Talk:Marxist cultural analysis

Projects and notices

I hope someone else will set up this Talk page appropriately, and add appropriate projects and notices. Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate if someone could set up this Talk page with appropriate notices and projects; I don't know how to do it! Not that I "created" the article - just the Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

More recent developments section

I recognize that this edit removed - along with lots of dreck and misleading claims - some relevant sources. I don't have any problem with the section being expanded and some of the sources added back in, with the proviso that misleading claims (such as the use made of Jameson, 2007, which made a complete hash of the source) and COATRACK elements (such as the prior discussion of media literacy) be avoided. Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Section on the conspiracy theory

We have a section on the conspiracy theory, which has its own article. I am troubled by the assumption of anti-Semitism. Now, as far as I can tell there is no definitive version of the theory about (there is no shadowy organisation organising it!) so there would have to be a solid, fundamental element to call it that. There are Anti-Semites who cling to the theory; all conspiracies attract them. However anti-Semitism Anti-Semitism is a serious charge and so we are accusing a lot of people.

If we take the Holocaust Memorial Trust's definition of Anti-Semitism, what element of the concept is within that? As far as I can see, no element of the theory (if I understand it correctly) has any reference to Jewish people. Anti-Semites will have their own version and mix it up with bits of the Protocol of the Elders of Zion fraud, but that's just them.

If you disagree, can you set out what the theory actually states and show there is an element that necessarily includes an accusation against Jewish people or any race or culture come to that?

The battle against conspiracy theories is a serious one, and flailing about won't help. Hogweard (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

This question has been thoroughly answered at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and in that article as it currently stands. There is no need to do the WP:OR proposed by Hogweard. However, we are not supposed per policy to rely on the references in other articles for claims that could be questioned (like this one), so one of the best references on the antisemitic character of the conspiracy should be added to this article as well. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I will have a look over at that one. Hogweard (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Clarificarion Needed

Does this page seek to be about Marxist Cultural Analysis, a rather broad term which could span anywhere from post-modernist positions to Orthodox radical African revolutionary Marxism, to variants on fascist communist theory, which is impossibly broad for a Wikipedia page - or does this page seek to recreate content that's been forbidden elsewhere. It seems to be re-creating a lot of SALTED content about Cultural Marxism. This is far too pointed and specific for such a title. This page in it's current incarnation could very easily be nominated at Articles For Deletion. That is perhaps the correct course of action, I don't see how it's not a rather broad WP:CONTENTFORK and it should probably be completely transformed into a general portal (although one for MarxismSocialism already exists), or (and this appears more likely) completely pruned. 59.102.45.178 (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what the creator's intent was, but the current version of this article is not about "Cultural Marxism" and is sourced with material about Gramscian Marxism, the Birmingham School, the Frankfurt school, and Marxist Humanism insofar as those have contributes to the article's topic, Marxist cultural analysis. To my knowledge, the reliable sources on this topic do not typically include Bolshevik or Constructivist or Stalinist or Situationist or Maoist approaches to culture, although these are all valid topics and could be construed as potentially in scope as Marxist analyses. But this article follows the approaches taken, since the "cultural turn" of the 1930s to 1960s, by the main line of secondary sources AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

...and there in lays the problem, because Bolsheviks, Constructivists, Stalinists, Situationalists, and Maoists have all participated in Marxist Cultural Analysis too. So if that's the topic they should be included. Likewise, if the topic is actually Western Marxist Cultural Analysis, then it should be merged into Western Marxism (which already lists the Frankfurt School as its prominent thinkers). So none of the content here seems apropo. It's content looking for a page, rather than a page looking for content IMHO. 59.102.45.178 (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I for one would not recommend that, first, because the Western Marxism article is terrible (I had actually forgotten how bad it was until reviewing it just now) and second, because the scope of the two articles is necessarily different. This article follows the literature on which it is based in excluding the Marxisms developed in Communist states, but follows the same literature in emphasizing the Birmingham School and other humanist Marxists that are not notably related to Korsch and Lucacs-inspired "Western Marxism". So this article includes tendencies that Western Marxism does not, and perhaps more fundamentally, it excludes most of what Western Marxism actually features: on one hand, the political parties of Western Europe, and their intellectuals, and on another that huge body of Western Marxist intellectual work that was concerned with such themes as epistemology, philosophy of history, material history, political organization, technology, labour and urbanism - rather than cultural analysis, which is after all a fairly narrow field. So Marxist cultural analysis differs from Western Marxism through both inclusion and exclusion - which should not be surprising since it is a different topic altogether, even if certain figures or groups are held in common. Newimpartial (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I included material in fields with which I am more familiar. There are presumably other fields of thought, beyond the western schools quoted. There is certainly room for expansion by those with a knowledge of other schools of thought. The basic field of Marxism (with which I disagree, incidentally) has many outgrowths of analytical theory in economics, politics, culture, sociology, history etc, and all deserve articles, as do opposing theories. Hogweard (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Are these authors within the scope of this article?

Dang Shengyuan, who is Chinese and seems to be writing about the "Cultural Turn" period within the New Left: [1] - and Douglas Keller who also discusses these things: [2] [3]. I'm asking because I'm not sure, but it would be interesting to include a Chinese perspective. 61.68.111.187 (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Kellner I can speak to: he is not a significant contributor in this field. As far as Shengyuan, is their work discussed in other sources? If not, it would not be WP:DUE to include. Newimpartial (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, according to the Douglas Kellner page, he's the George Kneller Chair in the Philosophy of Education in the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, but yeah, he seems to have focused on critical media literacy, although the page does state that he acted as editor of "Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse," which collected six volumes of the papers of the critical theorist Herbert Marcuse. - so you're right, he's a bit too far off topic.

Dang Shengyuan is an academic of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, whilst they've collaborated on numerous papers, they don't seem to be commented on that often, or have any major distinct theories that can be encapsulated on this page. Or at least, not that I can see through the language barrier. So perhaps undue for now. 220.245.58.239 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Newimpartial (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, found these sources [4], many of which are on Jstor, so appear to have legitimacy. I'm particularly interested in the John Brenkman source [5]. I'm aware that this page is specifically for the conspiracy theory aspects of the term "Cultural marxism" but that John Brenkman source seems to be the source for much of the salted content. Is it time to ask the question again? Should any of this appear on the current page? 220.245.58.239 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• No - I don't see any there, there. All of the RS listed seem to be referring to Marxist cultural analysis, rather than providing support for the salted content, that is, the claims on which the conspiracy theory bases itself. Does anyone else see something different in this "collection of evidence"? It looks basically like a google search result for the phrase "cultural Marxism", to me. Newimpartial (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I think this has been accidentally posted on the wrong talk page. It should go to Marxist cultural analysis talk page like NewImpartial said above. Mvbaron (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Misrepresented sources

The lede ends

However since the 1990s, this term has largely referred to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, a highly influential discourse on the far right without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis.

I have examined the sources given and can emphatically say that the claims fail verification. Jérôme identifies the origins of the conspiracy theory in concrete citations to actual works of Gramsci and the Frankfurt School. The right-wing commentators ascribe more malice and more influence to those authors as matters of interpretation, but largely agree with the mainstream on the facts. The most relevant parts from the conclusion of "Cultural Marxism: A Survey" for discussion:

Even if this led us to observe two different groups with a different attitude regarding what is the truth: the opening discussion also stressed elements of continuity between both sides, and stated it was not our goal to say where and when some authors cross the border from one side to the other, from what is supposed to be real and serious academic work and what is more about interpretation and speculation. This is important because, first, the power of conspiracy theories rest upon the use of some unquestionable facts (in “conspiracy thinking,” an unquestionable fact is something you can verify by yourself). And, second, because the case of “Cultural Marxism” as a conspiracy theory illustrates using an unquestionable fact and how this continuity works between both sides. When looking at the literature on Cultural Marxism as a piece of cultural studies, as a conspiracy described by Lind and its followers, and as arguments used by Buchanan, Breivik, and other actors within their own agendas, we see a common ground made of unquestionable facts in terms of who did what and where, and for how long at the Frankfurt School. Nowhere do we see divergence of opinion about who Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse really were, when they have met and in which universities.

But this changes if we look at descriptions of what they wanted to do: conducting research or changing deeply the culture of the West? Were they working for political science or were they engaging with a hidden political agenda? Were they working for the academic community or obeying foreign secret services?

And for the same reasons, interpretations change if we look at what they have done: did they succeed? What has been the real impact of their project? Can we locate this on campuses and academic discourses, or on culture in general? Such interpretations also change again if we look at what they knew of their own influence: were they really aware of what they were doing? Were they overtaken by the success of their works on their students and readers? Were they themselves manipulated by foreign forces? Scholars and conspiracy theories differ significantly in their assessments of such questions. These questions also show the connection between the two groups. All start with unquestionable facts, but to go on to make very different interpretation about the impact of Cultural Marxism on culture and values, with sometimes very strong suspicions about the shameful objective behind the story.

It is very clear from this that the current lede text cannot stand, but I'd welcome input on how exactly it should change. Sennalen (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere do we see divergence of opinion about who Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse really were, when they have met and in which universities. But this changes if we look at descriptions of what they wanted to do These are the trivial facts identified, that Lind knew who Horkheimer was… Thats not lead-worthy. Also i don’t see the connection to the cited passage from the lead. Do you have any suggestion on what you wish to improve? Mvbaron (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It's uncontroversial that Cultural Marxism discourse is active in the far-right. The problematic wording is "without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis". It would be closer to the truth to say without any clear distinction between what the far-right commenters are talking about and what the academics are talking about. There is disagreement on whether it is good or bad, but almost no disagreement on what it is. Jérôme describes this dynamic better than any source I've seen to date, but even it is fairly cagey and vague when it comes to identifying what precisely is the point of departure. Sennalen (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Sennalen, I encourage you to review previous discussions, such as this archived discussion and those that followed, and those at User talk:Swood100, before wasting time arguing that Jamin has established a strong link between the Marxist cultural theorists and the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Thanks.

Also, re: It would be closer to the truth to say without any clear distinction between what the far-right commenters are talking about and what the academics are talking about - that is unsourced, POV nonsense. Don't do that. Newimpartial (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Sennalen, what you're claiming is completely inaccurate. --61.68.113.170 (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The linked conversation seems to be about the definition of "school of thought". If that argument is pertinent, please elaborate. Right now I am discussing sourced material, particularly to the block quote given above. The burden of proof is on the text in the article, which says the topics are "without any clear relationship". The source establishes to the contrary that there is a clear relationship, namely the work of the Frankfurt School. It implies there are differences, but declines to identify what those differences are. It's hard to say exactly how the article should summarize this, since the author is being so evasive. The current article text definitely isn't it. It wouldn't be ideal to pass over in silence, but that would be more honest than the status quo. Sennalen (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The User Talk page I linked above doesn't have much to do with the "School of Thought" issue. In the case of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory Talk page, I linked the first of a series of discussions regarding the interpretation of Jamin. If you can't see how these discussions bear on your novel interpretation of your block quote, well, competence is required. Newimpartial (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The source establishes to the contrary that there is a clear relationship, namely the work of the Frankfurt School. No that's not true. What the source says (I quote again, since no one reacted to my first attempt at clarifying this): Nowhere do we see divergence of opinion about who Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse really were, when they have met and in which universities. But this changes if we look at descriptions of what they wanted to do. The "clear relationship" is that the conspiracy theorists pin their conspiracy on real people. Which is hardly worth a mention, and I don't know why Jerome dwells on that point... But regardless, the without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis is correct in that the conspiracy theorists completely misrepresent the content of what the Frankfurt School said and wanted. Mvbaron (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

What are the sources on how it is misrepresented? That's the key support that the article needs and Jamin isn't providing. Sennalen (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Erm, you quoted it: Scholars and conspiracy theories differ significantly in their assessments of such questions. The implication being that the scholars are of course right, and the conspiracy theorists not. --Mvbaron (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

That's adequate to support the claim that differences exist. What those differences actually are are vague, and indeed, earlier in the conclusion Jamin says he is intentionally not defining what specific beliefs are academic or conspiratorial. The article should do better, and must do better if it is to retain the even stronger claim that there is no clear relationship. Sennalen (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The "no clear relationship" language emerged from one of the discussions I linked you to already. I am very reluctant to revisit all of this again just because a new editor posts to this Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Senallen, sure, I’m happy to support a refinement for this sentence like “There’s no relationship to the Frankfurt school, other the fact that the conspiracy theorists picked the Frankfurt School”. What do you think? Mvbaron (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It has to accurately represent the source. Jamin does not say "no relationship" or anything that could be glossed as such. He says that when the conspiracy theorists say "Cultural Marxism" the referents are the Frankfurt School, Gramsci, and a few miscellaneous Young Hegelians. The conspiracy theorists accurately identify these philosophers' major works and a general outline of their content. The conspiracy theoriests err in exaggerating the influence of Marxist cultural analysis and acribing malicious intent that's not supported by evidence. The sources from the Guardian and The Conversation tell a similar story, and I'm sure other concordant sources can be identified in short order. Sennalen (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

How would you characterize the relationship? Antisemitic caricature, maybe? "Unclear" seems to me to be a generous way of putting it, even based on Jamin (and other scholars, like Joan Braune, make stronger claims on this point, in case you are still refusing to read the previous discussions). Newimpartial (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The relationship is clearly hostile. Increasingly after 1991 "Cultural Marxism" has been a linguistic shibboleth indicating discourse from people who are hostile to the program of Marxist cultural analyis; however most of the sources identify the object of that hostility as the actual people and actual work of the Frankfurt School, Gramsci, and others in that milieu. Braune introduces a wrinkle by saying that the conspiracy theorists are actually commenting on something that doesn't exist at all. I know there are some sources that cite her for that, and maybe some others that make that claim independently. That's no cause for heartburn, though. The usual methods of Wikipedia:Conflicting_sources apply. The way to go is probably 1. Report all significant viewpoints, and 2. Do not choose which one is "true". Sennalen (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Re: most of the sources identify the object of that hostility as the actual people and actual work of the Frankfurt School, Gramsci, and others in that milieu - no reliable sources that I have seen actually do this. Jamin doesn't identify the object of that hostility as the actual people and actual work of the Frankfurt school, and the occasional conspiracy theorist name-checking Horkheimer or Adorno doesn't make it so. This belief of yours that the "Culural Marxism" of the conspiracy theorists simply represents discourse from people who are hostile to the program of Marxist cultural analysis - essentially, they know what Marxists are saying about culture but don't like it - lacks any RS support and is in fact a trope of the conspiracy theory. Wikipedia does not create FALSEBALANCE, or present FRINGE views as "alternative facts" alongside actual scholarship. We owe our readers better. Newimpartial (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Try reading WP:FRINGE. There's no need to try to introduce WP:FRINGE sources, which seems to be your whole aim here. --61.68.113.170 (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The idea that the idea that the conspiracy theorists understand what they read is part of the conspiracy theory is a curiously recursive theory, and I'd be interested if you have any sources for that. Meanwhile, here are a few of the sources connecting the conspiracy theories to actual Marxist cultural analysis. Since we've been discussing Jamin, we can start with some specific text there.

• From Religion Compass
  • "Many different levels exist between these two positions. It is not easy to say, and it is not the goal of this paper to say, where and when some authors cross the border even if within this dynamic, there is a real competition between scholars who study conspiracy theories and claim to produce a legitimate knowledge, and authors of conspiracy theories who do not trust the academic literature or believe it is necessary to go beyond. Next to this competition between Groups 1 and 2, since conspiracies exist, we will consider there is a continuity between both sides: the more one feels at ease with Group 1, one's analysis relies on facts and demonstrations to take into account some specific plots in some specific contexts;"
  • "In many ways, there are no major disagreements on the Frankfurt School between academic scholars such as historians and conspiracy theorists. Nevertheless, the competition between scholars who study conspiracy theories and claim to produce a legitimate knowledge, and authors of conspiracy theories who do not trust the academic literature, is not as clear in this specific case than it is with other examples"
  • "He called this “Political Correctness,” and immediately associates it with Cultural Marxism, that is to say what he calls “Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms” (Lind, 2004, p. 5). This was a transfer initially undertaken by the leaders of the Frankfurt School."
  • "Among the Marxist intellectuals, the most regularly cited as reflecting the membership of the School can be found in Raehn's (2004) chapter “The historical roots of ‘Political Correctness’.” In particular, this chapter, again taken from “Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology,” includes short biographies of Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, and Max Horkheimer"
  • "When looking at the literature on Cultural Marxism as a piece of cultural studies, as a conspiracy described by Lind and its followers, and as arguments used by Buchanan, Breivik, and other actors within their own agendas, we see a common ground made of unquestionable facts in terms of who did what and where, and for how long at the Frankfurt School"
  • "The discordance appears at two important levels. First, in the interpretation of the true will of the School's leaders: “Did they really plan to do what they have done?” Second, on the consequences the School had on Western values in both Europe and the United States: “Is the destruction of Western values a reality?” Cultural Marxist conspiracy theorists and scholars of the Frankfurt School diverge in their interpretations of these types of questions."
• Blackford in The Conversation reaches essentially the same conclusions more succinctly:
  • "Nonetheless, there is at least a minimal commonality between the work of Marxist scholars such as Schroyer and the theories of right-wing culture warriors. To some extent they were focusing on the same tendencies in Western Marxism. Thus, there is a grain of truth even in Breivik’s conspiracy theorizing, and I wonder whether this might explain the hostility to including an article on “cultural Marxism” in Wikipedia. The same scholarship that supports Schroyer’s analysis, for example, gives a degree of superficial credibility to the likes of Lind, Buchanan, or Breivik. Scholars such as Schroyer and Dennis Dworkin do not, however, suggest that the Frankfurt School or other “cultural Marxists” ever had a plan to destroy the moral fibre of Western civilization, or to use their critique of culture as a springboard to a totalitarian regime."
• Wilson in The Guardian is more acidic, but still far from stating no connection - "The tale varies in the telling, but the theory of cultural Marxism is integral to the fantasy life of the contemporary right. It depends on a crazy-mirror history, which glancingly reflects things that really happened, only to distort them in the most bizarre ways."
• The Al-Jazeera opinion column used in this article doesn't look like a quality source for these kinds of claims, but it says, "Like all good conspiracy theories, there’s some fact and some fiction in Lind’s account. The Frankfurt school of intellectuals (including Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm and others) did immigrate to the United States. And they have definitely had an outsize influence on some parts of American academic culture. Where the conservatives get confused is the relationship between these Marxists and Democrats. Lind and his followers see one big group of commies; actual commies, on the other hand, see liberal capitalist use of diversity rhetoric as a co-optation of our line"
• From Busbridge et al.
  • "One of the issues associated with the Cultural Marxist conspiracy is that Cultural Marxism is a distinct philosophical approach associated with some strands of the Frankfurt School, as well as ideas and influences emanating from the British New Left. However, proponents of the conspiracy do not regard Cultural Marxism as a form of left-wing cultural criticism, but instead as a calculated plan orche-strated by leftist intellectuals to destroy Western values, traditions and civilisation"
  • "we are exclusively concerned with the conspiratorial discourse of Cultural Marxism, not as a descriptive term referring to Euro-Marxism, although we note that advo-cates of the conspiracy theory conflate the two"
• Finally in Braune, despite claiming that cultural Marxism does not exist, it has no qualms in immediately following that by linking the phrase to the Frankfurt School. It does not go on to say the details are invented, rather exaggerated. It goes on to describe some ways that the conspiracy theorists engaged (however incorrectly) with the actual work.
  • "Although some members of the Frankfurt School had cultural influence—in particular, some books by Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse were influential on some activists on the New Left in the 1960s—“Cultural Marxism” conspiracy theories greatly exaggerate the Frankfurt School’s influence and power."
  • "Cultural Marxism is not just a conspiracy theory about the Frankfurt School as such, but a conspiracy theory that trades on the Frankfurt School’s perceived Jewishness"
  • "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theorists are no exception to this lack of distinction-making. First, the ideas advanced by any individual member of the Frankfurt School are generally taken as representative of all members of the Institute; Marcuse’s views on tolerance, Adorno’s aesthetics, or Fromm’s psychoanalytic analysis of fascism cannot be universally attributed to “Critical Theory” as a whole"
  • "Although elements of the Frankfurt School were critical of Western culture and civilization — Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment and much of Adorno’s and Benjamin’s work in particular, contain poignant critiques of the Enlightenment—this is by no means representative of the whole of the Frankfurt School’s project"
  • "Herbert Marcuse’s essay on “repressive tolerance” is often cited as the source for the claim that Cultural Marxism is engaged in a “political correctness” project, and the essay is often misunderstood as an argument for state censorship or for social shaming of dissenters. In fact, the essay attempts to show that while United States society claims to be a beacon of freedom due to its practice of tolerance and absence of censorship, the U.S. capitalist state uses this very tolerance as a tool to reinforce its hegemony and to disempower the very kinds of brave, dissenting ideas that the liberal ideal of tolerance was originally intended to empower. The solution for Marcuse is not to make the U.S. state more repressive and censorious, but rather to refuse to obey the commands of a state that accommodates routine dissent"
  • "But to hear the conspiracy theorists tell it, Critical Theorists want to deny the working class access to culture and religion (specifically Christianity)—in reality, Critical Theory does challenge capitalism and intertwined unjust social structures such as the patriarchal family, but as a project, Critical Theory aims to liberate humanity, not destroy with abandon"
  • "In addition to the functions that the Cultural Marxism narrative serves for antisemites and the far-right, they are likely to resist the Frankfurt School’s influence because they understand, at least on an unconscious level, that the Frankfurt School does provide intellectual resources and an intellectual tradition capable of adequately challenging their ideas."
  • "The conspiracy theory not only misrepresents the Frankfurt School’s intellectual project—it also perpetuates centuries-old stereotypes that dehumanize Jews"

So we can see there is quite a lot of text available to describe how the conspiracy theorists relate to the sources. They often use them incorrectly and with anti-Semitic intent, but it should be undeniable that there is something real there they have engaged with. This is probably too much to process all at once into a better sentence for the lede, so I suggest we work bottom up, parsing out the particular claims and perspectives from different sources in the body. At a later time, those insights can be distilled into a concise lede statement. There is no deadline. Sennalen (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, this isn't even the right article to do this. Rather, all that belongs to the conspiracy theory. And I'm really not sure any of this here goes beyond the fact that the conspiracy theorists just picked Adorno et al and tried to pin a bunch of crap on them. Mvbaron (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

What follows is my much longer version of the conspiracy theorists just picked Adorno et al and tried to pin a bunch of crap on them. :) Newimpartial (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I still don't see how you can conclude from the RS you have quoted that there is something real there they have engaged with. I will deal first with Busbridge et al., and Braune, because they represent the more substantial RS. Busbridge says that the conspiracy theorists regard Cultural Marxism as a calculated plan orchestrated by leftist intellectuals to destroy Western values, traditions and civilisation and that they conflate the Cultural Marxism of the conspiracy theory with Euro-Marxism. These authors are not saying that the conspiracy theorists have engaged with something real.

Likewise, Braune's statement that “Cultural Marxism” conspiracy theories greatly exaggerate the Frankfurt School’s influence and power", and her reference to a conspiracy theory that trades on the Frankfurt School’s perceived Jewishness does not imply "engagement" between the conspiracy theorists and a supposed "Cultural Marxism". Of course the Frankfurt School did actually exist, and of course the conspiracy theorists took certain ideas of Marcuse, Adorno and others, distorted them, pretended that they represented a coherent political project and then applied the tropes of antisemitism to turn this (imaginary) political project into a conspiracy theory. That is what the reliable sources tell us happened, and it would be an act of total WHITEWASHING to treat that as "engagement" or "influence".

Among the other authors you have cited, while Jamin is occasionally more sloppy than other scholars, he does generally maintain the distinction between the Frankfurt School, as an actual historical phenomenon subjected to antisemitic caricature by the conspiracy theorists, and Lind's conspiracy. The key paragraph about "the discordance" seems to reinforce the statement we currently make in this article, that any relationship between the object of the conspiracy theory and Western Marxism is not clear:

The discordance appears at two important levels. First, in the interpretation of the true will of the School's leaders: “Did they really plan to do what they have done?” Second, on the consequences the School had on Western values in both Europe and the United States: “Is the destruction of Western values a reality?” Cultural Marxist conspiracy theorists and scholars of the Frankfurt School diverge in their interpretations of these types of questions.

In other words, there is no clear relationship between these sets of answers, and yet these propositions do clearly define a distinction between scholarship on Marxist cultural analysis and the "efforts" of the conspiracy theorists. I still, frankly, see no there, there. Newimpartial (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mvbaron:This would not be the page to go into unlimited depth about the conspiracy theory, since this is the page about actual Marxist cultural analysis. However, it is approprate to note the existence of the conspiracy theory and briefly explain how the two relate to each other. In fact, the article does attempt to do that, in a section at the bottom and a sentence in the lede. I assume you do not support removing those parts of the article. What I intend to do is improve that existing section, making it more reflective of the sources. Sennalen (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

If your attempt to improve that existing section is based on the premises that Cultural Marxism is a real thing, and that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory "engaged with" an actually existing "Cultural Marxism" based on their understanding of its actual people and actual work, then you are most unlikely to arrive at "improvements" that would ever be supported by the BALANCE of the sources or endorsed by consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I actually don't really care about the conspiracy theory section. (I hope "cultural marxism" will be forgotten in a couple of years and we can remove it). And since there isn't really any academic school called "Cultural Marxism" anyways, RS are hard to come by sadly. Also, our articles on the Frankfurt school are in a rather poor state given the immense body of academic literature on critical theory there is. But I should stop complaining and rather do something about that. Anyways, I agree with Newimpartial above, I really don't think there's much to go on, and trying to establish CM as an actual academic school is already firmly in conspiracy theory land... Mvbaron (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The only quibbles I have here are (1) that the Birmingham School material (and article) are in even worse shape than the Frankfurt School - like the weather, I keep talking about this but nobody does anything about it - and (2) the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory articles are weirdly tangential to one another. It isn't that I think they should be tightly aligned, but I find the disconnect disorienting. Newimpartial (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment This edit is very WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, in the context of the preceding discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: In reverting my well-sourced addition of pertinent information, you made reference to WP:BRD and WP:TEND. Before going further, you should review for yourself the entire content of both of those pages. I will draw particular attention to WP:DRNC - Do not revert soley for the reason of "no consensus" - and TEND section 2.10, "There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption." If you believe I have used a source that is not reliable, then identify it. If you believe I have innacurately paraphrased a source, identify the particular text. If you believe an element has been given undue weight, identify that particular element. I will allow some time for you to clarify before restoring the edit. If you continue to have objections, then make the minimum possible revision that would satisfy that objection, rather than reverting the entire edit. Sennalen (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

DRNC is an essay. It's totally fine to revert your BOLD edit with reference to this discussion. Mvbaron (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

What the conspiracy theorists mean by "Cultural Marxism" includes actual thinkers and works in Marxist cultural analysis - that's a misrepresentation of Jamin's point.

...some of the strands of Marxist cultural analysis that conspiracy theorists have engaged with - the conspiracy theorists don't engage academically with anyone.

Where the conspiracy theories diverge from the mainstream - misrepresentation of Jamin again: there is no mainstream, and the conspiracy theorists are not doing philosophy or sociology. Mvbaron (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Sennalen, I am one of two editors who believe that you have innacurately paraphrased a source and given undue weight to certain claims - this has already been communicated clearly to you in the preceding discussion (but apparently YOUDONTHEARTHAT). In case it wasn't self-evident, the main disputed passage is this (with particular points of dispute in italics):

however the term "Cultural Marxism" is also used by purveyors of an antisemitic conspiracy theory.[25][26][27] What the conspiracy theorists mean by "Cultural Marxism" includes actual thinkers and works in Marxist cultural analysis[25][26][27] but with significant misunderstandings and distortions. Joan Braune cites Marcuse on repressive tolerance, Adorno on aesthetics, and Fromm on the psychology of fascism as some of the strands of Marxist cultural analysis that conspiracy theorists have engaged with, though mistakenly treating these thinkers as interchageable parts of a coordinated organization rather than disparate individuals pursing their own lines of inquiry.[26] According to Jérôme Jamin, "looking at the literature on Cultural Marxism as a piece of cultural studies, as a conspiracy described by Lind and its followers, and as arguments used by Buchanan, Breivik, and other actors within their own agendas, we see a common ground made of unquestionable facts in terms of who did what and where, and for how long at the Frankfurt School.

In particular, "however" and "also" seem to be used to imply the unsourced assertion that "Cultural Marxism" has two parallel significations: one for Marxist cultural analysis and another for the conspiracy theory. This is not the main view presented in the RS. The Braune sentence tendentiously lists a series of Frankfurt School ideas that conspiracy theorists have engaged with, which lends (through selective presentation) misleading support for the idea that conspiracy theorists and scholars are talking about the same thing, which is not at all Braune's actual argument. And the selected quotation from Jamin emphasizes a common ground made of unquestionable facts which is, again, a misleading selection from the piece; the selection fails to make Jamin's own more fundamental distinctions between the Cultural Marxism of the conspiracy theory and actual Western Marxism. Jamin clearly makes this distinction, and even emphasizes it, but the proposed text does not.

I trust that this is "specific" enough, Sennalen. Newimpartial (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Jamin does not emphasize a distinction. Entirely to the contrary, he theorizes that there is a spectrum from conspiracy to non-conspiracy thinking, and that it's difficult to confidently assign many arguments a particular place on that continuum. Jamin, Braune, and Blackburn are all quite explicit that some of the things the conspiracy theorists reference are real facets of Marxist cultural analysis. I understand this is at odds with your personal views on the subject, but if you insist that the sources do not mean the things they say, that leaves no path to consensus. I will seek broader community input after the holidays. Sennalen (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

There have been repeated RfCs with wide participation that have found, over a number of years, that the reliable sources deal with "Cultural Marxism" only as a conspiracy theory.

As far as Jamin is concerned, I have read these sources and they do in fact make the distinction to which I referred. Newimpartial (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

that's an unfair description: newimpartial, you and me all look at the same sources and interpret them differently. There's no need to personalize this. Seeking broader input is a good idea. Mvbaron (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

There are literally articles claiming that Adorno used music to make people into necrophiliacs. There are literally books claiming The Frankfurt School are Satanic. So yeah, OBVIOUSLY there's a huge difference between the conspiracy theory and what The Frankfurt School and others actually wrote about. IT'S ridiculous to claim otherwise. --61.68.113.170 (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

So we can see there is quite a lot of text available to describe how the conspiracy theorists relate to the sources. They often use them incorrectly and with anti-Semitic intent, but it should be undeniable that there is something real there they have engaged with. This is not a page for "Right wing views of Marxist Analysis" - nor is it your personal WP:SOAPBOX to try and wedge in fringe or right wing content. This is not an exploration of the conspiracy theory (Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory would be the page for that. --61.68.113.170 (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The bottom line is that Wikipedia will follow the sources rather than your PoV. Nonetheless, you should consider the following: A common thread in the RS is how talking about the Frankfurt School can be a surreptitous way to introduce anti-Semitic ideas without overtly talking about Jews or Judaism. If we assume instead that conspiracy theorists are necessarily incompetently frothing at the mouth, we exclude more subtle dog whistles from the label of conspiracy theorist. To do so, besides not following RS, is a more pernicious form of whitewashing. Sennalen (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This is clearly a topic that has nothing to with Marxist cultural analysis: for this article, all that is required is a straightforward disambiguation between its topic and the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, following the sources. And of course Wikipedia will follow the sources on this matter: it already does, in spite of your (rather strained) assertions to the contrary. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If it has nothing to do with Marxist cultural analysis, then would you in fact be in favor of entirely removing the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_cultural_analysis#%22Cultural_Marxism%22_conspiracy_theory from this article? Sennalen (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not favor removing the section because, as I said, I think it offers necessary disambiguation for the reader (and provides WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY support for the disambiguation in the lead section). However, I do think the section you link to is longer than it needs to be, and its second paragraph in particular wanders off into the weeds.

And just to be painfully clear, what has nothing to do with Marxist cultural analysis in my view is not the conspiracy theory, which is a kind of Monty Python parody of the Frankfurt School pastiched together with grad school Gramscians of the 1980s, but rather your statement about how talking about the Frankfurt School can be a surreptitous way to introduce anti-Semitic ideas without overtly talking about Jews or Judaism. That point has nothing to do with Marxist cultural analysis but pertains only to the conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Additional sources

I found two more useful sources at the conspiracy article, which make less ambiguous statements than Jamin and Braune. The case made by all four in combination is strong.

• Tuters, M. (2018). Cultural Marxism. Krisis : Journal for contemporary philosophy, 2018(2) https://krisis.eu/cultural-marxism/
  • "The concept of Cultural Marxism seeks to intro-uce readers unfamiliar with – and presumably completely uninterested in – Western Marxist thought to its key thinkers, as well as some of their ideas, as part of an insidious story of secret operations of mind-control whose nuances may differ but whose basic premise is remarkably similar whether told by Anders Breivik (2011) or Andrew Breitbart (2011)."
  • "In an ironical sense this literature can perhaps be understood as popularizing simplified or otherwise distorted versions of certain concepts initially developed by the Frankfurt School, as well as those of Western Marxism more generally."
• "Battista, Christine M.; Sande, Melissa R. (2019). Critical Theory and the Humanities in the Age of the Alt-Right."
  • "Minnicino explains that Adorno and Benjamin combined their theoretical efforts to ground aesthetics in materialism, rather than metaphysics or religion. First, Adorno and Benjamin planned to “strip away the belief that art derives from the self-conscious emulation of God the creator”. Second, they encouraged new cultural forms that would 'increase the alienation of the population, in order for it to understand how truly alienated it is to live without socialism.'"
  • "Minnicino stresses Benjamin’s working relationship with Brecht and describes the Brechtian technique of verfremdungseffekt ('estrangement effect') as a malicious attempt to 'make the audience leave the theatre demoralized and aimlessly angry.'"
  • "Strangely enough, Minnicino does not engage with Adorno’s compositions or writings on music (a target for later conspiracy theorists), but, rather, focuses on his involvement in the Princeton Radio Project."
  • "Minnicino overemphasizes Marcuse’s employment by the State Department and CIA to insinuate that he played a major role in the notorious Project MK Ultra"
  • "Second, Lind addresses Adorno’s famous work The Authoritarian Personality, in which the F Scale is used to measure and determine a person’s susceptibility to fascism"
  • "Third, Lind echoes Minnicino in his puritanical denunciation of Fromm and Marcuse’s theories of polymorphous perversity. He writes that this idea offered a philosophical excuse for the unlimited carnality of the Free Love movement"
  • "Finally, he explains that Marcuse’s essay “Repressive Tolerance” serves as the ultimate blueprint for political correctness. He reduces Marcuse’s argument to the claim that everyone on the left should be permitted to speak, but anyone on the right should be silenced."
  • "intentional or willful misreading of the Frankfurt School’s work is a common feature of the discourse on cultural Marxism. Given the diminishing influence of the humanities in the university and society at large, it is dishearteningly ironic that some of the only people who take critical theory seriously nowadays are those who egregiously misunderstand it."

To be clear, none of this needs to be directly described in this article. What this article needs to do is to explain succintly as possible what the relationship is between the conspiracy theory and actual Marxist cultural analysis. It is not in dispute that the conspiracy theorists are factually mistaken and anti-Semitic. Nonetheless, the thing they are mistaken about is the work of Gramsci and the Frankfurt school. They aren't talking about Charles Darwin, the morning weather report, or the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are talking about the topic of this article. They are not just mentioning the names of these people. They are talking about specific works and specific ideas in those works, and they are wrong in specific ways. Sennalen (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the thing they are mistaken about is the work of Gramsci and the Frankfurt school. They aren't talking about Charles Darwin, the morning weather report, or the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are talking about the topic of this article.

This is a ridiculous WP:STRAWMAN. We do not have two choices: they are talking about the topic of this article or they are talking about Charles Darwin or the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Let me very clear about this: the conspiracy theorists are talking about "Cultural Marxism" as though it were a school of thought and a political project that featured shared understandings of the world, values, political objectives and strategies. It is agreed by all of the reliable sources in this field, including the ones you just cited, that "Cultural Marxism" in this sense has never existed.

A minority of scholars have also used "cultural Marxism" (and very rarely "Cultural Marxism") as a synonym for what most of the sources call Western Marxism, or Marxist humanism, or the cultural turn in Marxism in various contexts, or "Marxist cultural analysis" as a more general terrain that encompasses many of the above. These scholars do not typically concretize "cultural Marxism", as you have in this discussion, as though it were a pre-existing discursive bundle that the conspiracy theorists then go on to distort in various ways. In fact, I'm not sure you've shown any scholars doing this: even Jamin typically moves to something more specific, like the Frankfurt School, when discussing the gap between conspiracy theory and scholarly discourse.

So yes, the conspiracy theorists seize upon specific tropes from the Frankfurt School in general, and Marcuse in particular, to build their Weltanschauung. At the same time they generally ignore Gramsci and Gramscians (such as the Birmingham School) and Marxist humanists (except for Fromm) in their sandcastle-building, even though the latter figures are rather prominent in scholarship about the postwar "cultural turn" in Marxism. This tells me that the terms you have proposed, such as "engagement" or the claim that conspiracy theorists' hostility was directed at the actual people and actual work of the Frankfurt School, Gramsci, and others are profoundly misleading. For example, the "political correctness" "reading" of Marcuse's "repressive tolerance" isn't based on Marcuse's thought in any cogent way - and even if it were, it would not turn Marcuse into a "Cultural Marxist". Conspiracy theorists grab onto specific concepts (like the Long march through the institutions, or Political correctness, or caricatures of "postmodernism"), rip them out of context, and create conspiracy theory out of them. Only incidentally are any of these building blocks related to Marxist cultural analysis, and most actual Marxist cultural analysis - like the work of E. P. Thompson or Raymond Williams, or for that matter Henri Lefevre and the French 1968 generation - is entirely ignored by the conspiracists. So to say anything like what you have proposed for this article is UNDUE and unsupported by the sources you have provided. Newimpartial (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, these particular sources do actually reference Gramsci and Fromm as targets of the conspiracy theorists.

I personally don't see minor variations of terminology as significant. Language is flexible, and there is no clarity in the denotational boundaries between "cultural Marxism" (small c), "Cultural Marxism" (big C), "Marxist cultural analysis", "Western Marxism", "neo-Marxism", "Critical Theory", etc. Certain authors may delineate these in certain ways, but there's no authority about what these mean across the whole corpus of all authors. The Wikipedia articles on all these terms have 80%+ overlap.

The rest of what you say only seems like so many different ways of saying "the conspiracy theorists are wrong," which has never been the locus of disagreement. You could make an epistemological argument that if you describe an object badly enough then you have ceased to describe the first object and have instead described some other object, like firing a gun and hitting a bystander, but that would be original research in this context. Sennalen (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I am not simply saying "the conspiracy theorists are wrong": it matters what step of their argument loses touch with consensus reality. To simplify what I am saying, the conspiracy theorists have claimed (1) that "Cultural Marxism exists" and (2) that "the conspiracy theory offers a truer account of things than do the Cultural Marxists themselves". In my view, you are conceding that (1) may be true even if (2) is known to be false. Meanwhile, I - following essentially all of the reliable sources in the field - state that (1) is also false. Many, repeated RfCs at Wikipedia - mostly prior to or without any of my involvement, btw - have concluded that (1) is unsupported by RS. So your framing the discussion as though I were simply maintaining that the conspiracy theorists are wrong - without specifying wrong about what - is eliding the key question on which hundreds of editors have made clear decisions, based on sources and WP policies, over the years.

And as an aside, if you are arguing that it doesn't matter what the scholars call those figures and movements that the conspiracy theorists caricature and pastiche as "Cultural Marxism" (in your first paragraph here), then it seems to me you have rather missed the point, since outside the framing by conspiracy theorists the shape of the discursive terrain (say, of Marxist cultural analysis) bears no particular relationship to the object of the conspiracy theory. Should we be including pomo cultural criticism or crypto-Maoist enterism in this article because the conspiracy theorists consider those to be forms of "Cultural Marxism"? I rather think not - and the RS definitely do not include them in this terrain. Newimpartial (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I'm beginning to understand some of the contours of your perspective. I do not agree with your narrow construal of certain words, but perhaps we can side step trouble spots with other phrasing. What do you think of this construction?:

Parts of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory make reference to actual thinkers and ideas that are in the Western Marxist tradition, but they severely misrepresent the subject. Conspiracy theorists diverge from accepted scholarship by attributing nefarious motives to the Marxists. They also unjustifiably treat disparate Marxist thinkers as an ideological monolith, and exaggerate the actual influence of Marxist cultural analysis in the world.

That sounds like a reasonable addition to Western Marxism; - at least the first sentence - but I'm not sure why anyone would want to include it here. The second sentence is deeply problematic, because it seems to imply that the only, or the most important, difference in perspective between scholars and conspiracy theorists is whether the Marxists had "nefarious motives", which is ridiculous not supported by the sources given.Newimpartial (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The inclusion of the conspiracy theory section in this article is a status quo no one wants to change, and explaining the relationship between the conspiracy and valid scholarship is the most important task for that section to accomplish. There is no need to rehash that again.

As for what RS consider the difference to be, "nefarious motives" is supported by the citations immediately following. It would be possible to go into more detail, for example something about "destroying Western civilization" but the more text is given to describing the conspiracy theorists' beliefs, the more the weight is undue. Is there something else that in your reading of the RS appears to be the most important point of departure? Sennalen (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

My reading of the sources tells me that the most important point of departure is that the conspiracy theorists created the object of their framework, "Cultural Marxism", out of a mishmash of the Frankfurt School, intersectional feminism, poststructuralism, sectarian Marxist enterism and American progressive liberalism. I do not see how any section discussing the relationship between the conspiracy theory and valid scholarship is helpful to the reader if it implies that the conspiracy theorists took an actual "Cultural Marxist" tendency and put their own spin on it, by attributing to it loopy motives or making it "seem more monolithic". The object of the conspiracy theory, which they call "Cultural Marxism" is not a pre-existing "it" that can be interpreted in different ways - it is constructed by the conspriacists out of essentially heterogenous materials. That is what the sources say to me.

Putting material into Western Marxism seems to me potentially helpful, since the reader might not know that "Western Marxism" is a correct name for one of the main sources used to construct the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. But the existing text of Marxist cultural analysis already provides ample acknowledgement IMO, and there is much greater likelihood of misreading the reader into thinking that the conspiracy theorists are really talking about Marxist cultural analysis. Which, on the whole, the reliable sources say they are not. Newimpartial (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

What you're describing is largely what I had in mind with "monolithic". Maybe "syncretic" is a better term. The idea that there is not actually a philosophy/movement there to critique just doesn't hold up. It's Critical Theory. Trent Schoyer was out there calling it Cultural Marxism back in 1973. The conspiracy theorists treat all the scholars as a sort of hydra-headed entity, true. Braune is the only thing I've read that really calls out that behavior, so maybe you can suggest more sources. Braune goes into much more detail however about the instances where the conspiracy theorists are right about what the Frankfurt School says, only considering it to be bad. They are right that the school criticized capitalism, patriarchy, homophobia, organized religion, fascism, and so on. It is true that the Frankfurt School sought positive social change. It's just that being the deplorables they were, the conspiracy theorists didn't like what they heard and called it evil in various ways. Sennalen (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

All I'll say right now is that Schroyer's "cultural Marxism" is not that of Weiner, which is equally distinct from Jamin's fluid notion or the "Cultural Marxism" of the conspiracy theorists. There is no there, there, and assuming that the conspiracy theorists were referring to Marxist cultural analysis in general, as opposed to any of the other nuggets in the soup, seems unsupported and unDUE for this article. (All we really need here is the disambiguation, but the little bit of annotation we have probably does help the reader.) Newimpartial (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The idea that there is not actually a philosophy/movement there to critique just doesn't hold up. - it seems fairly clear to me that you're a subscriber of the conspiracy theory, and are here to justify it (to blur the line). You don't have a WP:SNOW snowball's chance in hell of doing that. You're claiming there's a movement? Of what, academics who don't call themselves "Cultural Marxists"? No one we've mentioned self-describes that way, how can you claim there's a movement?... Do you see how that's kind of; a conspiratorial way of thinking, in that YOU see the conspiracy but others don't see it that way. What you're attempting is complete WP:SOAPBOX WP:OR as far as I can tell. Trying to justify a conspiracy theory because no one points to a line and says "Here! This is the absolute line between truth and conspiracy" - well grow up. That's not what we do here. We report on sources, we don't get to interject, interpret or synthesize. What this article needs to do is to explain succintly as possible what the relationship is between the conspiracy theory and actual Marxist cultural analysis. - NOPE! There is no policy that backs up YOUR "need" here. That's what makes it WP:OR that it's YOUR intent for the article. What you want Wikipedia to say. That's not what goes on here. Even if you could find a claim that says whatever it is you want - it would still be just ONE single source. Your attempts here are totally WP:undue and I'd suggest to you, that for your own sanity, you give up your snowball mission, and consider the fact that Wikipedia doesn't have needs (or at least, not the needs you're claiming). It has policies, and what you're attempting to do, goes against those policies. --61.68.113.170 (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The pertinent guideline is WP:ONEWAY. The rest of your diatribe deserves no response. Sennalen (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Proposed edit re: the conspiracy theory

I hope everyone has had an enjoyable holiday. Following the discussion above, I propose a new edit to the conspiracy theory section, which can be seen at [6]. This will satisfy some of my concerns on WP:V and WP:ONEWAY, and also incorporates feedback from Newimpartial and others in the following respects:

• The wording is more cautious about how the conspiracy theorists reference actual work.
• Additional sources are cited so it does not lean exclusively on Jamin.
• The section overall is shorter, better satisfying WP:WEIGHT.
• The "no such thing" objection of Braune is highlighted. (If there are other good RS with a similar message, they can be appended.)

Sennalen (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

My objections to this proposal are essentially the same as my previous objections, above. In particular, the proposed first sentence, The term "cultural Marxism" has been used in a general sense to discuss Marxist ideas in the cultural field; without the while and also of the long-stable version, creates BOTHSIDES quality (that "people referring to 'Cultural Marxism' might be referring to the conspiracy theory or to Marxist cultural analysis") that is not supported by the BALANCE of the sources cited, much less the available sources.

Also, Parts of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory make reference to actual thinkers and ideas that are in the Western Marxist tradition is a selective and UNDUE statement for an article on Marxist cultural analysis, and Conspiracy theorists diverge from accepted scholarship by attributing nefarious motives to scholars,and by exaggerating the actual influence of Marxist cultural analysis in the world falls precisely into the objection I raised above - it concedes (against all available RS) that the conspiracy theorists are talking about "the same tradition" addressed in this article as Marxist cultural analysis, but then attribute to it nefarious motives and exaggerated influence. This is hogwash entirely unsupported by reliable sources and should never be stated in Wikipedia - this is not what Braune, Jamin, etc., are actually saying (although they are cited here for support) and the proposal not only to include this statement but to make it in wikivoice is absurd and entirely noncompliant with WP:V, much less WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Other than what I have proposed and the status quo, is there any other option you think should be put forward as an option when seeking community input? Sennalen (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why your ONEVERSUSMANY alternative should be presented at RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It makes it sound as if the conspiracy theory is an exaggeration of reality rather than a fabrication. I agree though that Breivik gets too much space. TFD (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree it would be an improvement to change "attribute nefarious motives" to "fabricate nefarious motives". The intent is to be absolutely clear and explicit that the conspiracy theory is wrong. Sennalen (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Here are the contours of the disagreement as I understand it.

1. Whether Parts of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory make reference to actual thinkers and ideas that are in the Western Marxist tradition, but they severely misrepresent the subject. is a faithful summary of the sources. I have given nine passages in six sources that support these claims. (At the bottom of this edit: [7]). Newimpartial says I have not interpreted these passages correctly. I do not understand what Newimpartial's interpretation would be well enough to attempt to summarize for them.
2. Whether it is undue weight to discuss the conspiracy theory on the page for Marxist cultural analysis. The page already included a section and a lede sentence on this connection. No one has shown any deviation from the consensus that such a section belongs on the page. Therefore, I do not consider objections along these lines to be in good faith.
3. Whether the passage, if faithful to the sources, is nevertheless selective or cherry-picked. I assert it is not, since if the section is to exist, the first duty of the section, per WP:ONEWAY, is to describe the relationship between the section topic and the article topic. I attempted to do this, not using favored sources, but the best review articles already appearing on this page and the conspiracy theory page. The passages chosen seemed to be the most pertinent to the question, and contrasting claims in the same article were not excluded.

I believe #1 is the true, primary locus of dispute. If Newimpartial agrees that this is the case, then it would be productive to open an RfC on the narrow question of whether the passage faithfully reflects the sources. It would be especially helpful if before the posting they would provide a contrasting summary of the passages I have cited or else pointers to passages they believe are more reflective of the relationship between the conspiracy theory and Marxist cultural analysis. On the other hand, if there's no agreement on the locus of dispute, it would be better to begin the process at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Sennalen (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Other people should weigh in here, but briefly, I do not accept this framing. In particular, I do not accept the spin that Sennalen has placed on WP:ONEWAY, the most relevant passage of which (I believe) is: If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether - while I am not arguing that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory should be omitted altogether from this article, I do believe that discussion of it must be limited for reasons of WP:DUE WP:WEIGHT. Note also that the point of the subsequent passage of ONEWAY. Fringe theories should be discussed in context; uncontroversial ideas may need to be referred to in relation to fringe theories applies to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article, not this one - the conspiracy theory needs to be distinguished from actually existing Western Marxism, but Western Marxism does not need to be distinguished from the conspiracy theory. This is the whole point of ONEWAY, which does not at all support Sennalen's proposal here. Newimpartial (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The exact part I had in mind was Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. Essentially, finding RS connecting Marxist cultural analysis with the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is a necessary condition for mentioning anything about the conspiracy theory on this page. Sennalen (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Necessary, sure, but not sufficient. Newimpartial (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, would you like to entirely remove any mention of the conspiracy theory from this page? Sennalen (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

No, but perhaps the mention could be briefer, as TFD has suggested. Newimpartial (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe #1 is the true, primary locus of dispute. I disagree. I'm not so much interested in dissecting Western Marxism or using this page to draw clarification between two other pages (that's not the purpose of this page, this page is for clarifying the works of The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School and E.P Thompson). I don't really understand the goal here, or why it's being done on THIS page in particular. Western Marxism is not monolithic, it's very broad and can encompass everything from Marx himself to the post-modernists (if one were so inclined). We have a page for clarifying Western Marxism already. For me, what you're really completely overlooking are cases like when Breitbart states "Theodor Adorno promoted degenerate atonal music to induce mental illness, including necrophilia, on a large scale. He and Horkheimer also penetrated Hollywood, recognising the film industry’s power to influence mass culture." or when Lind writes "Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood)"...

Both of which are absolute falsifications. Hence part of a conspiracy theory.

To say Lind, Breitbart, Kellner and Adorno are all fundamentally talking about the same thing... well that's just absolute poppy-cock to me. So there's definitely more outlandish conspiracy claims which are being overlooked, swept under the rug, it's more than "The Frankfurt were nefariousness vs no they weren't". So for me: Western Marxism can't be summed up easily, nor should it have to be (particularly not on this page)... and outlandish claims are being overlooked and downplayed. That's my problem with your approach Sennalen. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

That's all great. What are your reliable sources? Sennalen (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

How about backing off the WP:SEALIONing? The RS on these topics are already in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

It should be trivial in that case to cite some in support of your point of view. Sennalen (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not the IP, and my tolerance for marine mammals is presently waning. Newimpartial (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me, it was an easy mistake to make. I would guess you do not agree with the IP editor that what the edit principally needs is another sentence or two clarifying that the conspiracy theorists make outlandish claims? That would make it slightly longer rather than shorter. Sennalen (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Is that the complaint? That the section is too long? I'm still not sure why all this is necessary. Anyone care to fill me in? --124.170.170.79 (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:RS doesn't apply to talk page discussions, but no doubt WP:FRINGE does account for the inclusion of such quotes as long as they are contextualized. If you just want links to where these authors make those claims, they are [breitbart.com/europe/2015/02/04/for-the-first-time-in-history-conservatives-are-at-the-forefront-of-the-cultural-revolution/] and here. My point is that are extraordinary and outlandishly incorrect claims being made as well as more reasonable half-truths and misrepresentations and the academic history/facts. I believe there's at least one book which suggests The Frankfurt School were in league with the devil (by Michael Walsh). So yeah it's more than just whether the FS had ill intent. It's weather they were Satanists, Necrophiliacs, Putting homosexuals on television, wrote all the Beatles songs, or were trying to destroy western civilization and Christianity. That's far more than just distorting the academic facts, that's going off the deep end.

At any rate, why focus on this here, rather than at the Conspiracy Theory main page. My understanding of the Main page tag, aka "Main article: Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" - is that it's meant to indicate we're quoting from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, we're not meant to be forming consensuses on this talk page that would effect the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

To recap for the IP and anyone else not following along, the root cause is the sentence in the lede which cites Jamin to say there is "no clear relationship" between the conspiracy theory and Marxist cultural analysis; however, Jamin describes several points of similarity and difference. "No clear relationship" is not a reasonable gloss. That's what I first called attention to, but consensus is WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, so the task became to put correct information in the appropriate section. There was already a section about the conspiracy theory in this article, and there is no consensus to remove it. Newimpartial had a valid concern that increasing the size of the section gives WP:UNDUE weight, and I agree. However, per WP:ONEWAY the first duty of the section is to describe how the section relates to the article topic, which is precisely the information I want to add. Trimming the length must come from any other kind of information already present. There appears to be consensus at least that Anders Breivik has nothing to do with Marxist cultural analysis. The remaining difficulty is that Newimpartial does not believe my summary is supported by the sources I have given. Sennalen (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You are still misreading ONEWAY: that piece of guidance does not justify adding the information you wish into the section. The information this article requires is the accurate summary, While the term "cultural Marxism" has been used in a general sense, to discuss the application of Marxist ideas in the cultural field, the variant term "Cultural Marxism" generally refers to an antisemitic conspiracy theory. There is no justification for the material you wish to add: Parts of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory make reference to actual thinkers and ideas that are in the Western Marxist tradition, but they severely misrepresent the subject. Conspiracy theorists diverge from accepted scholarship by attributing nefarious motives to scholars, and by exaggerating the actual influence of Marxist cultural analysis in the world. The juxtaposition offered by the stable article text is a BALANCED summary of the sources; the derivation of the conspiracy theory from Marxist cultural analysis (or from Western Marxism - which isn't even the topic of this article) is not supported by sources or policy.

Once again, ONEWAY properly understood doesn't require that this article contain additional information about how the CT relates to this article's topic - it says that the article about the FRINGE theory needs to be contextualized by the relationship to mainstream scholarship, not the other way around.

Finally, you haven't shown any relationship between Marxist cultural analysis (and you keep eliding to Western Marxism, which is telling) and the object of the conspiracy theory that would be both clear and based on WP:RS. The indisputable fact that some conspiracy theory figures name-drop certain (predominantly Jewish, but otherwise apparently random) figures from the Frankfurt School, etc. does not create a "clear" relationship to Marxist cultural analysis, and each of your attempts to do so has run afoul of WP:OR and WP:TEND. I would suggest that you give it a rest. Newimpartial (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

"Marxist cultural analysis" is not a term of art. Arguments from definition are destined to fail because there is no authoritative definition in RS. It's a generic application of "Marxist" as an adjective to "cultural analysis" as a noun. It's an uncommon turn of phrase in the literature, with even less attestation than "cultural Marxism". The referents of "Marxist cultural analysis", "cultural Marxism", and "Western Marxism" are all (approximately) Lucaks, Gramsci, the Frankfurt School, and the Birmingham School. Near as I can tell, the only reason we have a page by this name is some editors are taking great pains to avoid the phrase "cultural Marxism" because of its culture war implications. Anyone whose first concern is point-scoring in the culture war is WP:NOTHERE. The first sentence of ONEWAY is about including fringe topics in non-fringe articles, which applies here. The dilemma is that if (as you believe) there is no relationship established in RS then there should be no mention in the article (except a disambiguation note). I bring this up as a hypothetical only, on account of the fact that RS do connect the topics. Sennalen (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand why you keep returning to the (permissive) first sentence of ONEWAY, when the most relevant sentence is later in the same paragraph: If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. Just because I am not motivated to "omit altogether" does not mean that "limiting" discussion to what is necessary for the RS topic is not the way to go - it is exactly what policy requires.

Obviously there is a relationship between the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and Adorno or Marcuse, just as there is a relationship between other antisemitic conspiracies and the Rothschilds or Soros. But WP does not concede to the far right that Parts of the ... conspiracy theory make reference to actual (wealthy Jewish financiers), but they severely misrepresent the subject. Conspiracy theorists diverge from accepted scholarship by attributing nefarious motives to (financiers), and by exaggerating the actual influence of (wealthy Jewish financiers) in the world. I trust that the relevance of this parallel is obvious. Newimpartial (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The relevance is not at all clear, since my text summarized RS about this topic, while your parody is invented about another topic. We agree that the best consequence of policy is to limit discussion to what is necessary. What is necessary is to summarize how RS connect the topics. Since you do not consider my edit to be the best implementation, provide an alternative with support from RS. Sennalen (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Your proposed text has not summarized RS about this topic - you have selected passages out of context, from sources that have not reached your selected conclusion at all, and employed WP:SYNTH. But even if the support for the "Cultural Marxism" passage were the same as that for the passage I imagined about the financiers, it would not be an appropriate summary and WP would not include either summary in article space.

I don't see any problem with the current opening sentence of the section, which is amply supported by the BALANCE of RS. I am not going marine mammal hunting. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Please identify the synthesized claim(s) or specific passage(s) that are out of context. Sennalen (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I have already identified the two relevant sentences. I am not going to specify further, per WP:SEALION. Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Synthesis involves combining two claims in RS to reach a conclusion that is not in RS. You have not identified the claims that are combined, nor the synthesis that is unsourced. You have not identified a specific quotation that is out of context, nor elucidated what you consider the correct context. You continue to cast aspersions on my willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty in eliciting actionable objections and finding support in the RS for your point of view. Sennalen (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

None of the citations you have offered in support of this passage conclude that the most significant differences between actual Western Marxism and the object of the conspiracy consist in misrepresenting actual thinkers and ideas, attributing nefarious motives and exaggerating...actual influence, as opposed to, say, fabrication or antisemitic caricature. Your isolation of and emphasis on these elements represents an original reading of the sources you are citing in support of your proposal - in other words, WP:SYNTH.

By the way, I have cast no ASPERSIONS whatsoever on your motives in this discussion, as opposed to your comment above, Near as I can tell, the only reason we have a page by this name is some editors are taking great pains to avoid the phrase "cultural Marxism" because of its culture war implications. Anyone whose first concern is point-scoring in the culture war is WP:NOTHERE. While this does not clearly apply to anyone in this discussion, it seems equally clear that it is intended as an ASPERSION - though it is entirely unsupported by evidence, in violation of the WP:TPG. Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Please be more precise in your policy objections. OR is a claim for which no RS source exists. SYNTH is a subtype of OR that involves connecting two RS claims (such as "A because B" when A and B have RS but "because" does not.) You have not subtantiated a case of OR or SYNTH. If you believe I have incorrectly emphasized something, that is an error of WP:WEIGHT. If you believe I have not accurately paraphrased a source, that is a violation of WP:V.

Please also be more precise in deploying RS in support of your content interpretation. Quote actual text rather than just an author's name or a vague assertion that sources exist. Sennalen (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Picking specific statements out of reliable sources and presenting them, outside of their original context, to support claims their authors do not in fact make is not a WEIGHT issue; it is a SYNTH issue. Your proposed language suggests, as I stated above, that the most significant differences between actual Western Marxism and the object of the conspiracy theory consist in misrepresenting actual thinkers and ideas, attributing nefarious motives and exaggerating...actual influence, as opposed to, say, fabrication or antisemitic caricature. To support this statement, you would need a source that actually isolates these aspects as the salient differences between the conspiracy theory and actually existing Marxism, and you would need to present this with in-text attribution rather than in wikivoice (because it is not a generally held view).

As far as the SEALIONing of your last paragraph, the current version of this article - and its sources - speak quite eloquently for themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Newimpartial. The fact that the conspiracy theorists attribute the origins of the conpiracy to actual people who peformed Marxist cultural analysis doen't make it any less of a conspicacy theory. Over the centuries, conspiracists continually update the theory to include actual people. If someone says Donald Trump is part of the conspiracy, and some conspiracy theorists believe he is, that doesn't make the theory more true just because Trump is a real person. TFD (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: This does not speak to the disagreement. The cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is a wrong, false, antisemitic, ridiculous, fabricated, evil, outragous, indefensible, lunatic conspiracy theory. The proposed edit does not contradict that at all. Sennalen (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You do not have to be so emphatic: wrong, false, etc. Your edit casts doubt on that. "It's wrong, false, etc., but nudge nudge wink wink there's an element of truth in it, even if some versions are exaggerated." TFD (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, changed out the reference. Jamin is a french academic, a bit silly to have them used for an American concept/social context. Braune is American and correctly summarizes the academic viewpoint on the conspiracy theory. Hope that's enough to please everyone. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Jamin's nationality (Belgian) is not particularly probative. If anything, his distance from Anglophone politics enhances his impartiality. That's all beside the actual problem, which was the article did not WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Replacing it with another source that is not being followed is no improvement. The framing in the article is probably closer to Braune's personal bias, but it is still the case that Braune describes many explicit relationships between scholarship and the conspiracy theory, rather than "no clear relationship". Instead of maintaining some preferred text and shopping for a source to support it, we should be starting with the sources, as I aim to do. Your change has not made the article worse, so I don't feel it should be reverted, but neither is this change a meaningful alternative to real improvement. Sennalen (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Since you have not shown any RS-based, non-SYNTH basis for a clear relationship, your speculation in this matter does not seem especially germane to this article. Newimpartial (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would not support expanding info about the conspiracy theory into the body of this article, as these are two separate things. I would even question the contents such as:

In Norway, Anders Behring Breivik quoted the conspiracy usage of "Cultural Marxism" in his political manifesto 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, which he emailed to 1,003 people just 90 minutes before killing 77 people in his bomb and gun attacks in Oslo and on Utøya.[28][29][30][31][32] In more mainstream political parlance, cultural conservatives have identified "Cultural Marxism" as the theoretical basis for aspects of cultural liberalism.[33][34][35][36][37] cited to sources about the attack, such as "'Breivik Manifesto' Details Chilling Attack Preparation". BBC News. 24 July 2011. Retrieved 2 August 2015.

Why is this here? I'm new to this page, so perhaps I'm not familiar with the prior discussions. But it surprised me that sources about the Brevik attack would be used in this article. The BBC source [8], for example, does not discuss the conspiracy theory, nor how it connects to the Marxist cultural analysis. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The article is about Marxist Cultural Analysis, as it relates to the 'Cultural Theorists' of the 40s - 80s (pre-postmodernism). So it relates to The Frankfurt School of cultural theory, The Birmingham School, and the work of E.P. Thompson (see "The Making of the British Working Class"). The Frankfurt School, and Birmingham School are often accused of being part of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. So that section has been included as to note that fact. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Revision

I have further refined the change based on additional feedback.

• Several editors, at least Newimpartial and TFD, stated their main objection was that the edit did not highlight the extreme nature of some conspiracy theory claims, with particular reference to mind-control, so I have made certain to highlight that.
• Doubts were raised about whether the paraphrasing was sticking to sources, so I have included quotations in most of the cite tags in order to aid verification.
• While selecting the particular quotations, the sources are very obliging in providing passages in prominent locations (such as introductions and conclusions) that highlight both the claims that are adjacent to real scholarship and the claims that are more extreme in nearly the same breath. This should answer the suspicion that I have cherry-picked anything.
• There were also objections about the length of the section, so this is the most concise rendition to date, including compared to the status quo.
• There were concerns that linking the conspiracy theory with actual scholarship was SYNTH. To allay those concerns, I have omitted some references that described very detailed ways they were connected, only retaining the sources saying in more general terms that the connection exists. By policy it is not SYNTH to provide specific examples of a phenomenon when sources establish the phenomenon exists, but the presence of those citations may have contributed to confusion about whether SYNTH was taking place. If anyone doubts that the specific examples are numerous, I can point to those citations as a sidebar.
• The changes are not entirely concessions on my part. The more I review the corpus, the more convinced I am that the phrase "cultural Marxism" is used in legitimate scholarship, with concrete referents that include the Frankfurt school. The article should not demur to say so with a full stop. I have provided citations that are ample to the point of excessive, since I know this is hotly contested.

I am presently posting this revision to the main article, without the intention to self-revert this time. I firmly believe this is the presentation that deserves to stand. Those who disagree may of course discuss further and edit further, bearing in mind WP:PRESERVE. Sennalen (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

For clarity, the version as I posed it was [9]. There have already been some edits I don't particularly endorse, but I'll let it lie and see what develops. Sennalen (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

yep, apart from the first sentence I think your revision isn't bad. I made an edit to restore the removed passage on Breivik and restored the previous first sentence. Mvbaron (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I have made some additional edits to the rest of the passage, for clarity and style, and am now happy with the result. Newimpartial (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Well that was a lot of argument and nothing proven. I guess someone got their way though... er, good for them? --124.170.170.79 (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• In the UK, my impression is that almost everyone called this (non-conspiratorial) analysis "cultural Marxism", at least until that Breivik incident. Even so, a lot of people still use "cultural Marxism" primarily when referring to the works of Habermas, Adorno, et al. in these parts. Tewdar (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

There isn't really any significant non-conspiratorial use of the term today. Even accepting the most broad claims people have made for usage, there's only a tiny smattering of the words being used adjacent to each other in a non-conspiratorial context, especially compared to how massive a field of study Marxism is in general even today. We have to be very careful about such usage - it's WP:OR to place heavy weight on a tiny handful of sources using a term and argue that it represents anything significant. If there were significant usage, given the heavy focus on the conspiracy theory, it would be easy to find extensive secondary sources documenting that, rather than just a handful of primary citations to the words being used. --Aquillion (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• On the subject of Breivik, why does he get an entire paragraph to himself on this article? I think we should remove this paragraph entirely. Tewdar (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree it is not related to Marxist cultural analysis. TFD and K.e.coffman expressed similar sentiments in earlier discussion. I removed it in my edit, but it was restored by Mvbaron. I didn't personally make an issue of it to avoid bludgeoning. Sennalen (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I got rid of it. 😁 Tewdar (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I definitely disagree with this removal. It's the aspect of the topic (and the term) that had the most coverage and which propelled it into the mainstream - it needs to be in any summary. --Aquillion (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Breivik

What makes this person worthy of a paragraph in an article titled "Marxist cultural analysis"?  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Eh don’t be silly :) it’s in a section on the conspiracy theory… Mvbaron (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

While there does need to be a section on the conspiracy theory, that doesn't seem to me to justify a whole paragraph on Brevik. Newimpartial (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we need a section on the conspiracy theory, but this should exist only insofar as it serves to clearly distinguish it from standard scholarly discussion of Marxist theory. A subsection of a subsection really seems undue, and unnecessary. Let the reader visit the dedicated article if they want to learn about the conspiracy theory and the associated madness.  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

With any fringe theory, we need to include its most prominent advocates. TFD (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I really don't think Brevik qualifies. This is an article on political theory, anyway, and extended discussion on Breivik just seems to muddy the waters IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

oh yeah?  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Any mention at all in this article is coatracking. That doesn't bother me strongly, but I don't want to hear any more crocodile tears from people who support a paragraph about Breivik saying that a little more about Lukács or Gramsci makes the section too long. Sennalen (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

CT in the lede

The conspiracy theory section has been stable awhile, so it seems time to finally address the original issue, which was OR in the lede. Rather than "without any clear relationship", there is a clear relationship of Marxist analysis being used and misinterpreted in the conspiracy theory. This is true whether one looks at the Jamin source originally cited, Braune that was used to replace it, or the full sourcing now in the later section. The material is there to fix it in the proper WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY way. I'll leave this a few days to see if anyone else wants to tackle the exact phrasing. Sennalen (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Whaddabout, "an influential discourse on the far right, based on misinformed, misunderstood, exaggerated, and fabricated accounts of the work of the Frankfurt School and others"? Or something like that?  Tewdar  (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Lays it on a little thicker than I would have, but it's closer to the sources than "no relationship". Sennalen (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I mean... don't have to use all of those adjectives... perhaps you have other suggestions?  Tewdar  (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen any RS supporting either a clear relationship or based on. Without good sourcing, this is a non-starter. The proposed "Background" section is far from establishing a "clear relationship" (which makes sense, if there isn't one). Newimpartial (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Woods gives a good account of the "relationship" between the CT and the Frankfurt School, does he not?  Tewdar  (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't really understand this constant back and forth. Minnicino's conspiracy theory (for example) is universally held to be a mainly fabricated (with the remainder exaggerated or misrepresented) account of the Frankfurt School and friends. No?  Tewdar  (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how a mainly fabricated...account of would qualify as based on. Newimpartial (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with, "the conspiracy theory is based on a fabricated account of the activities of the Frankfurt School" myself. Do you have a better suggestion?  Tewdar  (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I suppose we could say is; "is a mostly fictitious account of the work and activities of the Frankfurt School..." or something.  Tewdar  (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"Fabricated" is applicable to some expressions of the conspiracy theory (such as Timothy Matthews), but certainly not to Minnicino. Woods give the most detailed rebuttal of Minnicino and describes it mainly as misreading. It's mainly Minnicino's conclusions that Woods justly savages. Having had Woods as my first introduction to the content, I was surprised to see what Minnicino cites as evidence contains a lot of extended passages that are hard to find any error in, e.g..

Extended quote

In the heady days immediately after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was widely believed that proletarian revolution would momentarily sweep out of the Urals into Europe and, ultimately, North America. It did not; the only two attempts at workers' government in the West— in Munich and Budapest—lasted only months. The Communist International (Comintern) therefore began several operations to determine why this was so. One such was headed by Georg Lukacs, a Hungarian aristocrat, son of one of the Hapsburg Empire's leading bankers. Trained in Germany and already an important literary theorist, Lukacs became a Communist during World War I, writing as he joined the party, "Who will save us from Western civilization?" Lukacs was well-suited to the Comintern task: he had been one of the Commissars of Culture during the short-lived Hungarian Soviet in Budapest in 1919; in fact, modern historians link the shortness of the Budapest experiment to Lukacs' orders mandating sex education in the schools, easy access to contraception, and the loosening of divorce laws—all of which revulsed Hungary's Roman Catholic population. Fleeing to the Soviet Union after the counter-revolution, Lukacs was secreted into Germany in 1922, where he chaired a meeting of Communist-oriented sociologists and intellectuals. This meeting founded the Institute for Social Research. Over the next decade, the Institute worked out what was to become the Comintern's most successful psychological warfare operation against the capitalist West. Lukacs identified that any political movement capable of bringing Bolshevism to the West would have to be, in his words, "demonic"; it would have to "possess the religious power which is capable of filling the entire soul; a power that characterized primitive Christianity." However, Lukacs suggested, such a "messianic" political movement could only succeed when the individual believes that his or her actions are determined by "not a personal destiny, but the destiny of the community" in a world "that has been abandoned by God [emphasis added-MJM]." Bolshevism worked in Russia because that nation was dominated by a peculiar gnostic form of Christianty typified by the writings of Fyodor Dostoyevsky. "The model for the new man is Alyosha Karamazov," said Lukacs, referring to the Dostoyevsky character who willingly gave over his personal identity to a holy man, and thus ceased to be "unique, pure, and therefore abstract." This abandonment of the soul's uniqueness also solves the problem of "the diabolic forces lurking in all violence" which must be unleashed in order to create a revolution. In this context, Lukacs cited the Grand Inquisitor section of Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, noting that the Inquisitor who is interrogating Jesus, has resolved the issue of good and evil: once man has understood his alienation from God, then any act in the service of the "destiny of the community" is justified; such an act can be "neither crime nor madness.... For crime and madness are objectifications of transcendental homelessness." According to an eyewitness, during meetings of the Hungarian Soviet leadership in 1919 to draw up lists for the firing squad, Lukacs would often quote the Grand Inquisitor: "And we who, for their happiness, have taken their sins upon ourselves, we stand before you and say, 'Judge us if you can and if you dare.'"

Calling it a "psychological warfare operation" is a bit tendentious, but it's hard to say that Minnicino didn't read Lukács himself as well as a fair amount of secondary analysis to come up with this. Sennalen (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't really be surprised to find that, like all 'good' conspiracy theories, this one (taken as a whole) contains a mixture of fabrication, misrepresentation, misunderstanding, and a small sprinkling of truth.  Tewdar  (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly one of Jamin's main points Sennalen (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Speaking just for myself, I would be fine with "The conspiracy theory relies on a selective and sometimes fabricated account of Western Marxism", or something like that, though the emphasis in the lead section needs to be on the actual work of the conspiracy theory - purposes to which the selective and sometimes fabricated intellectual history are rather tangential. Newimpartial (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable suggestion, also speaking for myself. It's not like we need to spend a great deal of time on this in this article's lede.  Tewdar  (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC) How about, "...an influential discourse on the far right, which relies mainly on misrepresented, exaggerated, and fabricated accounts of the work of the Frankfurt School and others Western Marxist scholarship Marxism"?  Tewdar  (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean by removing "work" and adding "scholarship", but I'm not sure that the latter is really the right word. I'd be more comfortable with "Western Marxism", frankly. Newimpartial (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Getting there, getting there...😩  Tewdar  (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Korsch and Lukács participated in the Arbeitswoche, which included the study of Marxism and Philosophy (1923), by Karl Korsch, but their Communist Party membership precluded their active participation in the Institute for Social Research (Frankfurt School); yet Korsch participated in the School's publishing venture.--60.240.148.170 (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

We have had this discussion many times. There are several authors who have put the words cultural and Marxist or Marxism together, but the concept that the Right talks about was actually invented and named by them. At some point, one of them found a few obscure references in Marxist writing and using typically conspiracist logic, claimed that those writers were writing about the same concept as them. Basically by "cultural Marxist," the Marxist writers had been writing about Marxists who study capitalist culture, as opposed to capitalist economics. There is an article about that called "Marxist cultural analysis."

By cultural Marxism, the Right is referring to a supposed conspiracy by Marxists, most of whom were Jewish, had rejected Soviet Communism, and moved to the U.S. In the conspiracy theory, they were still working with the international Communist conspiracy to destroy Western culture and ultimately Western civilization. This is a resurrection of earlier anti-Communist and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that date from before Marxists began to study culture.

Ironically, the students of Marxist cultural studies condemned the culture that the conspiracy theorists accuse them of creating, such as pornography. From a Marxist perspective, popular culture in the U.S. dumbs down the population and prevents them from becoming revolutionaries. At best, its existence shows the evils of the profit system.

TFD (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Just added a very interesting source, Raymond Williams of The Birmingham School.

This source uses both the terms "Marxist Cultural Theory" and "Marxist Cultural Analysis" interchangeably. So I think it might be good to investigate for a possible expansion of the article. I will also be looking through this lecture from Stuart Hall [10], on the Origins of Culture studies (which a user has made the unfortunate suggestion of merging the article with). However, the lecture is from Stuart Hall, one of the later theorists of The Birmingham School, and (according to the transcript) makes no mention of Marx or Marxism. Culture Studies in general doesn't - and so I think they're two separate (although not unrelated) topics entirely. If I had to say it explicitly, I'd say Marxist cultural theory, or Marxist cultural analysis, is a sort of unwashed Culture Studies. Unwashed by neoliberal academia, or modern culture wars. 203.220.137.141 (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

A Dictionary of Critical Theory - Ian Buchanan

Encountered a problem adding this source, Wikipedia's citation tool couldn't find the ISBN (odd). Was entering the one on Amazon. Amazon also listed Ian Buchanan's bio, which can be viewed here: https://www.amazon.com.au/stores/author/B001H6NT9K/about

During this search for the ISBN, I found the book had been updated to a 2018 version - the description of which mentions The Frankfurt School explicitly: https://www.amazon.com.au/Dictionary-Professor-University-Wollongong-Australia-dp-0198794797/dp/0198794797/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

It also locates the book as having been published by "The University of Wollongong" - a relatively small town on the east coast of Australia. Given that the source was updated in 2018, I'm hesitant to add it until the updated text in question can be reviewed further. 203.219.38.81 (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If anyone is wondering why there's caution around the term 'cultural Marxism' it's because it's expressly been connected to a conspiracy theory, and the academic meaning is said to have been "hijacked" by far-right politics [11]. A term with parallels to Cultural Bolshevism (according to this source [12]). 203.219.38.81 (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)]