Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

"refers to", once more

The lead sentence of this article seems to have fluctuated between "Cultural Marxism" is a […] conspiracy theory and "Cultural Marxism" refers to a […] conspiracy theory. I raised a mild objection against both wordings earlier when this material was still part of the Frankfurt School page, shortly before it was factored out here, at Talk:Frankfurt School/Archive 18#"refers to". I'll quote myself from back then: "The sentence 'Cultural Marxism refers to a […] conspiracy theory' means that the conspiracy theory itself is called 'Cultural Marxism'. Of course it isn't. Cultural Marxism is not the name of the conspiracy theory; Cultural Marxism is what the conspiracy theory claims to be against." My suggestion was, and still is: "Cultural Marxism" is the object of a […] conspiracy theory.. I still find that a lot clearer and a lot more logical. Otherwise, wouldn't the reader be left to expect that the adherents of that conspiracy theory consider themselves, or are considered, "Cultural Marxists"?

As for the choice between pure "is" and "refers to", I don't see much of a difference between the two; both carry the same problem, to my mind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to re-propose "Proponents of a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory use the term "Cultural Marxism" to misrepresent the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness." We had some rough consensus back in November, with prior discussion at #Proposed change to first sentence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, 'Cultural Marxism', whether in scare-quotes or not, is used by some of the article's sources to mean the conspiracy theory itself. In fact, there are three main names used for the conspiracy theory by the sources that are already cited in this article:

(1) Cultural Marxism

(2) Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

(3) Frankfurt School conspiracy theory

So, I'd like to re-propose:

The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, also known as the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory or simply 'Cultural Marxism', is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.

This suggestion previously encountered some objections. I am not convinced that any of these objections were based on either the sources or Wikipedia policies. Incidentally, the lead of the White genocide conspiracy theory article, which seems to be patrolled by many of the regulars on this talk page, is very similar to this suggestion. I would suppose that any objections would also apply to that article's lead, which has been quite stable for several years. 194.60.136.6 (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The Frankfurt School would have liked and encouraged all three of them. But in reality, except from those who could comprehend the incomprehensible jargon they were spewing out, the Frankfurt School was pretty powerless and could not effect social change. So, yeah, they had a great vision, but that vision wasn't shared by the adepts of Mao's Little Red Book who were occupying faculties in the West. Nor by the Flower Power folks, who were generally speaking opposed to Marxist prudes. The Frankfurt School was leadership, but they had no followership. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Apart from the first sentence, I am having serious trouble understanding how your reply relates to my comment, or indeed this entire section. 194.60.136.6 (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The Frankfurt School wanted modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. That isn't a conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory is that they were the driving force behind such changes. They were dreamers and dreamed of such a world. But they could not effect such change, so it isn't their work. Conspiracy theorists will find quotes from their works which anticipate such change, and the conspiracy theorists will say that it was planned and executed very carefully by the Frankfurt School. It's like saying that Jules Verne was the brain who planned and executed the Moon landing. Yup, Verne made strikingly accurate claims which match the real Moon landing.

So, the conspiracy theorists aren't idiots, but they misconstrue dreaming of a better world for evidence of an occult plot. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

So... somehow I suspect that I will be no closer to satori after asking this, but... is your objection to my proposal: that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is not, in your estimation, a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory, or that the conspiracy theory does not, in your opinion, [misrepresent] the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness, or that the conspiracy theory is not, (or should not be referred to in the lead at any rate) known by the three names listed above? Or is there some other objection to the proposed text hidden somewhere in your comment? 194.60.136.6 (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

misrepresent is roughly speaking correct, but it is lacking nuance. And the nuance is that the Frankfurt School did dream/anticipate those changes, but it was not a plot, it wasn't a conspiracy. So, when conspiracy theorists are saying that the Frankfurt School wanted those changes, they are technically correct. They are wrong that the Frankfurt School is the cause of those changes.

The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, also known as the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory or simply 'Cultural Marxism', is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents some writings expressing the dreams of a better world of the Frankfurt School as evidence that it is responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

some writings expressing the dreams of a better world of the Frankfurt School I, erm, personally don't think we should phrase it quite like this. 194.60.136.6 (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

So, when conspiracy theorists are saying that the Frankfurt School wanted those changes, they are technically correct. no they didn't. No where in their writings is it suggested they wanted any of those three large concepts... this is a very vague claim being debated here. Undoubtedly they'd have very specific opinions on the current state of politics had any of the first generation of the Frankfurt School lived to see them. So let's not go pretending we know what The Frankfurt School would have to say about modern politics - that is after all, part of the conspiracy theories claims. 121.45.252.212 (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

that is after all, part of the conspiracy theories claims—okay, agreed, that's what the conspiracy theorists claim. But they still interpret some writings of the Frankfurt School as "evidence" for their claims. I guess I'm not wrong about this.

And some of the conservative commentators who advance this conspiracy theory are very intelligent people. Might be paranoid, but still very intelligent people. So, if there were obvious flaws in rendering the POVs of the Frankfurt School, they would have spotted them already.

The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, also known as the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory or simply 'Cultural Marxism', is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that interprets some writings of the Frankfurt School as "evidence" of a sinister plot including modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this is an improvement; the idea that FS is simply responsible for the 3 listed things isn't the conspiracy, which is what the current lede suggests. I mean, it might be wrong, but there's nothing conspiratorial about it. The conspiracy theory is the idea that they did so for sinister reasons; a la the more broad anti-semitic conspiracy theories. Anyway: i at least like the addition of the word "sinister". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

And some of the conservative commentators who advance this conspiracy theory are very intelligent people. Might be paranoid, but still very intelligent people. So, if there were obvious flaws in rendering the POVs of the Frankfurt School, they would have spotted them already.

...sorry, are you saying that the conspiracy theorists are very intelligent people, who are capable of reading and understanding the works of The Frankfurt School, and correcting any obvious flaws they're having in their interpretations of The Frankfurt School's writings?

To be clear; the late Frankfurt School strongly critiqued Identity Politics, and strongly oppose it taking president over traditional economic class politics - see Nancy Fraser's "Rethinking Recognition" [1]. Likewise Herbert Marcuse states in Repressive Tolerance [2] that political correctness should only be employed where the ways and means of democracy are blocked, and none of them had any idea what modern progressive politics is (because they didn't live to see it). 220.235.224.32 (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

«The Frankfurt School wanted modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.» => No. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Point granted. Anyway, "leftists side with leftists" isn't a conspiracy theory. Conspiracist claims are: "they seek to destroy the soul of America" or "they seek to destroy Western civilization". And the conservative commentators are skillful at finding quotes which justify their conspiracist beliefs. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

And the conservative commentators are skillful at finding quotes which justify their conspiracist beliefs.

Are they? I've seen no evidence of this. Do you have any? 220.235.224.32 (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean: they don't claim that being leftist is a conspiracy; they're not that stupid. And, yes, right-wing pundits have a reputation for quote mining. They can even uncover evidence that Alexis de Tocqueville was a Communist and Ronald Reagan was a pinko. In respect to the Frankfurt School: they just have to search for a quote which roughly predicts social and political change which happened during several decades and claim that that was their master plan. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I think perhaps it's that there's different standards of evidence going on here. I'm more of the mindset that faulty evidence is no evidence at all. These sorts of discussions can be difficult because sometimes people will assume the mindset or perspective of conspiracy theorists or far-right conservatives in order to argue from (or merely casually state things from) that side of the case (a sort of devils advocacy) and those discussions often end up derailing.

It's a topic that's both fairly important to be precise when discussing, and fairly difficult to be precise when discussing. This is why it's always good to display evidence, and show a strong basis for any proposed changes. 220.235.224.32 (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The opening sentence could be fixed simply by changing "refers to" to "is used by". I do not think "refers to" is a minor error, for me it is huge. Can someone tell me which sources use "cultural marxism" as a name for a conspiracy theory in which cultural marxism is the enemy? I'm genuinely curious to understand how a neutral non-idiotic source could do that, but not curious enough to spend the maximum time that might take, if it turns out to be in the last of 104 links. Chris King (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I withdraw my request for help with the sources. The one to an article by "Joan Braune" in "The journal of social justice" was enough for me. I only had to read a few paragraphs to accept the problem does seem to be the intellectual quality, rather than malice. Chris King (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, this is not about predictions, but about "'master plan' for the overthrow of Western civilization from within, personified by those members of the Frankfurt School...".

Also, I deny that right-wing pundits are aware they tell lies/delusions. My perspective is that they are sick or brainwashed, rather than being evil or liars.

This is about Marxist revolutionaries and Cultural Marxists predicting the dissolution of marriage, interpreted as a master plan.

This says "Antonio Gramsci, who produced in his prison notebooks of the 1930s a Marxist strategy for world domination [...] His solution was a 'cultural Marxism' that was aimed at destroying the influence of religion in society and of promoting instead 'secular humanism' by quietly infiltrating civil society institutions [...]". And claiming that Gramsci was the mastermind behind Western secularization is just a small step. Many gullible people will take that claim at face value. You need a whole library to refute that one-liner.

So, yeah, their claims about marriage and about secularization could be misconstrued as evidence of a conspiracy. So, obviously, the conspiracy theorists are convinced there is objective evidence for the master plan of this conspiracy.

The argument is really simple:

• the Frankfurt School stated they desire some social change;
• that change really happened;
• so that's "evidence" of their master plan. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This is really now getting miles and miles off course. This section was opened to discuss one small technical problem of wording. I would still like that question discussed. Can we please return to the topic? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I mildly prefer FFF's suggestion of "Proponents of a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory use the term 'Cultural Marxism' ..." to " 'Cultural Marxism' is the object of ...", and I think that satisfactorily addresses the concern you raised. I'd consider either a slight improvement to the article. I'd strongly prefer any option at all to long-winded, forum-ish speculation into the hearts of conspiracy theorists. CAVincent (talk) 08:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is accurate to say the Frankfurt School advocated social change or that it wanted modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. Basically they analyzed the effects of capitalism on modern culture.

The cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is an update of Cultural Bolshevism, the theory that the Communists had created modern culture in order to undermine Western civilization. It's not based on anything the Frankfurt School said or did, although information is cherry-picked to support a narrative. TFD (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes it's an interesting suggestion... we'd be downgrading from a fairly assertive - The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to... to a much more open ended - [some/only] "Proponents of a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory use the term "Cultural Marxism" to misrepresent the Frankfurt School... - which suggests that oh perhaps some other conservatives or members of the far-right use the term in a way that's correct. Or that if it's not being used in an overtly antisemitic manner, then that's therefore a fine and correct usage. There's more leeway for those readings with the newly suggested text.

So far there's no academic consensus that the words 'cultural Marxism' have a set meaning within academia. Some writings have tied the words to specific theorists (The Frankfurt School, Birmingham School, and E.P. Thompson), others to developments in cultural studies, others use it in more general discussions of "what's to be done!". None of the academic writings that use the term suggest it's a set or fixed school of thought or longstanding approach or plan. Given that the second paragraph of the lead ends with "Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact." I don't really think we should be suggesting, or even inferring that there's some correct usage outside of the conspiracy theory. Suggesting there is a correct usage that some conservatives or far-right proponents might be utilizing or tapping into seems to be approaching original research, and giving a slight indulgence to the conspiracy theory usage.

Not to mention that there are now 4 very recent discussions on this page all focused on making changes to the lead, none of which have been successful thus far. This suggests a fairly strong consensus against changing anything. Sure that consensus can change, but it hasn't in the other 3 discussions. I think the current lead has stuck around so long because the best compromises are ones in which no one is happy. 220.235.224.32 (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

use the term in a way that's correct – or in a nonconspiratorial way that is also not correct. But, I think the old way had this problem, too – just because the term refers to X doesn't mean it doesn't also refer to Y. Elsewhere the article discusses non-conspiracy uses of the term. That's ok: we don't have to nail all that down in the lede, I think. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

One line discusses the academic usage. My comment was referencing the false idea that there might be some accurate conservative or far-right usage, which I feel the FFF text can be read as suggesting. It's at least more ambiguous in that regard than the current text. 220.235.252.149 (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a fair criticism. Care to weigh in on IP194's proposal? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

It's alright. I don't think I have any specific arguments against it currently. Perhaps one or two more editors will chime in to form a consensus. 220.235.252.149 (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Fut.Perf that this keeps getting off the rails. Options on the table:

• Status quo: "The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness."
• Fut.Perf: "Cultural Marxism" is the object of a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness."
• FFF: "Proponents of a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory use the term "Cultural Marxism" to misrepresent the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness."
• IP194: "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, also known as the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory or simply 'Cultural Marxism', is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness."
• Tg: "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, also known as the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory or simply 'Cultural Marxism', is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that interprets some writings of the Frankfurt School as "evidence" of a sinister plot including modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness."

I would prefer to drop Tgeorgescu's proposal and focus on the other three. We could discuss separately the idea that the content of the conspiracy theory should be described differently. Assuming we're keeping the status quo content description the same, all the other proposals are just about how to refer to the conspiracy theory. I think all three proposals for that (Fut.Perf, FFF, IP194) are improvements over the status quo, and you can interpret me as supporting whichever one is the closes to gaining consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• I somewhat support Tg's proposal over the others, since it contains the key element of sinister motive. If someone mistakenly has an outsized view of FS's influence in modern left political thought, there's nothing conspiratorial about that, of course, it's just a bad reading of history/etc. I say "somewhat" because of course the reader can probably infer the point about sinister intent from the word "conspiracy" anyway. (If that's what you meant by "described differently" and we don't want to have that discussion here beg pardon.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  That is what I meant by "described differently". I'm not against having that conversation. Maybe in a subsection? Separate it from that, we're discussing how to refer to the conspiracy theory. Discussions here frequently devolve into choice paralysis, so a little bit of focus goes a long way toward productive consensus-building. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Of those, the IP194's is my preference. It puts the title of the article up front, which is great. And it doesn't suggest there is some single non-conspiracy 'true Cultural marxism' (a notion that I do not think would find consensus). The first 4 options are all preferable to Tg's, though, since that one suggests that the theory is inspired by the Frankfurt school's actual writings, and I do not think that supported by the sources we have. MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That's some good reasoning. Count me in favor of IP194's too. ErikHaugen, since the IP's proposal starts off the same as your preferred version (Tg's), would you support the former as an incremental improvement over the status quo. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That isn't the thing that mostly appeals to me about Tg's proposal, but sure putting the title verbatim earlier is nice, all else being equal. No objections to the change. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Of the proposals for change, I'd say that IP194's is "the best" (most comprehensive and accurate) and tg's is "the worst" (most misleading and FALSEBALANCE-ey). I see certain advantages in the IP194 proposal comparison to the status quo, while each of the other proposed changes seems "worse" to me than the status quo in one respect or another. Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you count Gramsci as belonging to or at least a forerunner of the Frankfurt School? Because in his case the evidence is undeniable.

If not, the Cultural Marxism is simply about Gramsci, not about the Frankfurt School, which have been mistakenly conflated with him. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question: no, I do not regard Gramsci as at least a forerunner of the Frankfurt School - nor even as an influence, due to the publication history of his work. Nor do I regard his broader influence as being in any way responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness - and that, in spite of the career of Ernesto Laclau, who is sadly neglected by CMCT proponents. Newimpartial (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Point granted. But that aside, Gramsci did plot about Marxist world domination, did not he? And I agree that SJWs aren't Marxists: they simply want a better capitalism. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question, Gramsci like any good Marxist of the Second or Third International advocated for world revolution - I'm not sure plot is the right word. But very few of the CMCTheorists seem even to know who Gramsci was, much less blame any "plots" on his influence. Newimpartial (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

It's plot: while rank-and-file Marxist revolutionaries pleaded for overt revolution, he pleaded for discretely infiltrating the bourgeois culture and the civil society. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

It has been a long time since I read Gramsci, but I'm quite confident he never said that. In any case, this thead is now well off-topic. Newimpartial (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Your claims don't line up with anything on our Antonio Gramsci page, nor on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's page [3]. Much as The Frankfurt School pointed out The Culture Industry, Gramsci pointed out Hegemony. The conspiracy theorists seem to make a leap, that they thus, must have expressed a desire to take over these phenomena and had a plan to. This is however not the case.

Gramsci for instance, was of the point of view that the prevailing Hegemony at the time needed a vibrant working class culture as it's competition. One that was more morally upstanding than the bourgeois hegemonic forces. Essentially he expressed a model of competition.

Likewise The Frankfurt School expressed the idea that Avant-garde high culture was put at risk by the Capitalist Culture Industry, and he expressed a desire to protect the high arts, and create a culture more capable of satisfying human psychological needs than generic commercial mass culture could (as per Marcuse: they claimed true psychological needs were "freedom, creativity, and genuine happiness").

This is part of why Adorno enjoyed atonal music, and was basically of the mindset that if culture was authentic, it didn't necessarily have to be polite, pleasant, or even enjoyable. Basically he didn't necessarily like hollywood happy endings, closure, and glossy magazine culture (probably more a fan of German cinema of the time than American). He believed that culture should fulfill and address all parts of the human soul, and not just whatever market researchers and focus groups determined would have wide spread mass appeal. This is also part of why Richard Hoggart of The Birmingham School (UK) rallied against what he called "mass culture" and even "Americanization".

One could say this is a lineage of critiques, Gramsci desiring a working class culture, Adorno worrying about the avante guard and the arts, and Hoggart complaining about Americanization (the next link perhaps being complaints of "globalization" which came later in leftist discourse). But basically, these were all left wing complaints about Commercial, Capitalist mass culture and its effects on the minds of previously culturally "localized" populations and individuals. They thought humanity was losing something in these totalizing processes of the culture industry.

Part of these viewpoints relate to the historic changes around WW1, where Western Europe went from being a series of empires, with royalty forming sovereignty, but local communities forming daily life, to nations, with anthems, traditions, and cultures, drawn from those previously localized communities. Here is an interesting educational video that covers some of those historical changes [4] (see the 11 minute mark). 220.235.252.149 (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, hopefully it goes without saying that none of these guys owned PR agencies, or worked in media. They were social theorists and academics, and weren't active players in the constructions or disseminations made by those in the culture industry. 220.235.252.149 (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: do you have a non-conspiracy theory source for that? I tried googling but the only people I found saying it where absolute nut jobs. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I thought of Armin Krishnan's book WP:CITED in the article, but seen the above replies, I think he felt prey to the conspiracy theory. Beforehand, I thought he knows what he is speaking about. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I think thats the case... Krishnan cites Robert Chandler's book Shadow World for the claim. Shadow World is one of the foundational texts in the "Obama is a foreign born marxist Trojan horse" genera of conspiracy nonsense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk

Hardly worth inclusion but I thought I'd note it here anyways, Charlie Kirk recently made the claim that Jewish people were the ones primarily funding cultural Marxism, and that it's backfired by leading generations of Americans to view things through the lens of Oppressor vs Oppressed, or Good guy/Bad guy... and that this has resulted in the left being against Israel wanting to do a genocide. Anyways, the clip is here (via Media Matters). I don't really see it as noteworthy enough for inclusion, and it would be hard to find a place for it in the article. Just thought I'd live the link here anyways. 124.170.173.183 (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you IP, your comment is exactly what should have been done. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

He's very clearly talking about Jewish people funding left idpol ("everything through an oppressor, oppressed lens"). If he had said "backfired" that would be compelling evidence that he doesn't see it as a conspiracy, but instead that he sees it as good faith activism for misguided policies, but I think he isn't being 100% clear that this is his point. (I think it is his point, but he simply isn't being super explicit here.) Anyway all for naught, as you note this probably isn't noteworthy enough and the analysis I give here would need sources one way or the other for inclusion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation of what he said. So the Jews are funding the promotion of policies that threaten your livelihood, your country, your family, your religion, but they mean well. Good thing he didn't say they were doing this maliciously or it might have made his viewers mad at them.

Anyway, unless Kirk's speech receives widespread ongoing attention, it's undue for the article.

TFD (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, whatever political policies you don't like you probably think they are bad for your country and so on. (If anything he's claiming here that CM itself is a conspiracy to harm Jews, which is sort of the opposite of what the lede says.) Anyway you're right about undue, and who cares about our analysis of Kirk, so I'll say no more about it unless I (or someone else) finds a good source. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Kirk did not say that CM was "a conspiracy to harm Jews," but that during the current war it had become a consequence. I assume he meant an unintended consequence.

Also, people don't assume policies are bad for them and others because they don't like them, they don't like them because they believe they will be bad for them and others. TFD (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thats not true, people do in fact assume policies are bad for them and others because they don't like them... Its not super rational but since when has public perception of policy been rational? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I cannot think of any policies people dislike but don't think they are bad for them. Do you have any examples? TFD (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Obamacare is a good modern example, a lot of the people it would benefit most assumed that it was bad for them based on name alone. They didn't like Obama so they opposed the policy with his name on it (even if it didn't really have his name on it), often while admitting that it would objectively benefit them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Psychology Today article says this article can be interpreted as propaganda

[5]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, [6], 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.[7] 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)

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)

2024-01 oppressors versus oppressed

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)