretive organization, of course; there are plenty of examples of that, from the Tea Party to OWS, etc.

Granted, plenty of righties (and others!) are worried about conspiracies, so I'm sure some who write about "cultural marxism" like this in fact believe it's some kind of well-organized cabal. But that's like an orthogonal thing; we wouldn't assume without sources that Shapiro or Horowitz or Peterson or anyone else have succumbed to that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

What you're saying here doesn't match what Horowitz is writing: Progressives had lied about the nature of their movement and its agendas in order to accomplish their real goal The main thrust of his argument is that progressives are lying about their true goals (that is, the goals are 'secret'). MrOllie (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I don't know – this is in the context of Horowitz complaining about people like Chomsky denying the Cambodian genocide or something, right? (This kind of "giving cover" happens a lot, though: activists defend the extremes in their movement, because it's embarrassing or they feel they need to stay on message or plain old cognitive dissonance or whatever.) The author of this article had some kind of "moment of reckoning" when the genocide happened because he felt the genocide was an inevitable result of communist tyranny or whatever, and is disillusioned that his ideological allies didn't as well – so he assumes their motives are more cynical. This, again, does not necessarily imply secretive coordination, merely cynicism or delusion: he's saying Chomsky etc aren't being honest about the downsides of their position. (In reality wasn't it the Vietnamese communists who put a stop to the genocide?)

The main thrust of his argument is that progressives are lying about their true goals – actually, no! His main thrust is that they aren't being honest about the downsides of their movement. Chomsky, for example, is actually super transparent that his goal is exactly what Horowitz is saying Chomsky's "real goal" is (keep reading after your quote), and I'm pretty sure Horowitz knows that. That is not the lie Horowitz is accusing him of.

Look maybe you'll find something Horowitz wrote that makes it clear this person is in fact a conspiracy monger; and that he thinks Chomsky was carrying out orders from the cabal. like I said above I'm sure there are people like that. I missed this "lied about the nature of their...agendas" line, for example, maybe I missed something else, too, that shows he's a conspiracy monger. The only point I'm making here is that people talk about 1619 or CRT or <whatever political marketing word> with the term "cultural marxism" all the time. It's a smear: marxists are bad, so calling Hannah-Jones a marxist will make you think she's bad, get it? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Its a smear because it references the conspiracy theory, otherwise the smear would be "marxist" and not the anti-semitic smear. The people talking about 1619 and CRT generally appear to be referencing the conspiracy theory, thats not separate in any way. Also note that conspiracy does not necessarily imply secretive coordination, many of the conspiracy theorists claim (as you appear to be doing) that it isn't a conspiracy theory because its self evident... All one has to do is open the Epoch Times and you will see. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

that assumes the question, obviously :) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

If thats the case perhaps you can tell me what the difference between the smear "marxist" and the smear "cultural marxist" is if not a reference to this conspiracy theory? The non-conspiracy usage of cultural marxism (which you claim to be the primary usage) isn't a smear. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Horse Eye on this point. If you're raving about Soros and secret Marxists but you didn't explicitly refer to Jews or antisemitism writ large, that still can belong on this page, and the conspiracy theory or group of related theories as a whole still originates from an antisemitic place. Andre🚐 17:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

They seem to clearly not originate from antisemitism, but in any case hopefully I've made it clear this isn't what I'm talking about – sure I think I agree those properly belong on this page. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

perhaps you can tell me what the difference between the smear "marxist" and the smear "cultural marxist" is if not a reference to this conspiracy theory? Honestly not sure what you're asking me. I don't think there's much difference between those two. They seem to be used interchangeably in this context. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

What is different between the two? Cultural must modify marxist in some way otherwise there is no purpose in adding it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I sorta agree/disagree with Erik here. IMO, "cultural Marxism" is always a conspiracy theory, but it doesn't always refer to the actual Frankfurt School per se. The way a lot of the people who use the phrase use it, it appears to be not that sophisticated of a conspiracy theory, and basically means that they think much of the left/center are secretly Marxist.

There's also a bunch of places where Jordan Peterson articulates fully what he means by "postmodern neo-Marxism" (which is basically the same thing) and it's somewhere between the two extremes. He seems to mean "the modern American left is the intellectual product of ex-Marxist intellectuals who retreated into postmodernism after 'realizing they were wrong' after the fall of the Soviet Union" (scare quotes mine). But not necessarily the Frankfurt School specifically.

Either way, both of these are conspiracy theories, insofar as they're accusing their political opponents of actually being the result of a conspiracy by a small number of boogeymen. But there's clearly been a lot of cultural drift here between the original Nazi Cultural Bolshevism theory and what modern conservative pundits are pushing. Loki (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

That is a fair point. The modern incarnation of the theory might rightfully be considered a new thing in the future, given that as Peterson and others use it, it is more general, more vague, and not really anchored in anything. However, ultimately, they're still pretty much talking about the same thing. They just don't know it. Andre🚐 20:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Horowitz also isn't implying some kind of "unified movement". - ErikHaugen

Oh okay, so when your source states:

Today’s Left is driven by a Cultural Marxist ideology, which is itself a product of the transformation of America’s universities and schools into one-party training and recruitment centers for the political Left.

That doesn't suggest he's talking about a unified movement to you? 115.166.4.242 (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course not. If a certain ideology gains popularity and significant-enough influence among <some group>, then we might say "the first drives the second"? "drives" == influence, yes? (IMO he overstates its influence on the Left, FWIW, but that isn't relevant here.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

ErikHaugen, Nikole Hannah-Jones, the lead director of The 1619 Project is not a cultural Marxist, nor does the Project express any views or opinions that could be described as critical race theory, cultural Marxism or even Marxism. AFAIK, Kimberlé Crenshaw, who teaches critical theory, was not involved in the Project.

So if cultural Marxists were not openly involved in the 1619 project, the only way they could have been involved is "secretly," which is why it is a conspiracy theory.

Incidentally, can you name any ideas in the Project that reflect cultural Marxist views. Of course not, but there are expressions of support for capitalism and liberal democracy.

TFD (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Nikole Hannah-Jones was involved with 1619, and not secretly. (I never suggested Kimberlé Crenshaw was; I don't know for sure – I'd be surprised to learn that.) People call her & 1619 "cultural marxist" because ... they're confused? They see a similarity between her activism and Frankfurt School/Critical Theory? They're trying to say her ideas are like Marxist ideas, but applied to "cultural"/identity oppression rather than just economic oppression? They want you to associate her ideas with communist genocides? They're jerks? I don't know. But I don't think very many people accuse Nikole Hannah-Jones of being part of a secretive conspiracy/cabal. She, like Crenshaw, is an activist/scholar doing her thing, and is *extremely* transparent. I don't think I've ever heard anyone accuse her of being sneaky about something, really meaning something she didn't say? (I mean, I'm sure someone has said that, but this is not, by far, the main thing people say about her, right?)

Incidentally, can you name any ideas in the Project that reflect cultural Marxist views. I don't understand this question. WP has many articles about Marxism-adjacent topics, and things that are possibly incorrectly called "Marxism" but are better named as something else, I guess.

To take a step back: I'm just trying making a point about how using certain RS to analyze PT causes problems with articles like this. I get that some people think they're the same topic anyway – the article even quotes sources that make this point. (See the Hanlon quote.) Are you trying to convince me of this? If so, maybe rest assured you've made your point and stop? Hopefully it's clear I'm not going to be convinced by "someone called someone a marxist who doesn't call themselves a marxist therefore conspiracy". (that just isn't what those words mean.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand your point. If someone falsely says that Cultural Marxism is "encapsulated" in the 1619 Project, isn't that a conspiracy theory? Wouldnt that require cultural Marxists to secretly influence the Project?

OTOH, if Hannah-Jones had unwittingly become a cultural Marxist by brainwashing at the University of Notre Dame? Would that not presuppose a secret plan by the cultural Marxists to disseminate subversion? TFD (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

If someone falsely says that Cultural Marxism is "encapsulated" in the 1619 Project, isn't that a conspiracy theory? I don't see the key parts of the definition of "conspiracy" in there, no :)

Regarding it being false: 'Cultural Marxism' is sometimes treated as synonymous with the 'Critical Theory' (from the article, and this usage is what I'm discussing in this thread) – this is the kind of thing people mean when they say 1619 is or is adjacent to CM. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, Erik, we have this article about a Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory because that is the term the best sources use. The scope of discourse discussed in these sources includes both the pur-et-dur antisemitic far right sources and the softer, alt right, "intellectual dark web" sources like Peterson. The HQRS typically emphasize the overlap and blurred lines between these rather than any clear distinction between them.

What all of these practitioners of the conspiracy theory have in common - and I personally prefer "trope" to "conspiracy theory" as an umbrella label, but the sources don't follow me on this - is that they posit a political-cultural project that doesn't exist. And so whenever someone like Ron DeSantis points to something as "Cultural Marxism" and attacks, it isn't just that he is slurring people as Marxists who aren't Marxists; he is invoking a political project that has been made up by Conservative writers as a bogeyman. And attempts to sort out some distinction between when Peterson or DeSantis does this, and the original version, therefore seem somehow beside the point and are certainly not based in RS. Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

When you say they posit a political-cultural project that doesn't exist, does this mean something different than they posit activists doing something, but no activists exist? Do you see what I'm getting at? made up by Conservative writers as a bogeyman – yes, some conservative writers try to argue that activism for these ideas leads to harm. (Most people would agree that activism for the ideas they disagree with isn't good?) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The fact that an activist or group of activists are active on some specific issue does not imply that they are attempting to undermine Western civilization or to seize the means of production. The "Cultural Marxism" trope everywhere and always implies some such sinister project; if it didn't, that particular trope would not be used. Newimpartial (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The fact that an activist or group of activists arw active on some specific issue does not imply that they are attempting to undermine Western civilization – it does mean that to someone who thinks that the activism will "undermine Western civilization". Let's look at that phrase: if someone sees the "liberal ideals" that CT critiques as being kind of a core thing that makes western civilization what it is, then "attempting to undermine Western civilization" becomes a hyperbolic way to talk about those activists. This is all pretty straightforward, right?

always implies some such sinister project – I agree it pretty much always implies activism the speaker disagrees with, yes. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

What you appear to be getting at is an endorsement of the conspiracy theory. These activists are not attempting to undermine western society. Nor do they appear to be centrally organized in any way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

What you appear to be getting at is an endorsement I'm not sure what you mean. Nor do they appear to be centrally organized in any way. Right. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

So if these activists aren't part of a plot to undermine western society how is saying they are not a conspiracy theory? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Some discussion of the word "undermine" just above. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't get it, you're describing conspiracy theorists and then saying "Nah these are just conservatives" which IMO is slandering conservatives. The New World Order (conspiracy theory) doesn't become not a conspiracy theory because from the perspective of those who believe in it its real. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't follow you, if that's a question for me; beg pardon. None of that seems like a fair paraphrase of anything I said. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

How would you characterize your argument that it does in fact undermine western society because those who subscribe to this conspiracy theory believe it does? We don't appear to have a single RS which says that the plot exists, from any perspective. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

your argument that it does in fact undermine western society My argument? what? (I said using those words would be hyperbole.)

We don't appear to have a single RS which says that the plot exists I'm not sure why you're bringing up this observation. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

You appeared to be arguing that being hyperbolic meant it was not a conspiracy theory, did I misinterpret that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

being hyperbolic meant it was not a conspiracy theory Ok, that is more or less my point there, yes: more specifically: "CMs undermine western civ" doesn't mean that CMs are trying deliberately to screw us over (i.e. conspiracy), it is instead that they are doing a thing that will harm the character of what we want western civ to be, instead making it what CMs think is better. You know, activism. Sorry, I can't make sense of the rest of what you said in your 22:31 comment. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem is those activists for the most part aren't cultural marxists or marxists at all, thats why its a fantasy and not just an exaggeration of the truth. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@ErikHaugen The issue as I see it is that almost none of the people conservatives accuse of being secretly Marxist are even influenced by Marxism. Like, they're not just talking about the actual American far-left (who I think it's reasonable to say, while still not part of some kind of secret conspiracy, at least actually have been influenced by Marxism). We're talking about Joe Biden and corporate HR departments. The theory that all these people are part of some sort of huge conspiracy to spread Marxism is, well, a conspiracy theory. Loki (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It feels like you're making an argument for a different assertion, which is that CM is not a good name for it because it isn't particularly Marxist. I think I agree. (IIUC Marx would agree with you too.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The point is that there's no insidious left conspiracy slowly subverting society - there are many forces both left, right, center, crazy, sensationalistic, whatever, there are all kinds of forces in society. The CM conspiracy theory is the theory that, through the academic establishment of intellectuals, left-wingers are brainwashing people to social engineer society. Fundamentally, a delusional idea, as I'm sure we all agree. But there's no "legit CM theory." There's no coherent proposal of how activist ideas actually do influence society (which is through a lot of individual activities that aren't coordinated over a long period of time, and through many fits and starts that meet resistance). Still, that's neither here nor there; "cultural marxism" isn't a real phenomenon, but the panic about a possible phenomenon that couldn't possibly be happening or have happened. So it's kind of irrelevant that some real conservatives are making a "real" conservative argument. It amounts to the same thing: a canard. Andre🚐 23:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion has become pointless. ErikHaugen is claiming that the false assertion that a group of cultural Marxists is secretly trying to overthrow Western civilization is not a conspiracy theory because it doesn't meet their definition. Also, Erik, could you please stop re-posting other editors' comments. We can read them for ourselves. TFD (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that that thing isn't a conspiracy theory? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Good. So when "conservatives" refer to CM, they are endorsing a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

ErikHaugen, if I understand you correctly, conservative opposition to change is not conspiracism and if they falsely attribute change to Marxist influence, it still does not make it a conspiracy theory.

My problem with that argument is that the proponents claim that the influence is deliberate. The Marxists found that class politics would not lead them to power, so they replaced that strategy with identity politics. If they can't make the proletariat class conscious, they can certainly make them conscious of their race, gender, sexual identity etc. Somehow they managed to get liberals to promote id, and they are acing (if unwittingly) as agents of revolution.

David Horowitz himself says:

"The Left’s obvious goal is a “fundamental transformation” of American society. Such a transformation, as I have already observed, requires a dismantling of the existing social order. To justify this destruction, the Left creates narratives that provide it with ways to condemn and delegitimize the present and its defenders, and justify its criminal agendas."

So a cabal that is extraordinarily power, knowledgeable and evil is secretly trying to destroy us. That meets all the criteria of a conspiracy theory.

TFD (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, activism can be deliberate. I think all this has been hashed out too many times above already. :) all the best, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)