Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

The aetiology of Cultural Marxism

“The Role of Consciousness and the Evolution of the Gospel of Marxism”

https://newdiscourses.com/2023/04/role-consciousness-evolution-gospel-of-marxism/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.77.32 (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That seems to be a YouTube video by James A. Lindsay. I'm not sure if it is serious or another example of him hoaxing. It sounds very much like it might be a buzzword heavy hoax. Even if it isn't, I don't think there is anything we can do with it here. DanielRigal (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2023

In the "Entering the Mainstream" subheading, below the paragraph referencing Ross Douthat and above the "Concerns for false balance" subheading, I would request an additional paragraph that would read and cite roughly as follows:

On April 19, 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) decried critical race theory and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts as “a form of cultural Marxism” in a speech at the North Charleston Coliseum in Charleston, South Carolina.(Citation: Post and Courier at https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/in-first-sc-swing-ron-desantis-slams-woke-culture-gender-identity-as-cultural-marxism/article_552b09ce-deac-11ed-b9e1-ff6cfb7cbe21.html) 115dream (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a passing mention to me. But I'll let others weigh in. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

He also said it in passing while signing a law in 2022, with a quotation later mentioned in passing by PBS and the Washington Post. Llll5032 (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

He's a major political figure, it seems to be something he says regularly (eg. part of his regular platform); there's a reference from December 23, 2021, on thehill.com, December 5, 2022 (already established in previous comment), via The Washington Post, and April 14, 2023, via The Christian Post. They appear to be different instances. There's also a video of him which corroborates his usage of the term via YouTube. I think it's fine to include it. 203.214.86.63 (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's quite relevant to the section, especially because there is a lot of speculation that DeSantis might enter the 2024 presidential election as a candidate. A mainstream politician using the term so regularly looks relevant in my eyes. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

It is a bit more than a passing mention as it appears in the headline but there isn't much depth to the article. I think that it's arguable either way but a second good reference would definitely swing it in favour of inclusion. DanielRigal (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to WP:GNG. If this actual article's topic isn't discussed in the news article, merely a "trivial mention," then it doesn't count for the purposes of citing in a Wikipedia article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

In order to have weight for inclusion, you would need to show that it is significant to the topic. The fact that it was mentioned in a statement he made is insufficient. For example, an article about the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory that identifies DeSantis as a proponent might be acceptable.

Also, there is a BLP issue here. The wording implies that DeSantis is a conspiracy theorist, while policy requires that articles can only report opinions, not present them. TFD (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds and TFD make good points. It should be included only if a third-party RS notes whether or how his words relate to the conspiracy theory. Llll5032 (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Question: Is “Cultural Marxism” inherently far right?

As a leftist I am unsure why “cultural Marxism” is labelled as far-right when it is possible for one to claim that there is a “culture of Marxism” without inherently advocating against any specific group. I am extremely sorry but could someone please fill in the details for me? 142.254.81.239 (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a specific conspiracy theory. That you could make some related but different claim isn't really germane to what the conspiracy theorists actually do claim. MrOllie (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

If you want the details filled in for you, you might begin by reading the article. TFD (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

For the leftist version, see Marxist cultural analysis. This is mentioned in the first sentence on the Cultural Marxism page. 14.200.225.102 (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Cultural marxism can be an unencumbered synonym for Western Marxism. This page is about a conspiracy theory that is about cultural Marxism. The conspiracy theories are typically far-right, but sources say there have been communist and neoliberal iterations too. Sennalen (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

"Can be", but seldom is. The vast majority of references to "Cultural Marxism" are in relation to the conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Sennalen, no, the whole of Western Marxism doesn't boil down to a cultural phenomena or cultural analysis - and the idea that it does is a very idiosyncratic viewpoint, which I've only ever seen you express. Your views on the topic are very specific to you. 220.240.211.68 (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say that. Anyway, here are some views that are not specific to me:

[...]western Marxists were drawn to dissident ideas on philosophy, politics, sociology or aesthetics from Gramsci, Lukacs or Korsch, ignoring equally challenging economic ideas from the likes of Grossman or Rosdolsky. ‘Cultural Marxism’ took this to extremes, freeing aesthetic criticism from its allegedly mechanical materialist trappings. Its roots lie in the Institute for Social Research,[1]

Lukács is a foundational thinker of the Frankfurt School and of cultural Marxism in general.[2]

Adorno, Marcuse, and Sartre, in particular – tended to be silent on the issues that had given Marxism its initial impetus, namely the study of economics, the analysis of political machinery, revolutionary strategy, and so on. It was under these conditions that so-called ‘cultural Marxism’ emerged and with it the dominance of philosophy as the primary area of interest[3]

The importance attached in Western Marxism to issues of culture and ideology is of course by no means just a matter of theory. What Trent Shroyer (1973) called 'cultural Marxism' was an important element, though more in Europe than in North America, in the 'counter-culture' of the 1960s (Roszak, 1970).[4]

It has also been commonly used as a conversational shorthand for decades and, in all likelihood, even before the term initially appeared in print in 1973 in Trent Schroyer's The Critique of Domination: The Origins and Development of Critical Theory. That a collection of interviews on North America's leading Marxist literary theorist, Frederic Jameson, edited by Ian Buchanan in 2007, could appear under the name Jameson on Jameson: Conversations on Cultural Marxism, should confirm what anyone who has watched its evolution knows: that the term was not originally a perjorative term, it was purely descriptive, and was used rather loosely to refer to cover a common approach to literary and cultural studies of the sort pioneered in Critical Theory by the Frankfurt School, but also in British Marxist literary studies as found in Raymond Williams and his students.[5]

Moreover, while the standard account of the relationship has it that “British cultural studies has tended either to disregard or caricature in a hostile manner the critique of mass culture developed by the Frankfurt School” (Kellner 31), the connection between cultural studies and Cultural Marxism has not always been so straightforward or so antagonistic. This is especially true in relation to the work of Raymond Williams, who writes of the “excitement of contact with more new Marxist work” in the 1970s and who, upon reading Marcuse’s Negations, celebrated a “sense of meeting, after a long separation”[6]

‘British cultural Marxism’, Dworkin argued, shares three common themes with the Frankfurt School: both were shaped by the failure of the revolutionary movements in the West; both saw themselves as philosophical alternatives to Marxist economism and Leninist vanguardism; and both stressed the autonomy of culture and ideology in social life.[7]

Post-modernism cultural Marxism, a Western Marxist trend of thought that has emerged and had extensive influence under the new historical conditions where significant change has taken place in contemporary capitalism, has quickly become a critical cultural trend that questions the mainstream values of Western modern society.[8]

There has remained a vexing problem, which may be described as follows: the philosophical justification of the revolutionary program in a way that captures the loyalties of a significant portion of the intelligentsia. The attempt to solve this problem has created 'Western Marxism', and an extraordinary intellectual stew with something to suit every taste — a Hegelianized Marx, a de-Hegelianized Marx; Marx-with-Kant, Marx-with-Spinoza, Marx-with-Freud; Marx romanticized ('the young Marx'), Marx de-mystified, Marx re-mystified; emancipatory Marxism, cultural Marxism, Marxism as 'method'. A sceptical observer might easily conclude that this protracted ferment is less a testimony to intellectual vigour than a massive effort to 'save the appearances'. In the last analysis, however, what matters to dedicated Communists is not intellectual considerations, but political power.[9]

Cultural Marxism, most prevalent in the late 1970s and early 1980s, represents a stage when Marxists had grown disenchanted with organizations such as trade unions and labor parties (Crouch 1982). These Marxists turned their sights toward the daily practices of workers for the genuine insurgent potential they felt had been stifled in formal political institutions. Cultural Marxists thus probed the earthy mores and sociable interactions of workers and their communities for buried signs of incipient radicalism.[10]

it is precisely this blindness to socialist class struggles that provides the crucial opening for the neocapitalist interests that now seek to complement their state power with a new, better fitting mantle of legitimacy. Viewed from this standpoint, in which the relation of the political, ideological existence of class conflict to its economic basis is conceived as strictly mechanical and unilateral, “Western” or cultural Marxism in fact converges on its “Eastern” counterpart. True, the former typically repudiates the latter’s “vulgar” base superstructure determinism, with the facile assertion that base and superstructure are now entirely outmoded as analytical categories. Among a preponderance of contemporary Marxist and “post-Marxist” intellectuals from Aronowitz and Laclau and Mouffe to Bowles and Gintis, the superstructure, often rebaptized as “discourse” or simply “culture,” inflates itself into the newly and uniquely pertinent category for a left politics.[11] Sennalen (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

This source doesn't seem to think very highly of Wikipedia: in December 2014 the Wikipedia entry on “Cultural Marxism,” which, though brief, and uncontentious, was deleted [...] The arguments in favor of deleting the entry were passionate, but grossly methodologically deficient in appraising what counts as “evidence” for the meaning of any term, or existence of a practice. 😂  Tewdar  20:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

That source is a non-specialist diatribe by Beaudelairean literary critics without notable expertise in Marxist theory, intended to defend their choice of title for their book. And I don't find their evaluation of the "methodological deficicncies" of the 2014 AfD to be of other than entertainment value. Newimpartial (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Sennalen, which two of these oddly assembled sources do you think are using "C/cultural Marxism" to refer to the same thing, and what do you think they are referring to? More specifically, do you think you have found two sources that are referring to an intellectual movement rather than an activity? Because on first glance, I'm not seeing that at all. Newimpartial (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

We also have Ian Buchanan's A Dictionary of Critical Theory which, as you know, states that Western Marxism is also known as cultural Marxism. Hence, the claim that Cultural marxism can be an unencumbered synonym for Western Marxism is not unsupported by sources.  Tewdar  11:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

If "known as" isn't mentioned in Wikipedia's writings on Weasel Words, it should be. 27.33.205.234 (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

It is not, but rationalWiki use 'also known as' in their lead sentence definition of the term. Why don't you use your famed powers of persuasion and charm to get them to add it to the list?  Tewdar  09:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

They are all referring to the same thing broadly construed, excepting minor shades of emphasis. I am not aware of any source that corroborates the importance you place on the movement/activity distinction or on the capitalization of the 'c' in 'cultural'. Sennalen (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Re: They are all referring to the same thing broadly construed, excepting minor shades of emphasis - I believe here we come (at last?) to the heart of the matter. You apparently believe that a large number of writers - inside and outside the conspiracy theory - are referring to broadly the same thing as "cultural Marxism". I haven't seen textual evidence for this, though - it seems to be a preconception you bring to these texts (WP:OR) rather than something they actually say. When it is pointed out by others that some of these texts actually distinguish one meaning or usage of "Cultural Marxism" from another, and that references to Britiah humanist Marxism or to the Frankfurt School do not represent "minor shades of emphasis", you lean into this idea of yours about the "same thing broadly construed". In the absence of good sources that do what you do, this becomes a recurring motif of mutual incomprehension. Newimpartial (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Some if not all of these examples have been provided in discussion before and can be found in the archives. Indeed there are a few isolated examples of writers describing Marxist cultural analysis as "cultural Marxism." But the conspiracy theorists who first wrote about their version of cultural Marxism were unaware of this and instead merely altered the name of the Nazi conspiracy theory "cultural Bolshevism," which itself derived from "Jewish Bolshevism." Eventually, they found a handful of examples of the term cultural Marxism in writings of the Frankfurt School and use this as "proof" that the object of their conspiracy theory actually exists.

The main premise of the conspiracy theorists that Marxists are trying to corrupt Western culture in order to undermine Western civilization is bogus and has nothing to do with whatever any Marxist writer meant by cultural Marxism. Instead they were referring to a method of analysing culture in capitalist society. TFD (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

But the conspiracy theorists who first wrote about their version of cultural Marxism were unaware of this and instead merely altered the name of the Nazi conspiracy theory "cultural Bolshevism," which itself derived from "Jewish Bolshevism." - please can you provide a source for this, which you must have repeated at least 50 times by now, so that we can add it to the article.  Tewdar  11:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The main premise of the conspiracy theorists that Marxists are trying to corrupt Western culture in order to undermine Western civilization is bogus and has nothing to do with whatever any Marxist writer meant by cultural Marxism. - good job nobody here is saying that, then.  Tewdar  11:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's first quote exactly what you said: "Cultural marxism can be an unencumbered synonym for Western Marxism." - synonym, meaning "a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close." None of your sources are using the terms in this interchangeable way, most are using the connection between the two as more of a segue into talking about cultural Marxism, rather than as a synonym.

They might be synonymous, but they're not synonyms, and there's a myriad of individuals counted as "western Marxists" who would not generally be considered to be cultural Marxists in the majority of writings about them. Henri Lefebvre for instance is a western Marxist, but is generally considered a philosopher and sociologist, and NOT a cultural Marxist, likewise, Jean-Paul Sartre is a western Marxist, but is seen as a philosopher and existentialist, NOT a cultural Marxist, the western Marxist Maurice Merleau-Ponty was seen as a phenomenologist and public intellectual, NOT a cultural Marxist. Louis Althusser, Galvano Della Volpe, Nicos Poulantzas, do I need to go on?

Pretty much any list of western Marxists is going to span outside of The Birmingham and Frankfurt Schools. Your trying to conflate the two terms as synonyms doesn't make it so, nor does presenting a large, but irrelevant set of quotes from sources that simply; don't back up your position. This is just your particular spin on The Gish Gallop, it's not a compelling argument, but more expression of your desire to shoehorn the terms into being synonyms when they're not used as such.

Ironically, had you said "Western Marxism can be an unencumbered synonym for cultural Marxism" you would be - just ever so slightly more correct - but the statement still isn't really worth while including - especially if as you claimed recently on The Frankfurt School talk page, you're still in favour of keeping them separate. 27.33.205.234 (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget specialist expert Ian Buchanan's critically acclaimed Oxford Dictionary of Critical Theory published by the world-renowned Oxford University Press, which states that (Western Marxism) also started to focus more on cultural rather than economic problems and it is for this reason also known as cultural Marxism. Anyway, all of this is entirely off topic for this section. This was all discussed back in February. Feel free to start a new section.  Tewdar  09:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes "known as" is a very subjective phrasing. 27.33.205.234 (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

By the way Sennalen, I have noted elsewhere that your project on Wikipedia is often focused on merging all articles on Marxism into one. As some may be aware, to your mind all Cultural Bolshevism is actually just Degenerate Art, and all Marxist cultural analysis is actually just Culture Studies. This goes along with your essay statement to write the infinite article... and even along with what some right wing propagandists would love to have people think about Marxism that it's a single demonic entity - but in actual fact there are distinctions to be made, and Wikipedia is better for keeping such distinctions separate. 27.33.205.234 (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

They might be synonymous, but they're not synonyms sorry, you're going to have to explain that for me. Please, use as much detail as you feel necessary.  Tewdar  09:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, Minnicino, whose 1992 essay "New Dark Age: The Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'" is seen as the starting point of the conspiracy theory, never used the term cultural Marxism. Lind, who first used the term "cultural Marxism" in his 2000 speech "Origins of Political Correctness," never claimed that the conspirators had used the term themselves. So it's entirely OR to say that Minnicino and Lind were talking about a concept in Marxist critical theory. As some writers have suggested, the term used by Lind is merely an update of the term cultural Bolshevism, rather than anything he found in the literature about Marxist cultural anaysis. TFD (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

So it's entirely OR to say that Minnicino and Lind were talking about a concept in Marxist critical theory - please point out any WP:OR remaining in the article so that I can exterminate it. I effing *hate* WP:OR, I do.  Tewdar  11:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

We can never be sure who or what Minnicino was talking about when he wrote The single, most important organizational component of this conspiracy was a Communist thinktank called the Institute for Social Research (I.S.R.), but popularly known as the Frankfurt School. This will forever remain an impenetrable mystery. 😏 Sennalen (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying they're synonymous by association, not as having the exact meaning that synonyms would. Western Marxism of course having a much wider reach, meaning and discourse around it as a term than cultural Marxism does as a usage. Hence my listing western Marxists who aren't generally considered or described as cultural Marxists, in an earlier reply to this thread. To quote the second listed meaning of 'synonymous' from the Oxford Online English Dictionary: closely associated with or suggestive of something. "his deeds had made his name synonymous with victory" - that's how I'm using the term. Is this fairly common usage in the English language now clearer for you Tewdar? Hence saying cultural Marxism might be synonymous, but they're not synonyms. 27.33.205.234 (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is much clearer now, thank you. I think 'also known as', also a very common phrase in the English language, is probably even clearer, and fortunately agrees with the language used in the source that we currently cite in the article.  Tewdar  11:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't have to always be a synonym to say it can be a synonym. Some writers say explicitly that Western Marxism and cultural Marxism are the same thing. Wikipedia shouldn't do that without qualifications, since other writers say that cultural Marxism is just part of Western Marxism. The point at this stage is not which of those views is correct. This is about unsticking editors from the increasingly untenable position that the phrase "cultural Marxism" isn't used in scholarship, or that it somehow gets used without meaning anything at all. No one should need me to teach them how synecdoche works.

Let me put a question to all of you. Imagine that the block of quotes I posted above were transformed directly into article text. What is the name of the article in which it appears? Sennalen (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

"Sennalen is dragging out an argument for no good reason". — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This is about unsticking editors from the increasingly untenable position that the phrase "cultural Marxism" isn't used in scholarship

I think you're failing to WP:Listen here, as you've been told several times that the name of that article would be Marxist cultural analysis, which it was decided was less controversial, and less of an open neologism than having a title of "Cultural Marxism" but was created with the intention of storing information about the schools in question that related to the term.

I think you should stop pussy footing around, and state your grand plan to revive an article under the title of Cultural Marxism, or to divide the current article into two topics; legitimate usages, and conspiracy theory related usages, or whatever else your wider vision may be (perhaps in a new discussion somewhere appropriate).

You mentioned earlier that you didn't understand the difference between the capitalised version of Cultural Marxism, which is more often than not how proponents of the conspiracy theory typed it at the time of the 2nd AfD, and the lower case version cultural Marxism, which is a version more often written by leftwing theorists and researchers. The observation goes that cultural Marxism is simply the word 'cultural' followed by Marxism, to indicate the general discussion of cultural approaches to Marxism, rather than a set school of approach (which whilst having key subjects of discussion, has never really been well defined in terms of mode, perhaps due to the development of cultural studies, hence multiple groups generally being referenced by the term but no solid answer on what's required to 'join the club') - where as conspiracy theorists (at the time of the AfD) had turned their ideas into somewhat of a proper name; 'Cultural Marxism', to make their theory seem more definitive and singular. A singular, intentional, organized project known as Cultural Marxism (or at least, a conspiracy about such). This was discussed at the time of the AfD and is only a general rule of thumb.

It may surprise you that I'm not necessarily against having Wikipedia eat its words, and further acknowledge the usages of cultural Marxism which predated the conspiracy theory usage. Because I agree with you, that the position will become more untenable as interest in the ideas of said theorists have gained popularity (perhaps due to being subject to the types of repression involved when conservatives construct such a targeted conspiracy theory take-over of left-wing language). But it's also important to acknowledge that the conspiracy theory version has become the more prevalent understanding of the term in main stream public discourse. With the lower case version cultural Marxism of the understanding being more niche to Marxist and humanist academics of Marxism.

There would be certain key elements and requirements needed for any such revamping of the content. It would have to some what counter the functions of the conspiracy theory, that is to say it would have to go to extra special lengths to make clear that the groups of theorists described as cultural Marxists, were not unified, and do not create a directed or intentional line to today's politics. That there were and have been, many different schools of thought, and changes of mode in popular cultural theory between The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, and E.P. Thompson (as well as others) - between those theorists/groups - and today's politics.

This write up of David Anshen's recent book, is a fairly good example I'm going to use for some of the distancing and ideas that may be required (although I can't speak to the contents of the book its self). The write up does things like, 1) indicating that the so called cultural Marxists were performing analysis of the mechanical reproduction of culture, rather than being a unified project aiming to control that reproduction, 2) it situates the movement as an early fore-runner to Cultural studies without making it seem like the cultural Marxists intentionally created or control Cultural studies, 3) it names movements that were influenced yet came after said theorists, like the situationalists, and structualists, stating them as sort of road blocks, landmarks, or points of distinction in terms of how discourses change, as a means to make the cultural Marxists historically distinct from later ideas they either would, or did, disagree with, such as Post-modernism (Jurgen Habermas famously being a key critic of Post-modernism). These are the sorts of built-in premises and features needed for any responsible discussion of the topic (which as stated earlier, has been somewhat eclipsed from mainstream view by the conspiracy theory usage).

So here's the problem, you've now, on countless occasions appeared to desire a melding of, and interlacing of topics in this area, making multiple fairly unwanted attempts to lump pages together, and to combine articles and topics in a fashion that somewhat defies consensus understandings. You've expressed a desire to make topics seem less distinct from one another, not more. So you've given yourself a reputation that runs counter to what would be required to responsibly make the distinctions between the conspiracy theory usage, and the original left wing usage now housed at Marxist cultural analysis - and that's not to say you've got a bad reputation (indeed, you work very hard at improving Wikipedia in terms of what you think it requires). Merging articles, and disbanding coat-racks is indeed a valuable asset that has many use-cases. You are a useful Wikipedian and content writer, trying to do good here.

But there are some topics that are controversial, that have lots of fringe material attached, that have a history and various consensus viewpoints formed and discussed around them, that require a different, more sensitive, and more community consensus based approach. So whilst I have no doubt, that as a content writer, individual researcher, and contributor to Wikipedia, you'd be perfectly capable of performing the due diligence and depth of research required to construct a fairly good article on the original usage; that's simply not the sole concern here. Drawing clear distinctions and barriers between the two usages is.

For this reason - I would suggest working on a draft aiming to update Marxist cultural analysis as best you can to the point it can reasonably be read as an article on the original, leftwing use of cultural Marxism. In doing so, you would have to make sure there's not even a chance that it could later be converted to a right-wing trojan horse designed to support the conspiracy theory. It should be invulnerable to such vandalism. Then you'd have to communicate that built in distance and distinctness to the community here, and get help in requesting a deletion review - building that consensus (assuming that you'd still want to change the name from Marxist cultural analysis to cultural Marxism) - and you'd probably have to give assurances that the separation between that new article and the conspiracy theory usage not only intends to remain, but would be difficult to dissolve (due to how the new article would be written).

At that point you're cooking with gas, until then, this whole cultural Marxism is western Marxism, is whatever else - doesn't seem to be going anywhere useful. You know, maybe you're right and all of western Marxism has been dissolved into cultural analysis. In my opinion that erases any number of existing youth groups, union groups, activist groups, co-ops, study groups, academics, and other political individuals in the west, but really all that is moot unless it's also made distinct in the ways described above. No one wants to load the gun when it doesn't even have a handle yet - let alone try to pull the trigger. Anyways, before I create any other metaphors or start writing my own page here, I'll end this comment. Feel free to create a more specific discussion where you see fit - but really, is there any editorial discussion you still want to have here? 124.149.238.174 (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that short write up is more focused on Cultural studies and Marxist views of culture in general, rather than anything called cultural Marxism (not even mentioning The Frankfurt School beyond citing Walter Benjamin). I'm just using it as an example for the clarity of the distinctions being made there in. 124.149.238.174 (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a large wall of text, some of which might be helpful, but I would like to underline and problematize the reference above, to the original, leftwing use of cultural Marxism, which rather assumes the thing to be demonstrated. I haven't seen any scholarship presented - by Sennalen, or Tewdar, or anyone else - that would establish an intellectual tendency or school of thought known as "cultural Marxism" prior to the rise of the conspiracy theory. There was certainly a domain or activity, which Wikipedia calls "Marxist cultural analysis", that some scholars referred to as "cultural Marxism" as opposed, e.g., to "political Marxism" or "economic Marxism". But that isn't the school of thought usage that editors like Sennalen assume (without relevant evidence) was already always intended when those two words are brought together. Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, only our favourite Belgian scholar, Jérôme Jamin, describes cultural Marxism as literally a school of thought. TBH, I wouldn't even describe the Frankfurt 'School' as a school of thought. But I suppose that is another debate for a different article...  Tewdar  16:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

...prior to the rise of the conspiracy theory - that's an odd rider. It's perfectly acceptable for future scholars to come up with post-hoc terminology to describe what was not recognised at the time as a discrete school of thought or whatever.  Tewdar  16:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Post-hoc terminology is certainly a fine thing and can be encyclopaedic (if it weren't, then WP would be largely unable to discuss philisophical schools or tendencies prior to the 19th century).

But the specific argument that has been made on this Talk page and elsewhere is, to paraphrase gently, "Cultural Marxism was already a recognized phenomenon that was then reinterpreted/misinterpreted by the conspiracy theorists". For this to be sourced, what matters is (post-hoc) sources for precisely this. The sourcing for this narrative is poor, and some of the better sources that have been marshalled in its support, such as Jamin, do not actually say this or support it directly.

If the post-hoc sourcing for "Cultural Marxism was already a recognized phenomenon" is weak, then what we would need is pre-conspiracy theory sources that would establish an intellectual tendency or school of thought known as "cultural Marxism" prior to the rise of the conspiracy theory. And these we do not have. Newimpartial (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I didn't say I didn't understand the significance of capitalization, rather that the putative signficance of capitalization isn't borne out by sources. It's not a reliable shibboleth. You can find conspiracists who don't capitalize it and scholars who do. The "two words together" interpretation just is special pleading for adjectives to somehow work differently in this topic area. The whole affair has been marked by mendacity from both ends of the political spectrum. You want a firewall between the topics, but sources are explicit that there is none. Ideas circulate between scholars and activists, mainstream and fringe. Not all of the cultural Marxists were disinterested ivy-tower academics like Adorno. A lot of them had and acted on strong political commitments, with influence that is still felt today. Right wing pundits have exaggerated the significance of this, but that does not justify overcorrecting and trying to bury this history.

I don't have a singular preferred outcome, but it has become clear to me that this page is a WP:POVFUNNEL that either excludes anything outside the LaRouche-Lind lineage or else sullies it by association. Frankfurt School doesn't need the baggage, Western Marxism is too broad (as you argued), Cultural studies doesn't encompass praxis, and Marxist cultural analysis is a POV fork that doesn't need to exist. I'm not committed to recreating a page called "Cultural Marxism", but that does appear to be the Goldilocks option at this point in time. Sennalen (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Your "Goldilocks option" appears to be a solution in search of a problem. I haven't seen any material identified about actually existing academic Marxism that wouldn't fit in one of the (non-conspiratorial) articles on those topics. Your inability to see this seems to be based in a failure to read Marxist cultural analysis as the article covering almost exactly the region of the Venn diagram you claim not to have been addressed.

Also, from your overall editing history, this curious case of Cultural Marxism seems simply to be one instance among many where you would prefer to restrict the scope of WP:FRINGE and present majority and small minority interpretations side by each, rather than differentiating between the WEIGHT to be given to mainstream scholarly views and the differential treatment given to perspectives that differ from the mainstream. Newimpartial (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

And now you see why I'm fucking tired of Sennalen dragging this out at every opportunity. It appears to just be a disruptive way to push a fringe viewpoint, which he stubbornly won't let go. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Sennalen has an essay which describes some of their approach, and goes against some of what they do here. For instance, the essay contains this line: "An article should only say that there is a consensus to accept or reject an idea if there is a secondary source that says this explicitly. Supporting this kind of claim just by stacking a large number of citations that agree with it is synthesis." Yet they seem to be doing a similar stacking above regardless of the fact that many sources say Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory with little to no correspondence to any existing movements.

The essay makes clear that Sennalen believes WP:FRINGE can "be mis-applied to censor valid information", and that wrong ideas shouldn't necessarily be excluded from Wikipedia. I believe they've adopted the Teach the Controversy approach, and are here trying to justify it, regardless of whether it's WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, or WP:SYNTH. 220.253.16.156 (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

You want a firewall between the topics, but sources are explicit that there is none. I'm sorry, I'll need a source for the statement that there's no firewall or difference between cultural Marxism as a topic referring to Frankfurt School thought, and as a topic referring to say The Situationalists (who operated in different country, and within a slightly different era/context), or say, Frankfurt School thought and post-modernism? Of course there's a firewall between these groups - they're different groups, different topics. The Situationalists are usually referred to as an avant garde movement of sloganism for instance, where as The Frankfurt School were establishment academics, who spoke against "reactionary machine-wrecking" (ie. they're from different schools and held different views, often opposing each other directly)... and these statements/groups are obviously all part of the left, if we look right - the problem is even more serious.

The rightwing makes obviously false statements regarding cultural Marxism/Cultural Marxism and The Frankfurt School, be it the claim that they're "Sabbatean Satanists practicing black Jewish Kabbalah magic", that "Adorno was trained by The Tavistock Institute in order to write the songs of The Beatles with the aim of producing 'environmental social turbulences'", or as right wing website Breitbart puts it "promoted degenerate atonal music to induce mental illness, including necrophilia, on a large scale" - even slightly less surreal claims like Michael Walsh's ideas that they were merely "doing the work of Satanists" or Lind's false claims that they "spent the war years in Hollywood, and are the reason gays are on TV" need a massive firewall. There absolutely needs to be a firewall between false conspiracy theorist views and established facts. Let's be clear about that.

However, let's also assume with good faith that you're only talking about the firewall between the cultural Marxism of The Frankfurt School - and later uses of the two words cultural Marxism that refer to either different schools/movements or a more general application of the phrase... doesn't that still sort of go against your opinion that it is one school of thought? So it seems like you're wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Either cultural Marxism is a specific defined school of thought that can be written about in the scope of a specific Wikipedia article, OR it's two words put together which change with context and time the term merely referring to something Marxist to do with cultural approaches, thinking, or activities. Which I think you might get away with in an article titled something along the lines of "The history of Marxist cultural thought" - but perhaps that sort of topic would be better written about in a book, rather than on Wikipedia.

Given that you're continuing with your desire to express the concept of cultural Marxism regardless of capitalization, time, group, locality or whether the right or left are discussing it - I can't really endorse such an approach, and I don't think you should work on any drafts to that effect. Because adopting such a position, where the right are allowed to define left wing movements (or vice versa on other topics), seems like an invitation to spreading inaccuracies and falsehoods. For me the topic should be less political than that; there are either reliable sources, or unreliable sources. Manufacturing 'cultural Marxism' into a specific school, when reliable sources are merely using the term to refer to a contextual, and largely undefined (or poorly defined) area of thought - which its self is usually more easily and readily described in terms of The Frankfurt School anyways, is, I believe Original Research. That there are works on cultural Marxism in sports, or featuring conversations about cultural Marxism, isn't proof that it's one singular concept worthy of a Wikipedia article, that is to say there are lots of cultural workers/movements who have had elements of Marxism in their thought, this doesn't mean they're operating from a unified school, or understanding. Coatracking a topic that was already struggling to find solid definition or notability, is a bit of a lost cause as far as I can tell. Good luck. 220.253.16.156 (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

How about 'Cultural Marxist Analysis'? 😁👍  Tewdar  15:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

You cannot refute an argument by refuting a misrepresentation of that argument.  Tewdar  10:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Considering we've gone in circles about this multiple times already, I don't see this going anywhere helpful. Do we really need to have this argument again? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

You are correct that this will go nowhere helpful. Time to get the old DiscussionCloser v 7.0 out...  Tewdar  12:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

We definitely don't need to rehash the discussion, especially because this page is for the Conspiracy Theory usage anyways. 27.33.205.234 (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I closed it, but Sennalen reverted so... here we are. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

British cultural Marxism

I created this as a redirect to Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies. It now redirects to...well, click it yourself... 😂  Tewdar  19:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a redirect from a title that contains a non-neutral, pejorative, controversial, or offensive word, phrase, or name. - I'd probably better not contribute any more, but the discussion is thataway if anyone wants to join in...  Tewdar  20:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I boldly redirected it to here, so let's have the discussion here whether the Centre is primary topic or this page with the UK section. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Otherwise I could bring it up to RFD. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Dennis Dworkin wrote a book called Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies (Duke University Press 1997). The best target for the re-direct would therefore be Marxist cultural analysis. But there is no reason for a re-direct since AFAIK, Dworkin was the only person who used this expression. Dworkin does not have an article and I suggest that since Tewdar finds Marxist cultural analysis in the UK an area of interest, they create an article about Dworkin. TFD (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Google Scholar results, if anyone's interested. Dworkin may have originated the term, but it was and is used by quite a few others (there are even a couple of GS results for this year), and is probably fairly notable. As ip says, The Birmingham School, perhaps a more appropriate target, already redirects to the CCCS, which is why I sent it there. The idea that 'British cultural Marxism' should be redirected to 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory in the UK', complete with a greeting from Suella Braverman, is utterly preposterous and the right side of my body is still in pain this morning from laughing so much last night. Does anyone think that an actual article called 'British cultural Marxism' (note the capitalization, WP:OR fans) would be viable? Or should we call it 'Marxist cultural analysis in the UK' 😐, as TFD calls it above? 😭 (Zero hits on Google scholar, but that never stopped us before, right?)  Tewdar  07:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This book has some useful commentary. And this one predates Dworkin's book, although it may not be "the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual tradition", as Dworkin and some others have described Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain.  Tewdar  09:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's an even earlier source from 1991. Perhaps this is British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual tradition. Or perhaps not. Who knows.  Tewdar  09:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

A great footnote from this: There was, of course, cultural marxism (sic) in Britain before Cultural Marxism (sic), along with a shout out to one of my personal favourites, A.L. Lloyd. Perhaps soneone can do some [N/n]eo-[F/f]reudian [C/c]apitalization [A/a]nalysis on that sentence, or indeed the entire article, which by and large seems to be quite uninterested in distinguishing upper and lower case.  Tewdar  15:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

So Richard Hoggart, Raymond Williams and Stuart Hall, were intellectually known as 'The Birmingham School' of sociology - and they founded an academic institute by a similar name. That academic institute went on to be renamed to the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies. However, it was closed down in 2002.

I believe Dworkin is refering to the intellectual movement of the three founders, attempting to write it up, and he in fact states in his book that it's "the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual tradition" - so having a redirect is probably over-preparing for his terminology to become noteworthy. It is however, unfortunate that Wikipedia doesn't have a page for The Birmingham School as an intellectual grouping, as that would probably be the correct redirect. As we don't have such an article, the redirect is probably unnecessary. 220.253.16.156 (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The Birmingham School already redirects to Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, that much supports Tewdar's approach. But I really don't think it's going to come up all that often, and it's not noteworthy enough as a term to figure out a user's intention when typing in the term, they could mean either. 220.253.16.156 (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should send it to RfD, where we can get some more diverse input.  Tewdar  07:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like the best option. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually I've changed my mind. Sennalen's suggestion that it gets redirected to Cultural studies#British cultural studies is now my preferred option.  Tewdar  21:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the redirect for The Birmingham School accordingly. 14.201.15.203 (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

In your opinion, are 'British cultural studies' and 'British cultural Marxism' synonyms, and if so, which one would you say is the most commonly used?  Tewdar  07:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

'British cultural studies' would be far, far, far more common. I think there's an argument that British cultural Marxism is synonymous with British cultural studies, but that British cultural studies isn't really synonymous with British cultural Marxism - which might seem counter intuitive at first, but that's just how seldom British cultural Marxism is used as a term, and how far beyond and removed British cultural studies has become from Marxism. It's a wider discourse. Frankly it wasn't all that Marxist to begin with, Richard Hoggart specifically had somewhat of an aversion to Marxism [12] (article available on Sci hub). Hoggart and Williams both faught in WW2, Hall was probably the most actively Marxist of the three, but is considered more of a pioneer in analysing racial politics than Marxist politics - all in all I think they're much better described as sociologists, cultural theorists and intellectuals rather than as activists. Hence establishing The New Left, not something the group would likely have done had Marxism suited their views just fine. That said they are 'Marxist influenced' thinkers - for what that's worth. I'm sure they had a lot of other influences too, as people (especially academics and intellectuals) tend to. 14.201.15.203 (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

So, would you support 'British cultural Marxism' redirecting to Cultural studies#British cultural studies then? In the absence of a British cultural studies article (which probably also needs a redirect)?  Tewdar  08:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think that 'British cultural Marxism' is all that rare. Not as common as British cultural studies, but hardly difficult to find in the wild...  Tewdar  08:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fine for now, but that status as being fine may change if British cultural Studies and The Birmingham School are further roped into the conspiracy theory's rhetoric... and it wouldn't surprise me if that starts to happen. At that point, the re-direct may need to be re-considered. 14.201.15.203 (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

What? You think it's fine that 'British cultural Marxism' redirects to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory#United Kingdom?  Tewdar  09:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Or... fine that British cultural Marxism should redirect to Cultural studies#British cultural studies, at least for now..?  Tewdar  10:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with that. I don't really have an opinion on whether it should exactly - more just an opinion on when it shouldn't, or may need to be reconsidered. But for now searches for "British cultural Marxism" on google do seem to mostly result in a legitimate academic usage (often referencing Dworkin). So yeah, Sennalen is right, and has found a suitable destination. That may change, but for now it seems entirely kosher. 14.201.15.203 (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I actually find it surprising that the conspiracy theories focus on the Frankfurt School rather than British cultural studies/Marxism. And check out this book review! The conspiracy theory practically writes itself! 😁  Tewdar  10:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I know what you mean! I would have thought that just the mere fact that Stuart Hall is referred to as "The Godfather of Multiculturalism" would have set the minds of the conspiracy theorists ablaze! But apparently they're mostly situated in the US, and I suppose for them there's no point mentioning anything that happened outside of the US.

Still, I think it will ultimately come to pass, The Birmingham School will be roped in - perhaps it might be done with less conspiracy theories being involved, but I suspect it will occur. Recently Tory MP Miriam Cates used the term Cultural Marxism at "Nat Con", Jewish News has an article about it here. That conference was put on by The Edmund Burke Foundation who is described on their page as having "links with conservative think tanks in the US, such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute."...

...and of course, The Heritage Foundation and The Free Congress Foundation were both founded by Paul Weyrich. The same Paul Weyrich who originally request Lind write up his version of the theory. Now, with that viewpoint of the cultural theorists of The Frankfurt School firmly embedded, they're setting out to fight the strawman. Thus reproducing their cultural conservatism. It's a rather large circle these various think tanks have drawn over what, 20 or 30 years.

What the nature of the connection between the Edmund Burke Foundation and The Heritage foundation is, remains to be explored, and of course, the uptake of "The New Conservatism" (as Lind and Weyrich called it) in the UK remains to be seen. But I think if they grab hold of The Birmingham School, it could definitely take off over there. Let's hope it's a less toxic version. 14.201.15.203 (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• RfD is now live... 😭  Tewdar  08:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

This article fails the test of having a neutral point of view. The entire introduction is hardly more than a screed. "Cultural Marxism" is a descriptive term long in use, not a "conspiracy theory." (https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2019/01/cultural-marxism-is-real/) MurMiles (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

"This article fails the test of having a neutral point of view." But it meets Wikipedia's definition of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

• • "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view. It means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia"
  • As long as the article reflects the view of the reliable sources, it will remain perfectly neutral and acceptable. And the reliable sources are not conspiracy theorists and crackpots like the alt-right. And I doubt that the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal is a reliable source, since it is a mouthpiece for "conservative or libertarian organizations". Dimadick (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Nope, OP, nope. Take it somewhere else, like Conservapedia. Andre🚐 07:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The article you've linked starts by referencing Tablet Magazine (and an article by Alexander Zubatov). Tablet Magazine is run by Mem Bernstein, and receives its funding from the Tikvah Fund - a conservative "educational center" set up by the late investment banker, conservative philanthropist, and husband to Mem Bernstein; Zalman Bernstein. [13] So you're using a libertarian source, that's referencing a conservative source, to talk about leftwing theories, intellectuals and groups. But your sources are merely opinion pieces from non-experts (and they're somewhat inaccurate as well).

The conspiracy theory is about left wing groups and movements, and the history and writings of those leftwing groups and movements are how we determine whether a statement about them is factual or not. We rely on academic sources to determine what is factual (factual information contributing to our Marxist cultural analysis page), and what is the stuff of conspiracy theories (which comes here). This is the page for the conspiracy theory usage of the term Cultural Marxism.

What's more, most of the article you've linked to spends its time jumping from structural Marxism, to Foucault, Zizek, and Derrida - whilst not labeling any of them cultural Marxism, and actually spends quite a small amount of time on the actual subject. Labeling all of leftism, including "Feminism, gender studies, critical race theory, post-colonialism, disability studies" as universally "spin offs of Marxism" is not academically or historically correct. Feminism for example, predates The Frankfurt School, and has roots dating back before Karl Marx himself (See: Olympia De Gouges'; Declaration of the Rights of Woman, 1791).

So not only are your sources unreliable, but the article you're citing doesn't provide any solid or substantial evidence. 14.201.15.203 (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This article is definitely not balanced.It is written from one point of view and you wonder if the author sees this one point of view as objective. 2A00:23C8:B9D:8601:3058:A983:DAA9:FDE6 (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Already discussed above. Incidentally, there are no credible estimates that the Communists killed over 100 million people either. That number is a warning bell that we're headed down the rabbit hole into fringe theory territory. TFD (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This article is definitely not balanced.It is written from one point of view - yes, the point of view of academics, historians and reliable sources on the topic of The Frankfurt School, the history of Sociology and cultural studies. It's true, Wikipedia will always privileged reliable sources over opinion pieces. That's just what an encyclopedia does.

and you wonder if the author sees this one point of view as objective - you are mistaken in assuming Wikipedia has just one author. Wikipedia is a collaborative, community project that anyone (including yourself) can contribute to, AS LONG AS your contributions fit within Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. Those guidelines require all contributions to use reliable sources, especially for contentious topics. You can visit the Reliable Sources policy guidelines by clicking here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.

Wikipedia's policies are available for anyone to read, and argue from. Welcome to Wikipedia. 59.102.7.77 (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Recurring misstatement

The article begins with the following sentence:

"The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory..."

There is no way that "Cultural Marxism" denotes a conspiracy theory. That is the same as saying "Cultural Marxism is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory..."

A sentence that would express the intended meaning here would be:

"The term "Cultural Marxism" is used within a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory..."

or better

"The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory..."

The latter is better because the title of the article indicates that its topic is a conspiracy theory, not a term.

2A02:1210:2642:4A00:34A9:D87F:FB6E:A03E (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

If you go to the Marxist cultural analysis page, you can read the explanation of this:

"The tradition of Marxist cultural analysis has occasionally also been referred to as "cultural Marxism", and "Marxist Cultural theory", in reference to Marxist ideas about culture. However, since the 1990s, the term "Cultural Marxism" has largely referred to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, an influential discourse on the far right without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis."

Note, that one example uses the phrase "cultural Marxism" (not a pronoun or defined ideology, but two words put together to indicate something about culture and Marxism), where as the other term "Cultural Marxism" uses capital letters, because it's a pronoun - it refers to the idea that "cultural Marxism" is a set viewpoint, plan or ideology (usually something about The Frankfurt School destroying western civilization). So first you'll have to find an academic reference for what "Cultural Marxism" is exactly - and then we can add that reference to the Marxist cultural analysis page. But until then, there is a conspiracy theory that uses the pronoun "Cultural Marxism" to refer to a set of incorrect, and sometimes unhinged beliefs about The Frankfurt School having a plan to take over and destroy western civilization and/or Christianity. This claim has no evidence that could be found in their writings, so is in terms of content appropriate for an encyclopedia, classed as a conspiracy theory.

Particularly so, because various conservative and right wing authors who have made bizarre claims about the group. There's the claim that they're "Sabbatean Satanists practicing black Jewish Kabbalah magic", that "Adorno was trained by The Tavistock Institute in order to write the songs of The Beatles with the aim of producing 'environmental social turbulences'", or as right wing website Breitbart put it in 2015 "Theodor Adorno promoted degenerate atonal music to induce mental illness, including necrophilia, on a large scale." - even slightly less surreal claims like Michael Walsh's 2017 idea that they were "doing the work of Satanists" or Lind's false claims that they "spent the war years in Hollywood, and are the reason gays are on TV"... all these claims are false, and conspiratorial in nature.

The long and short of it is, we have evidence that conservatives have constructed a conspiracy theory about The Frankfurt School, denoted by the term "Cultural Marxism" but we don't have as much, or as convincing evidence, that The Frankfurt School defined a set ideology, called "cultural Marxism" or "Cultural Marxism". So being an encyclopedia, we're limited to what high quality, factual, and academic sources say... and we've found some saying that it's a conspiracy theory.

So just like our page on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy can exist along side our page on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, or the page on the Moon landing exists along side the page about Moon landing conspiracy theories - so we have our page on Marxist cultural analysis existing along side our page on the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.

If you want to read about The Frankfurt School you could also go to our Frankfurt School page. If you want to prove the term "cultural Marxism" has seen usage on the left in "reference to Marxist ideas about culture" - that's stated at Marxist cultural analysis... however, if you want to define the views of The Frankfurt School in terms of right wing political opinions about them.... well, I don't think Wikipedia would consider that legitimate, not without those individuals having academic credentials relevant to The Frankfurt School (eg. credentials in Sociology, The History of Sociology, Critical Theory, or cultural Studies). So that's the general state of play. Hope that synopsis helps you. 59.102.7.77 (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean "proper noun" rather than pronoun.

I don't dispute that there is a conspiracy theory. My point is purely a formal one about the phrasing of the lede. It is confusing.

The term "cultural Marxism" (ignoring case) has multiple usages, not all of them coming from rabid right-wingers. It would be helpful to have a disambiguation page rather than a redirect. I found the Wiktionary entry for "cultural Marxism" to be much more straightforward and less polemical than this article.

2A02:1210:2642:4A00:34A9:D87F:FB6E:A03E (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I was only aware of the neutral, descriptive term "cukltural Marxism" 2A02:1210:2642:4A00:34A9:D87F:FB6E:A03E (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Some authors actually do use the unadorned term 'Cultural Marxism' to refer to the conspiracy theory itself. See for example Busbridge et al. 2020, As a conspiracy promoted by the far-right, Cultural Marxism has gained ground over the past quarter century etc. etc. So Cultural Marxism can refer to a conspiracy theory, and also the object of that conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory is also less commonly called the Frankfurt School conspiracy. Unfortunately the current lead does not do a good job explaining this. We had an RfC recently about whether something very similar to your suggestion "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory..." should start the article. It was rejected, with at least one editor arguing that including the words "conspiracy theory" implied that Cultural Marxism, (in the sense of the object of the conspiracy), was real, and another offering the opinion that it reminded them of a Monty Python song or something.  Tewdar  07:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd like a change made.

The opening sentence of the article claims the conspiracy theory is about Western Marxism, however, there's a consensus formed in the lower half of this above dicussion which disagrees with making Western Marxism equivocable to The Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School, is the usual group targeted as to blame for the claims of the conspiracy theory, and that's the page the first line should link to, not to Western Marxism. Thank you. 59.102.7.77 (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Specifically, most of the intellectuals mentioned on the Western Marxism page aren't generally mentioned in conspiracy theory narratives (making it an inappropriate statement to claim the conspiracy theory is about them). None of the following theorists mentioned on Western Marxism are targets of the conspiracy theory; Louis Althusser, Nicos Poulantzas, Galvano Della Volpe, Antonie Pannekoek, Herman Gorter, Hegel, Lucien Goldmann, Henri Lefebvre, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Jean-Paul Sartre, yet all of them are considered Western Marxists. 59.102.7.77 (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The opening sentence needs to be fixed so that some of the many other targets of the conspiracy theory get a mention.  Tewdar  07:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)