Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

I. Antisemitism insinuations, II. Contemporary use

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.

---

Association fallacy

There have been instances of antisemitic insinuations in at least one BLP of a notable person who has used the term but is not known to hold antisemitic views. Currently, the term 'Cultural Marxism' does not have its own page but redirects to this one, creating a strong implication that any person using the term is an antisemite. This implication is further emphasized by the Antisemitism sidebar. The association fallacy is dangerous and goes against WP:BLP, especially with such a highly charged label as antisemitism. I am including a well-sourced and carefully crafted statement in the lede to delineate the contemporary linguistic use of the term that is not antisemitic. This addition does not negate historical instances or potential occurrences of antisemitic use.

If there are concerns about WP:DUE, please consider the OED source as a primary authority on the English language. Their entry was last updated in July 2023, presumably reflecting contemporary usage better than any other listed source of our page. Given the politically charged nature of the term, and with many people with strong viewpoints likely watching, do not reverse the lede before discussing it here.

Additionally, we could set up the Cultural Marxism (disambiguation) page and link it to this page, considering that the contemporary use and the meaning of the term have grown and changed. I will support this move if there is backing from other editors. Currently, a false equivalency is being made between the terms Cultural Marxism and Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Clearly, the terms are linked, but what is being described in the OED is VERY different from the focus of this page. Here's another source that speaks to contemporary usage: How ‘cultural Marxism’ and ‘critical race theory’ became dangerously misunderstood. XMcan (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

We cannot use a dictionary and a newspaper opinion article to under cut the higher quality sources we are currently citing, particularly not when the OED is waffling about its own definition by including stuff like Owing to the term's history, such use is often regarded as controversial. MrOllie (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

PS: WP:CANVASSING ([1], [2], [3] and at Talk:Ben Shapiro) is always a bad idea. MrOllie (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

You reverted my lede edit. Let's also note that you opposed my changes on the Lindsay page until other senior editors became involved. XMcan (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why you’re lecturing a respected editor who’s been contributing continuously since 2008 about “seniority”. Dronebogus (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

While existing sources include Socialist and Marxist journals, I am not attempting to minimize their authority in discussions on the 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.' I do assert that the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is a higher quality source for understanding the current linguistic use of the term 'Cultural Marxism.' Since the Cultural Marxism redirects to this page, and the introduction specifically defines the use of the CM as a term, the OED remains a highly relevant source (despite my edit being reversed and thus OED removed as a source). XMcan (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

A dictionary is not a quality source on political science. It’s at the same tertiary non-specialist level as another encyclopedia. The relevance of linguistics to this article is negligible and making it about the meaning of a term, rather than the idea the term usually describes is arguing semantics and WP:UNDUE weight. Dronebogus (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

What other article would even be linked to at this proposed disambiguation page? CAVincent (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

That's open to debate, but the disambiguation page should provide a definition closer to the current use of the term CM, and the OED is an authority in that regard. Currently, we are equating everyone using the term CM with CM conspiracy theorists, who are conflated with CM conspiracy theorists that are antisemitic. This is a double association fallacy and is being used as a political weapon. XMcan (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

“The dictionary definition” is itself a fallacy. The OED is one of the leading authorities on the use of the English Language, not the one and only world authority on political science like you’re seemingly suggesting. You’re essentially suggesting a Wikipedia:POV fork based on your claimed definition that’s sourced to a dictionary definition and an op-ed. Dronebogus (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This was at the bottom of the lede before MrOllie reverted it:

While the term "Cultural Marxism" has origins in anti-Semitic belief, nowadays it is also used in a broader context to criticize perceived left-wing bias, including by Ben Shapiro, David Horowitz, and other Jewish right-wing commentators.

XMcan (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro, a right-wing talking head with no expertise on anything, who promotes non-issues like gender-neutral bathrooms or Shakira and J Lo shaking their butts at the Super Bowl as controversies, is not a reliable source on cultural marxism and an even worse source than the others. Do you have expert academic sources for your claims? Dronebogus (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I won’t even begin to explain why Horowitz is a joke, but creating academic hit-lists seems like a good place to start. Tl;dr some Jews being crazy enough to fall for antisemitic conspiracy theories is not evidence they aren’t antisemitic. Dronebogus (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It must take quite a bit of mental gymnastics to accuse a Jewish person of being antisemitic. XMcan (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It happens so much there's a term for it: Self-hating Jew. MrOllie (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that Ben Shapiro are David Horowitz are antisemites? XMcan (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

«It must take quite a bit of mental gymnastics to accuse a Jewish person of being antisemitic» => No cf.

• Association of German National Jews
• Yair Netanyahu relayed an antisemite drawing in 2017
• Nephew of Shoah denier Robert Faurisson rejoin the political campaign team of Éric Zemmour who is jewish
• famous jewish historian Robert S. Wistrich endorsed [4] a far-right conspiracytheory very similar to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion [5] wikidata:Q55653370
• American Far-right conspiracy theorist ostracised by followers after they found out he was Jewish
• Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany
• Ben Shapiro having a same-sex spouse while helping homophobia
• r/LeopardsAteMyFace
• House Negro
• wikidata:Q111207308

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's not be feeding the troll here. If there is anything productive we can glean from this nonsense it is that maybe this article should have a FAQ in order to pre-empt such timewasting threads. It would be nice to just be able to tap the sign and move on whenever this happens. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreeing with DanielRigal, both on the likely usefulness of a FAQ, and the lack of productivity in this thread at this point. CAVincent (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

a false equivalency is being made between the terms Cultural Marxism and Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. That is a concise summary of what is wrong with the lede. Sennalen (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a page for Marxist analysis of culture, it is the Marxist cultural analysis page. This is the page for the conspiracy theory; The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory... and as explained above, people of any race can either knowingly or unknowingly use conspiracy theorist thinking and language, even if their particular ethnicity or race is negatively targeted by the prevalent usage.

This diff [6] provides a variety of sources which explain the ties to antisemitism, using various academic sources and quotes.

The term "Cultural Marxism" in reference to the conspiracy theory about The Frankfurt School has a lot of white nationalist baggage because a conservative think tank in 2002 paid to have it be promoted at a holocaust denial conference. Lind wrote in 2000;

"Paul Weyrich has several times referred to “cultural Marxism.” He asked me, as Free Congress Foundation’s resident historian, to write this column explaining what cultural Marxism is..."

William S. Lind came up with "Cultural Marxism" as a conspiracy theory narrative about The Frankfurt School, and in 2002 was paid by The Free Congress Foundation (a conservative think tank) to give a lecture about his theory at a Holocaust Denial conference. The Free Congress Foundation claims this was a form of outreach to many different groups on an issue by issue basis. In the lecture Lind made sure to mention that The Frankfurt School "were all Jewish" ...and part of the lecture was about them working for Hollywood (which is misinformation), as well as being the source of America's supposed degeneration.

Subsequently by 2010 The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory was a common topic on the White Nationalist forum StormFront.org, and by 2014 had spread to 4chan's neo-Nazi threads. Which is how it became part of alt-right doctrine. This was its pathway to being mainstream right wing and conservative ideology. Hitler had a similar idea he called Cultural Bolshevism. The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is essentially about a small group of foreign Jews coming to America with a plan to destroy western civilization (and in some versions, Christianity) by taking over the media, academia and politics. The Frankfurt School had no such plan, and in fact, were warning against mass media, which they considered to be a type of commercial propaganda, they called it The Culture Industry (today known as mainstream media). Frankfurt theorist Theodor W. Adorno writes more about this in his essay here. They were also Jewish refugees, fleeing from the social collapse of WW2 (rather than seeking to destroy their host country).

What's more identity politics was NOT created by The Frankfurt School, and is instead a home grown American theory. It was created by two black American women, Barbara Smith, and Kimberle Crenshaw.

The same person who founded The Free Congress Foundation, and paid William S. Lind to come up with his theory and spread it at a holocaust denial conference (Paul Weyrich), also founded The Heritage Foundation (another conservative think tank), which today still spreads the conspiracy theory.

There's a myriad of antisemitic imagery on the conspiracy theory's Know Your Meme page here. Some versions of the conspiracy theory go as far as to suggest The Frankfurt School were Satanists, as per this essay, others merely claim they were doing 'the work' of Satanists (note, that link is from The National Review, one of the most influential conservative magazines). There's a very strange claim that one theorist (Adorno) was trained by The Tavistock Institute to write music for The Beatles, in order to create mass environmental social turbulences, the conservative website Breitbart put their own spin on this claim saying "Theodor Adorno promoted degenerate atonal music to induce mental illness, including necrophilia, on a large scale."... and of course Lind has his previously mentioned claims that The Frankfurt School had sway over Hollywood, and used that sway to put gays on Television.

This all reads a bit like Hitler's degenerate art theory (the idea that Jews and Communists were ruining Germany by purposefully ruining Germany's culture), or Cultural Bolshevism, and Lind has indeed stated that he believes the conspiracy has its origins in 1918 Germany.

So - the claim that Cultural Marxists are somehow in charge of - or ruining culture, has it's antisemitic side, and there is no evidence that any recent progressive political movements in the areas of trans rights, gay rights, feminism, or black civil rights are part of a plot to destroy America or Christianity. Likewise, the conspiracy theory at its base, and via its method of spread and usage has antisemitic meanings, tone, context, and aspects written into it.

Wikipedia is not responsible for the fact that the conspiracy theory spread falsehoods about Jewish theorists controlling Hollywood. Nor are we responsible for the fact it was initially spread at a holocaust denial conference (in 2002), or that it made its way to Stormfront (2010) and 4chan (2014). Nor is Wikipedia responsible for the antisemitic imagery associated with the conspiracy theory, or the claims that these German-Jewish theorists were Satanists or working for Satan. Or that they could somehow induce necrophilia. These claims are all historical, and part of the events that spread the conspiracy theory. Nor are we responsible for the obvious parallels with Hitlerian thought.... but these things do exist as part of the terms current usage and historical development, and so academics have described these things, and so Wikipedia uses those sources and adopts that viewpoint (aka the prevalent usage in reliable academic sources, see the diff mentioned earlier for details). Also see WP:NOTDICT. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that a) some conservative forums still carry a "lite" version of this conspiracy, targeted now only at "liberal jews" [7], and b) that the previous version of the "Cultural Marxism" wikipedia page (prior to its correction) only used 3 sources that were actually found to contain the term explicitly, and 2 of those 3 sources were from a single author. Wikipedia will sometimes find pages which are predominantly WP:OR or poorly sourced, and it just so happens that one was tied into a rapidly popularizing conspiracy theory. That said OP is welcome to attempt an RfC on creating a disambig. between Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and Marxist cultural analysis. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The appropriate disambiguation target would be Western Marxism, which is a synonym for cultural Marxism.[8] Sennalen (talk) 06:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

That suggestion has already been knocked down by consensus because it includes SO MANY people who either aren't seen as Marxist, or aren't considered to be culturally Marxist, or changed their philosophies over time, or aren't from The Frankfurt School and don't adhere to any academic source's mention of "cultural Marxism". So it's obviously not a candidate for a disambig ABOUT "cultural Marxism" - you can't just use this to further muddy the waters. No, the appropriate disambig (should the consensus go that way) would be between Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, and Marxist cultural analysis. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Removed the idea of an RfC as other editors have noted that there's canvassing going on. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

«Currently, the term 'Cultural Marxism' does not have its own page but redirects to this one, creating a strong implication that any person using the term is an antisemite.» => The Cultural Marxism narrative is labelled as antisemite since no later than 2003 cf. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching so if those persons do not want to be associated with antisemitism, then they can just not endorse the Cultural Marxism narrative. This is their problem/duty/responsability, not Wikipedia's problem/duty/responsability. Also WP:BLP is already limiting the level of criticism toward those persons in the Wikipedia's articles about them. But if a reader of Wikipedia's articles about Engelbert Dollfuss move to linked pages such Category:Far-right politics in Austria, Category:Far-right politics in Europe, end at The Holocaust, receive the false impression that Engelbert Dollfuss was somewhat involved in the The Holocaust (which is not the case since he was murdered by the Nazis many years before) thus is a bad man, then it is not Wikipedia's responsability. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

From this article you linked

"Not everyone who uses the cultural Marxism construct sees Jews in general at the center of the plot. But a 1998 book by California State University-Long Beach evolutionary biologist Kevin MacDonald — one of just two witnesses to testify on behalf of Holocaust denier David Irving in a famous 2000 libel trial — makes plain that Jews in general are implicated in what is seen as an attack on the West.

In The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Social Movements, MacDonald says that while all Jews are not guilty, the movements he attacks are indeed "Jewishly motivated.""

It is easy to make the conclude from (rhetoric suggesting antisemitic trope) + (rhetoric implicating Jewish academics) that belief in the conspiracy is always antisemitic.

However, by what you linked, not all instances of belief in the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory were antisemitic, certainly not overtly. However, many who do believe the conspiracy theory seem to link it to other conspiracies which have implicated Jews in the past.

Antisemitism/Jews are implicated enough to be noteworthy. I do, however, think the sidebar is overdoing it given that the association of the conspiracy theory and antisemitism are debated and this debate is rather documented. I am a Leaf (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Returning to the main point, which is that Wikipedia’s definition of “Cultural Marxism” differs significantly from the OED’s definition, in both tone and substance. Let’s compare the two definitions, side by side:

Wikipedia: 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.

Oxford English Dictionary: Used depreciatively, chiefly among right-wing commentators: a political agenda advocating radical social reform, said to be promoted within western cultural institutions by liberal or left-wing ideologues intent on eroding traditional social values and imposing a dogmatic form of progressivism on society. Later also more generally: a perceived left-wing bias in social or cultural institutions, characterized as doctrinaire and pernicious.

Wikipedia definition characterizes "Cultural Marxism" as a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory, whereas the OED definition focuses more on its usage and perception by right-wing commentators. This is a significant difference in how the term is framed. Are we going to ignore this completely? XMcan (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. We do not use the dictionary as a reliable source. Drop that argument, it's not going to get you anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS doesn't say anything about dictionaries except links to WP:DICTS. The latter page clearly states OED is not only allowed but is one of few preferred sources for English language use. XMcan (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no such policy. There are limitations to tertiary sources, but it is highly context dependent. Sennalen (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It was already addressed earlier by MrOllie; "We cannot use a dictionary and a newspaper opinion article to under cut the higher quality sources we are currently citing". We can't just assume a source is reliable or knows what it's on about, that's the whole point of Academic sources being so high in the WP:RS pyramid. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 14.202.44.246 (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

None of the high quality sources make the fundamental error of equivocating between "cultural Marxism" and "cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" Sennalen (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It is interesting that Woke mentions the 'Oxford English Dictionary' by its full name three times, including in the lede, and references it as a source 10 other times in the article text. Yet you would deny it as a source here, even a single reference? XMcan (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Because much better references already cover the topic. A dictionary quote does nothing to improve the article. You keep acting like a dictionary overrides everything else, when dictionaries are not the authoritative sources on a topic such as this. If you keep flogging this topic against consensus, you're just going to be wasting everyone's time. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The works of The Frankfurt School philosophers, Social Studies, Marxism, Critical Theory, and where The Conspiracy Theory gets their elements wrong enough to call it a conspiracy theory are specialty topics in comparison to the general usage of "woke". Woke doesn't directly refer to specific areas of study/academia/knowledge in the same way. Which is probably why the page for woke has a picture of someone holding a T-shirt with the term on it, and we have the sidebar for antisemitism 14.202.44.246 (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

In fact, the terms 'woke' and 'cultural Marxism' have a lot in common linguistically. Both terms have been co-opted by political movements and were relatively recently added to the OED, with 'woke' making its entry in 2017 and 'cultural Marxism' in 2021. XMcan (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

From the OED's usage:

"said to be promoted within western cultural institutions by liberal or left-wing ideologues intent on eroding traditional social values and imposing a dogmatic form of progressivism on society." [emphasis added]

Much like the moonlandings are said to be fake, and the earth is said to be flat. It looks a lot like they wanted to call it a conspiracy theory without saying so directly - and so they sat on the fence in terms of language. At any rate, it's a flimsy source that doesn't warrant making any changes to the article. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The OED excerpt is an excellent example of a neutral point of view framing, something that we should all aspire to as encyclopedia editors. Thank you for the emphasis. XMcan (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

You’re completely missing the point of IP’s statement— that we are not using the damned OED source now or ever because it is not a good source for whatever you’re trying to use it for, and twisting it into some weird argument for the ever-popular “NPOV means you have to whitewash controversial articles” myth. Drop this argument, please. There’s a huge consensus against it. Dronebogus (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, enough with the canvassing already. Trying to drag uninvolved users into a debate you’re clearly losing in order to bolster your legitimacy/get better arguments is unacceptable. Dronebogus (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we want to dignify this thread by calling it a "debate" or to encourage adversarial thinking by suggesting that anybody can "win" or "lose". All I see here is a disruptive thread rehashing long settled issues and wasting everybody's time. There are no winners and the loser is Wikipedia itself.

As I see it, there are two options here. Somebody can roll the thread up as a disruptive rehash of previous discussions and we can all just stop, or those advocating for a change can start an RfC on whatever specific change they are actually advocating for.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that such an RfC is necessary to decide any actual undecided issues. It sounds like it covers no new ground and would have a 0% chance of success given the strong existing consensus. Nonetheless, it would impose a time limited, structured framework for bringing this matter to a definitive close with a clearly documented outcome which would discourage future attempts to relitigate the same issue. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I really don’t understand the need for an RfC for a single user’s disruption. I suggest the disruptive user is blocked, at least from this page (but a general block is likely necessary due to jumping around canvassing and targeting other users). Dronebogus (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Break

XMcan brings a useful and timely observation, Currently, a false equivalency is being made between the terms Cultural Marxism and Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. That is the problem to be solved. The limits of OED as a tertiary source are a tangential matter. Fortunately, there are lots of other sources in the article establishing that "cultural Marxism" historically was a value-neutral phrase denoting Western Marxism or the Frankfurt School, and still can be.

There is a curious phenomenon where some editors will readily acknowledge that there is a legitimate use of "cultural Marxism" when it comes to the disambiguation hatnote, but suddenly act like this is an unprecedented pro-fringe idea when it comes to text. Editors will from one side of their mouth decry that we are not following the best academic sources, and from the other side of the mouth, FORUM at length about something a Vox columnist read on Stormfront. It is time for that to end, and to bring the lede into alignment with the WP:BESTSOURCES and the body text.

MOS:OPEN says:

• The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.
• If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence
• If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition
• Avoid constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject.
• Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

The current first sentence, 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. falls afoul of all these recommendations. It is possible to ignore the guidance with good reasons, but no reasons have been provided.

As a replacement, I suggest that the first sentence becomes Cultural Marxism conspiracy theories are unfounded claims about the Frankfurt School and Western Marxism, particularly among United States political conservatives since the 1990s.

This conforms to all of the listed recommendations of MOS:OPEN. The details of exactly what those claims are, and the extent to which they are antisemitic, should be left to follow-on sentences. This framing is derived from the "Background" and "Conspiracy theories" article sections, as should be the case for lede text. There is an abundance of citations from which to choose representative examples, for those who feel the lede needs them. Sennalen (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• I reiterate my concern that you should start a new thread. Maybe Xmcan makes a legitimate point here but you shouldn’t give them too much credit considering they want to use Ben Shapiro and a dictionary definition with near-equal weight to, like, actual sources by academic experts (not to mention “broken clocks being right twice a day”), and has used both canvassing and bludgeoning to push this extremely ill-informed viewpoint. Dronebogus (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's not worry about that. At least we have a sensible proposal to discuss now so let's put all the other stuff behind us and just do that. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Editors will from one side of their mouth decry that we are not following the best academic sources, and from the other side of the mouth, FORUM at length about something a Vox columnist read on Stormfront. Probably because the Vox columnist is discussing the CONSPIRACY THEORY usage, where as you're intent on inserting your own undue original research and claiming it's "academic" because you have a single entry in an online dictionary as your source. Well no, that's not a due source for your manufactured claims.

This goes back to the reason the page's content was moved and the previous title salted in the first place, which you can find confirmation of in the 2nd AfD on the matter - namely that the "academic" usage wasn't unified, notable, or specific enough to manufacture a page out of it. It was a generalized term; cultural Marxism (only appearing capitalized in the titles of some works). It's two ideas put together, as in "What would the culture of Marxism" look like, or "can we discuss what a culture of Marxism is?" - but never "This is Academic Cultural Marxism, this definition is widely understood and notable". It was a niche and seldom used or understood term, which came up in a general sense, not a technical or widely established sense. Which is why the Marxist Cultural Analysis page focuses on Marxist cultural analysis rather than any specifically defined term or widely discussed school of Marxism.

MOS, or Manual of Style, is - as the name suggests - a STYLE guide. It is not a policy recommendation beyond being a style guide... but still, lines like "If its subject is definable", and "If possible", back up my above arguments.

This is a question of CONTENT, not STYLE... and on that point, your continual efforts to combine the conspiracy theory usage and the more general/rare usage, have already been noted. You have a specific philosophical approach you're attempting to push here as expressed in your "write the infinite article" essay. It's pro-merging topics. Your essay is thus tagged with a warning because it is not policy, and is very permissive to Original Research (the kind you're attempting to insert).

You may repeatedly raise Western Marxism as an appropriate target for disambiguation; but we've already discussed that, it's already been rejected by consensus, and I've mentioned this to you above. Western Marxism is a page that includes STRUCTURAL MARXISTS here's a quote from the page:

..."the structural Marxism of Louis Althusser, which attempts to purge Marxism of Hegelianism and humanism, also belongs to Western Marxism, as does the anti-Hegelianism of Galvano Della Volpe. Althusser holds that Marx's primary philosophical antecedent is not Hegel or Feuerbach but Baruch Spinoza..." [emphasis added]

To recap; style is not content, structural Marxism is not cultural Marxism, your essay is not policy, and this page will not allow Original Research that has the aim of muddying the waters. Nor will its disambig if there ever is one.

On that last point, it's been raised that editors have been canvassing opinions on talk pages favorable to their (apparently right of center) position, so an RfC seems unlikely at this point... having an RfC, or even changing the lead based on a single short entry in an online dictionary, and backed up by the style guide... is ridiculous. What's more even that single short entry can be read as supporting the current wording. There's simply no real case for pursuing this further. Your complaints about editors discussing the conspiracy theory usage, on this page, which is about the conspiracy theory usage, don't make a lot of sense. Nor does your desire to manufacture an academic definition from an online dictionary in order to merge that newly manufactured WP:OR with the article's content. Please WP:LISTEN, cease, and back away from the WP:deadhorse.

The consensus is that there's the conspiracy theory usage (which this page concerns), and then there's two words put together, to mean something along the lines of "Marxist cultural analysis" (which has its own page). Please listen to the consensus, and understand which topic each talk page aims to address. These two concepts are kept separate for a reason. We're no more aiming to "inhabit the conspiracy theory" here, than we are to merge it with some general concept of Marxism. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see a big problem with the current wording. If somebody says "Cultural Marxism" in the 21st century then they are >98% likely to be talking about the subject of this article. The other uses are minor and well in the past. I also don't think that the proposed change is going to stop all the kvetching either. Nothing short of deleting the article, or replacing it with content affirming the conspiracy theory, will appease the kvetchers.

That said, if the new wording is an improvement in terms of clarity, and if it solves some perceived problems, then that's a good thing independent of anything else. I'm in favour of the general shape of the proposal. My specific concerns with the proposed wording are as follows:

1. Should we name the United States explicitly when the most influential proponent of the term, with all its conspiratorial implications, who to springs to my (British) mind is Canadian? Maybe "North American" or "English speaking" would be better?
2. Do we really want to pluralise "theories"? Are there really a set of distinct conspiracy theories or just minor variants on a single conspiracy theory? Qanon, for example, is described as singular despite being a far more disparate collection of nutty beliefs than "Cultural Marxism", which has a more stable core.

So, maybe we might need to tweak the proposal a little bit to get it exactly right but I'm sure that is doable. I think that we are finally heading in the right direction. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Is Cultural Marxism really a centralized thing or is it just “everything conservatives don’t like”, grown out of a core conspiracy theory about Jewish intelligentsia undermining society from within or whatever? Dronebogus (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it really is plural then? I'm not sure which is the better way to describe it. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

References

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.

Better justification needed for why this is part of the "antisemitism" series

The article does a fine job of explaining its stated topic: Cultural Marxism. But the body of the article does not justify why this qualifies as an antisemitic conspiracy theory specifically.

To my reading, the closest it gets to justifying it as antisemitic is to say "some people who have said things deemed antisemitic in the past have also espoused this conspiracy theory" (but the pitfalls in this logic are obvious. I'd assume those people have also "espoused the theory of gravity", which does not make gravity antisemitic).

Further, simply stating that this conspiracy theory is similar to Jewish Bolshevism does not justify its inclusion in the antisemitism series.

Suggestions to improve the justification: Cite sources where proponents of the Cultural Marxism theory directly connect it to Jews or antisemitism. Vinney (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I think perhaps you missed the section in the body of the article titled 'Antisemitism'. MrOllie (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

OP raises the issue that has been brought up over and over again. If editors think they can bury their heads in the sand and ignore it, they are going to be rudely awakened over and over again. XMcan (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't really know how we can do more to help people find the text, it already has a giant section header that says Antisemitism. MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@XMcan: Since you undid my close, I'm going to call this out:

This issue has never been adjudicated is just flatly untrue. Read through the Archives. Read the damn article. It is clearly spelled out that this has been documented. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we need a FAQ. These "questions" get asked over and over, and not always by the same person. It would be nice to have a big sign at the top of the page so we can just tap the sign and move on. Otherwise people will never stop demanding that we WP:SATISFY them. DanielRigal (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

We already have one. It's even in the headers. Maybe we need to make it more prominent, but yes, this section should have remained closed as it's well documented & discussed already. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The FAQ wasn't present on the talk page. I've added it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, thank you for that then. I thought it was already there, but at least it is now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realise we already had one. That's an easier fix than I expected. DanielRigal (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The answers in the "FAQ" are without exception wrong or oversimplified. The reliable sources that we use in the article describe instances of the conspiracy theory that are anti-Semitic, some that are not, and some whose antisemitism is a matter of dispute. I think Jamin says the most on that question. Jay certainly touches on it as well. There's no question that anti-Semitism is a significant part of this topic, but there's no excuse for being sloppy with the accusation. Sennalen (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

It's somewhat well known that antisemites will obscure the fact that they are antisemitic... it's often "The Globalists" or "The Illuminati" or "Banking Cartels" that are used as placeholders. But Lind giving a lecture on the topic to a Holocaust denial conference for The Barnes Review is fairly overt. Even if he does say he himself that he's not there to deny the Holocaust, it's still the case that he's there - at an obviously questionable conference (one full of people who are likely not to respect Jewish ethnic groups) - in order to say a small crack team of Jewish theorists - The Frankfurt School - have plotted and carried out the destruction of Western Christian Traditional lifestyles on behalf of Karl Marx.

I think here we have license to say the theory is antisemitic, but we don't have license to say that any of the proponents are antisemitic unless it's made fairly obvious by them. The theory thus has its own history, in which it was INTENTIONALLY popularized among antisemitic groups and communities. So that would be my view, that we respect WP:BLP and focus on the ties to antisemitism that the theory has, not anyone named as a proponent or progenitor of the theory, but more the usages, history, imagery, spread, and associations of the theory. 60.241.181.126 (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

There should be universal agreement that the conspiracy theory has been promoted by anti-Semites for anti-Semitic ends. That's a more responsible statement than saying it is an anti-Semitic theory, per se - especially since it is not just one canonical theory but a range of different views. Sennalen (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that that's the more responsible statement. 60.241.181.126 (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the IP on this one. See my proposal in the lede thread. XMcan (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The assertion that CMCTs are always employed for anti-Semitic purposes carries adverse implications for all BLPs associated with a CMCT. This is a problem. XMcan (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

CopyPasta - I choose you!

This talk page diff [9] provides a variety of Academic sources which explain the ties to antisemitism, using various academic sources and quotes (go there for references).

The term "Cultural Marxism" in reference to the conspiracy theory about The Frankfurt School has a lot of white nationalist baggage because a conservative think tank in 2002 paid to have it be promoted at a holocaust denial conference. Lind wrote in 2000;

"Paul Weyrich has several times referred to “cultural Marxism.” He asked me, as Free Congress Foundation’s resident historian, to write this column explaining what cultural Marxism is..."

William S. Lind came up with "Cultural Marxism" as a conspiracy theory narrative about The Frankfurt School, and in 2002 was paid by The Free Congress Foundation (a conservative think tank) to give a lecture about his theory at a Holocaust Denial conference for the Barnes Review. The Free Congress Foundation claims this was a form of outreach to many different groups on an issue by issue basis. In the lecture Lind made sure to mention that The Frankfurt School "were all Jewish" ...and part of the lecture was about them working for Hollywood (which is misinformation), as well as being the source of America's supposed degeneration.

Subsequently by 2010 The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory was a common topic on the White Nationalist forum StormFront.org, and by 2014 had spread to 4chan's neo-Nazi threads. Which is how it became part of alt-right doctrine. This was its pathway to being mainstream right wing and conservative ideology.

Hitler had a similar idea he called Cultural Bolshevism. The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is essentially about a small group of foreign Jews coming to America with a plan to destroy western civilization (and in some versions, Christianity) by taking over the media, academia and politics. The Frankfurt School had no such plan, and in fact, were warning against mass media, which they considered to be a type of commercial propaganda, they called it The Culture Industry (today known as mainstream media). Frankfurt theorist Theodor W. Adorno writes more about this in his essay here. They were also Jewish refugees, fleeing from the social collapse of WW2 (rather than seeking to destroy their host country).

What's more identity politics was NOT created by The Frankfurt School, and is instead a home grown American theory. It was created by two black American women, Barbara Smith, and Kimberle Crenshaw.

The same person who founded The Free Congress Foundation, and paid William S. Lind to come up with his theory and spread it at a holocaust denial conference (Paul Weyrich), also founded The Heritage Foundation (another conservative think tank), which today still spreads the conspiracy theory.

There's a myriad of antisemitic imagery on the conspiracy theory's Know Your Meme page here. Some versions of the conspiracy theory go as far as to suggest The Frankfurt School were Jewish "Kabbalah" Satanists, as per this essay, others merely claim they were doing 'the work' of Satanists (note, that link is from The National Review, one of the most influential conservative magazines). There's a very strange claim that one theorist (Adorno) was trained by The Tavistock Institute to write music for The Beatles, in order to create mass environmental social turbulences, the conservative website Breitbart put their own spin on this claim saying "Theodor Adorno promoted degenerate atonal music to induce mental illness, including necrophilia, on a large scale."... and of course Lind has his previously mentioned claims that The Frankfurt School had sway over Hollywood, and used that sway to put gays on Television.

This all reads a bit like Hitler's degenerate art theory (the idea that Jews and Communists were ruining Germany by purposefully ruining Germany's culture), or Cultural Bolshevism, and Lind has indeed stated that he believes the conspiracy has its origins in 1918 Germany.

So - the claim that Cultural Marxists are somehow in charge of - or ruining culture, has it's antisemitic side, and there is no evidence that any recent progressive political movements in the areas of trans rights, gay rights, feminism, or black civil rights are part of a plot to destroy America or Christianity. Likewise, the conspiracy theory at its base, and via its method of spread and usage has antisemitic meanings, tone, context, and aspects written into it.

Wikipedia is not responsible for the fact that the conspiracy theory spread falsehoods about Jewish theorists controlling Hollywood. Nor are we responsible for the fact it was initially spread at a holocaust denial conference (in 2002), or that it made its way to Stormfront (2010) and 4chan (2014). Nor is Wikipedia responsible for the antisemitic imagery associated with the conspiracy theory, or the claims that these German-Jewish theorists were Satanists or working for Satan. Or that they could somehow induce necrophilia. These claims are all historical, and part of the events that spread the conspiracy theory. Nor are we responsible for the obvious parallels with Hitlerian thought.... but these things do exist as part of the terms current usage and historical development, and so academics have described these things, and so Wikipedia uses those sources and adopts that viewpoint (aka the prevalent usage in reliable academic sources, see the diff mentioned earlier for specific references). 60.241.181.126 (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Lazlo Pasztor an actual "Nazi" employed by The Free Congress Foundation?

I've found 3 sources claiming that The Free Congress Foundation employed an actual "war criminal" and Nazi (a Hungarian man named Lazlo Pasztor), who appears in their documentary "The Origins of Cultural Marxism". Those sources are Martin Jay (considered to be the main historian of The Frankfurt School), here [10], archived here [11], FAIR, the national media watch group, here [12], archived here [13], and The Huffington Post, here [14], and archived here [15].

Pasztor appears at 2:37 of The Free Congress Foundation's video, here [16].

The Martin Jay source contextualizes Lazlo Pasztor as having been outed as a member of the "Arrow Cross" aka The Arrow Cross Party a short lived Hungarian government (1944-45) that executed between 10,000 and 15,000 Jewish and Romani people. The Huffington Post source confirms this information, both sources say this outing happened in 1988 because quite a few similar individuals were found to be on the Republican National Committee (including Lazlo Pasztor).

Likewise, the source from FAIR, a national media watchdog group, also notes that Paul Weyrich's Heritage Foundation included some seemingly very racist people (such as Roger Pearson, yet another of Weyrich's friends who is said to have run antisemitic conferences). FAIR describes Lazlo Pasztor as a "Convicted Nazi war criminal" (he did spend some of the war years in Germany) who worked in the FCF Washington office. Pasztor has denied any involvement in the antisemtic aspects of the Arrow Cross Party. [17], Lazlo Pasztor died in 2015, still claiming the Arrow Cross Party was a revolutionary organization focused on fighting for freedom and universal justice, despite the organizations focus on racial purity, and their related atrocities being well documented. 08:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC) 60.241.181.126 (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This Encyclopedia Britannica article on the head of the Arrow Cross Party, Ferenc Szálasi, [18] notes his long standing participation in racial organizations and programs, at times aided by Germany. It also notes the Arrow Cross Party's cooperation with the Nazi's campaign of genocide. 60.241.181.126 (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like it would be due a mention in the paragraph about the FCF video. Sennalen (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Ahistorical approach to Cultural Marxism that is both too broad and too narrow

This article is flawed in many ways but probably the least debatable is that it is an ahistorical understanding of the intellectual or pseudo-intellectual development of the right.

The idea that Marxist ideas were penetrating American institutions and undermining traditional american cultural values is a relatively consistent theme in the American conservative tradition (and most conservative traditions) going back at least as far as the first red scare and probably as far back past the 1890s and shares a great deal of political, cultural and intellectual continuity with itself and should be considered the same phenomena. Cultural Marxism like the Red Scare is not primarily an anti-semitic conspiracy theory as much as its motivated by ideological anti-communism which united and still unites a relatively diverse range of ideological actors who hold substantially different views from one and another some of which are anti-semitic. This is true in the same sense that criticism of Wall Street brings together an ideologically diverse coalition some of which is avowedly anti-semitic, some of which is conspiratorial and some of which is neither. The specific formulation of cultural Marxism being related to the Frankfurt school should be understood either as a separate conspiracy to cultural marxism or as an element or specific hypothesis to a larger theory. It should also be noted that the Frankfurt School theory since about 2018-2020 has exited the fringe-right and is now a widespread belief among American conservatives and even prior to that it had some play with non-marginal conservative intellectuals that in some cases pre-dates its adoption by fringe-right groups.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41035372

9876andoP (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory was copied from Nazi ideology, rather than earlier U.S. red scares. Incidentally, the First Red Scare and similar events were also anti-Semitic. Palmer for example blamed a "small clique of outcasts from the East Side of New York" (i.e., Jews) for attempting to overthrow the U.S. government. TFD (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)