Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

Misleading

"The destruction of American national identity through immigration" is false, the original claim did not contain the word ' American'. Please remove it.

And the poster above is correct, this article is grossly biassed and misrepresentative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.237.131.5 (talk) 13:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, you're right! Unfortunately, that was, I think, the only part of that section that I didn't write. As such, it probably wasn't given proper quality control. Who knows, perhaps some WP:OR was used. Sometimes people just put stuff in that sounds nice, even if there's no source for it. Wouldn't surprise me with this article. It's fixed now anyway.  Tewdar  14:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually I didn't write the bit underneath the list either. Caveat lector!  Tewdar  14:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

And anyway, I'm pretty sure Matthews is talking about American national identity here...  Tewdar  14:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Woods misused in lede

A contemporary revival of the Nazi propaganda term "Cultural Bolshevism", the conspiracy theory originated in the United States during the 1990s.

uses Woods 2019 as evidence of the first clause; however, what Woods says is (emphasis mine),

(Several commentaries) claim that the paleoconservative myth of cultural Marxism is simply an updated version of NAZI propaganda about “cultural Bolshevism” and “Weimar degeneracy” (both tropes depended on obscene and offensive anti-Semitic caricatures). While the Frankfurt School conspiracy has anti-Semitic components, it is inaccurate to call it nothing more than a modernization of cultural Bolshevism propaganda.

In short the article says the opposite of the source. Sennalen (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that the source says it is an updated version of Cultural Bolshevism, along with some other novel features, wouldn't you? Perhaps we should add these details?  Tewdar  07:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps 'has some similarities to Cultural Bolshevism' would be a more accurate summary?  Tewdar  07:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

We do have Jay calling it "a recycling of the old Weimar conservative charge of 'cultural Bolshevism'"...  Tewdar  08:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Woods elaborates that it's not related to Cultural Bolshevism because it's not related to any kind of German or foreign ideology, but a distinctively American homegrown point of view. In fact, that's something he elaborates on in a magazine article about how the conspiracy theory originated with LaRouche[1]. Sennalen (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so how about 'some similarities with Cultural Bolshevism, but a distinctively American ideology (originating in the 1990s...) or something like that? (provisional text) 🤔  Tewdar  13:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a start. Finer nuances can be parsed in the body. I've been thinking that scattered bits about how the CT relates to anti-Semitism and Nazism could be collected from all around the article into a more coherent treatment. Sennalen (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not that anyone would require my blessing, but I'm fine with this approach. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not that anyone would require my blessing... - right. We just need your blessing, TFD's blessing, Aquillion's blessing, MVBaron's blessing, NorthBySouthBaranof's blessing, that IP from Australia's blessing... 😭  Tewdar  18:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Here's a first pass at it. Things have been pulled from around the article to make top level sections of "Terrorism" and "Antisemitism". diff of changes on a userspace draft I think what's left in the rump of "Aspects of the conspiracy theory" could also be distributed differently, but I'll pause here for the spirit of incrementalism. Sennalen (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

phase 2 finished parceling out "Aspects of the conspiracy theory" to other headings Sennalen (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The changes are in article space now. If it stays stable I'll move on to WP:SOURCEMINEing Jay's Dialectic of Counter-enlightenment. The book version is considerably expanded from the web version, and a lot of it should land in the new Antisemitism heading. Sennalen (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.137.102 (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC) 

Matthew McManus

There's a source in the article, Liberalism and Socialism: Mortal Enemies Or Embittered Kin? by Matthew McManus. Does someone here have access to it? Google books finds Cultural Marxism on pages 182-191, but not with full text. It could probably say more than it's already saying here. Sennalen (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I have it. Hang on, I'll take a look...  Tewdar  19:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean, the bit before it says The term “Cultural Marxism” even had an accepted and primarily descriptive (as opposed to conspiratorial or polemical) usage in the 1930s to refer to Frankfurt School theorists’ general intellectual program of recognizing the impact of economics—particularly under capitalism—on culture and “cultural production.” Huh.  Tewdar  19:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It goes on: By the 1990s, however, “Cultural Marxism” took on a conspiratorial meaning, pushed by US-based conservative culture warriors...This notion of “Cultural Marxism” (as “political correctness”) as the application of Marxist or socialist economic illiberalism to the cultural sphere—a kind of cultural illiberalism—is markedly different from the Frankfurt School’s actual program...  Tewdar  19:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The bit between the two quotes in the article quotes Jamin a bit, thrn goes on: The conspiracy theory of Cultural Marxism filled the vacuum created by the end of the Cold War, enabling backers not simply of US liberalism, but of a rightward-driving US neoliberalism to lend urgency to their ideological cause.  Tewdar  19:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Good to have you back, by the way. 👍  Tewdar  23:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks😊 Sennalen (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Development of the Conspiracy Theory

Minnicino and Lind are broken in half between Origins and Development, so they're basically explained twice. The reason it's that way is people didn't want the Frankfurt School section to be first. That desire can still be respected if all of Minnicino and Lind move entirely to Origins. Breitbart can move to entering the mainstream, since a few sources say it relates to that. Matthews doesn't seem actually that prominent, but he can go in "circulating in the alt-right" since Jay links it with Stormfront. Then everyone will be closer to claims that relate to them. Sennalen (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I was going to merge the 'origins' and 'development' sections a while back, but never got round to it...your restructuring proposal sounds good. I'd rather just ignore people who never edit the article, but then show up once every three months to revert something or blather on the talk page (YKWYA!), but I suppose that's not really an option around here.  Tewdar  09:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is a first pass through it. Sennalen (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

From a brief look, it looks good. The "Interpretation of the Frankfurt School as a conspiracy" coming immediately afterwards is a bit late in the day, especially since we've just explained in detail, that all these founders of the conspiracy theory blame the Frankfurt School and their pals, but I'm not sure how we could fix that?  Tewdar  20:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I would have liked the article to start with a precis on the philosophers that get named, but at least this is hypermedia. Sennalen (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Content is live. Sennalen (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not like the way your special:diff/1103229088 edit mix moves, deletions and additions. For readibility, i would have prefered that this big change is split into several edits. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The edit summary has a link to the userspace draft where the changes were done incrementally. Sennalen (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Moved from other space

Sorry I wasn't trying to reopen a closed discussion so much as start a new one.

Could you please explain why the cited sources are sufficient to prove that this is the connotation with which the term is necessarily used and not "The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a center-right viewpoint that Western Marxism is the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert classical liberalism. The Frankfurt School is seen to distort modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness, in order to posit zero-sum oppressor-oppressed relations and deny the existence of objective truth or the possibility of deductive reasoning and problem solving independent of one's position in a "power structure" leading to the subversion, accidental or deliberate, of classical liberalism and undermines classical liberal values and replace them, accidentally or deliberately, with the values of the Frankfurt School that first rose to prominence through the New Left in the 1960s". And positing that such a concept exists, whether or not you agree or disagree, is certainly not anti-Semitic, as responding to this concept is a big part of how prominent intellectuals such as Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and Don Kagan, who happen to be Jewish, got "mugged by reality" as Kristol said. Also, people who follow this ideology itself almost always posit a zero-sum oppressor-oppressed relationship between Israelis and Palestinians in which they side with the Palestinians which often requires them to be anti-Semitic, while if you negate this ideology you can care about Palestinians without being anti-Semitic, but I am pretty sure the Israeli government, which irrespective of its stance on the Palestinian issue, is most certainly not anti-Semitic, would also recognize the existence of this ideology and be hostile to it, as with Kristol, Podhoretz and Kagan, contradicting that positing its existence is an "anti-Semitic conspiracy theory". People who debate whether or not "Anne Frank benefited from white privilege" as an Ashkenazi Jew belong to this ideology - that is, they are students of the Frankfurt school - and that is anti-Semitic, not realizing that the Frankfurt School causes people to consider such despicable things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.137.102 (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually I think the main source of neutrality issues for this article are that it cites sources which are not necessarily neutral themselves. I think the way to do that would be to say "this author claims this" in the body of the page rather than state any of these author's perspectives as an objective fact. And then one can present opposing arguments from other authors such as

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/just-because-anti-semites-talk-about-cultural-marxism-doesnt-mean-it-isnt-real

and also talk about how this "conspiracy theory" resembles concepts responded to in places such as here

https://www.commentary.org/articles/george-lichtheim/new-left-marxism/

https://www.hoover.org/research/why-there-culture-war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.137.102 (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

No Wikipedia editor is obliged to WP:SATISFY you. What the article has to do is follow the best available sources on its topic - which it does - and follow previously established consensus - which it does. Your original research about what account resembles other concept is not strictly relevant here. Newimpartial (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

"Could you please" doesn't necessarily imply obligation :P

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on the definition of "best available sources" and I am not sure if "previously established consensus" refers to Wikipedia editors or is more general. Thank you for the feedback about "original research". I do not think my point is "original research" though my framing might be. But fortunately for you, since you appear to want me to shut up, I won't have time to devote further effort to this. 100.8.137.102 (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

We have to follow Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which excludes the sources you provided. If you have a different opinion on what are best sources, you have to get Wikipedia to change its policies. TFD (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't be the first time Tablet Magazine has been accused of anti-antisemitism. 194.223.54.91 (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that the article could benefit from a more even handed, or nuanced, treatment of the subject. For instance, it claims right from the start that it is a far-right , anti-semitic conspiracy. However if so many jewish public figures adhere to the idea, it should at least suggest that the concept of "cultural marxism" is vague or polysemic enough to allow for different definitions and usages by different groups, wether they are neo-nazis or conservative jewish commentators. I believe ther article would greatly benefit from this kind of nuance. It also seems to posit that "scholarly consensus" revolves around the positions of self proclaimed Critical Theorists which would hardly imply neutrality. Take for instance this sentence in the article: Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact.[7][10] Source number 10 is an article by Dr. Joan Braune who seems to self-identify as an advocate for Critical Theory, which happens to be one of the main issues of "Cultural Marxist" narratives. From the start, this alone would hardly suggest an unbiased and neutral appraisal of the phenomenon. I understand the difficult and polemical nature of this subject, but from the purely objective standpoint of source selection and treatment of the matter, this article could be improved. I don´t dispute here wether this is a conspiracy theory. I dispute source bias and subject treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.37.69.231 (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The supposition that the conspiracy theory might be partly right is not a policy-relevant reason to modify adricle text, here or elsewhere. Newimpartial (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what I just argued. I did not suggest the theory might be partly right. I quite clearly stated otherwise. 189.37.69.231 (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Then maybe casting doubt on Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact wasn't really the right move for you to make. Newimpartial (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take your time reading what I wrote instead. I questioned source bias, not the conclusion. Maybe you should stay out of this discussion since you seem more passionate about it than necessary scholarly impartiality (look up that word if you will, you seem confused about its meaning) would allow. 189.37.69.231 (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of a source has absolutely nothing to do with the author's opinions. Opinions are opinions, while facts are facts. Saying that the conspiracy theory has no basis in fact is itself a fact. Whatever Dr. Braune's personal views, she is an expert and her article was published in a peer-reviewed journal. If it was factually incorrect, it would not have passed peer review. You of course are free to read and believe whatever you choose. But policy requires that articles are based on facts from expert sources and represent expert findings. It may well be that those sources are all secretly controlled by the cultural Marxists, but until policy is changed, that's what articles will state. TFD (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

If it was factually incorrect, it would not have passed peer review. oh, sweet summer child Sennalen (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The policy page for Verifiability used to read, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." Of course what we accept as fact may turn out to be untrue, in which case we can amend articles. Similarly, the "facts" established in a court of law may turn out to be false. In the meantime, as far as we are concerned, they are the facts. TFD (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

«It also seems to posit that "scholarly consensus" revolves around the positions of self proclaimed Critical Theorists» => What are your evidences that Martin Jay, Jérôme Jamin and Andrew Woods are self proclaimed Critical Theorists? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

This is incredibly one sided. First problem is that everyone who uses the term Cultural Marxism is lumped together. The second is the way criticism of cultural Marxism is assumed to include a belief that what is involved is a conspiracy rather than an influential set of ideas that the speaker disagrees with. Suella Braverman for instance seems to be referring to postmodernism/poststructuralism rather than the Frankfurt School and yet solely on the use of the term she is deemed to be antisemitic. I'm not keen on the term Cultural Marxism - it is the way right wingers often refer to postmodernism in a way that is directed solely at there base and hence often used of ideas that aren't remotely Marxist but the inference being drawn from use of the term goes far beyond what can be justified.Dejvid (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

"Suella Braverman for instance seems to be referring to postmodernism/poststructuralism" - that would be original research on your part. Perhaps she was getting the term confused with Jordan Peterson's "Post modern neo marxism"... at any rate, Jurgen Habermas of The Frankfurt School "Cultural Marxists" is (according to Standford's encyclopedia of philosophy) "The most prominent and comprehensive critic of philosophical postmodernism". So I think you're looking to make sense of the nonsensical here. Especially considering Postmodernism its self is the study of the limits of authority over meaning. It's a rabbit hole that perhaps falls out of the purview of this article. If you want to argue that Postmodernism is Cultural Marxism, you'd be better off doing that on the Postmodernism article's talk page. I believe after Suella Braverman's usage The Board of Deputies of British Jews had a talk with her to clarify her meaning. So clearly they thought it was worth discussing for some reason. She has subsequently switched to the term "Woke".[2] 194.223.51.184 (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Objections to new content

I have been adding material that is pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style. Newimpartial has reverted some of these changes with the sole explanation of no consensus. Please discuss. Sennalen (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, it was reverted for WP:BRD as it "departed from the consensus of sources and talk page consensus". So per WP:ONUS lets start with, why do you think the edit is an improvement? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

BRD is a behavioral guideline about reverting and is not by itself a reason for reverting. The rest can be paraphrased as merely "no consensus".

The edits are an improvement because they convey verifiable information about the topic from some of the best academic sources, thereby increasing a reader's understanding of the topic. The additions cannot depart from the consensus of sources, because they are drawn from those very sources. Contrasting views are are appropriately represented in the article per the neutral point-of-view policies. Sennalen (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The first issue I ran into is at the top of your proposed §Conspiratorial interpretations, which would start with "Cultural Marxism as part of critical pedagogy can help students resist media manipulation. I'm worried this blurs the lines between the conspiracy theory and the philosophical school of thought. Also, the source attributes the possible improvement in defense against media manipulation to "cultural studies", not just "Cultural Marxism" (the school of thought). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we could probably do without that bit anyway tbh.  Tewdar  22:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

philosophical school of thought oh wow, now you're in trouble! 😂👍  Tewdar  22:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I was going to say "the philosophical school of thought that Jamin calls "Cultural Marxism", but my cat stepped on my keyboard. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

What Sennalen said. One change I would suggest to the edits would be that '[C/c]ultural Marxism' (scholarly analysis) should be more carefully distinguished from 'Cultural Marxism' (object of conspiracy theory) but other than that, I think that the reverted version was incomparably the best version of this article to have ever existed.  Tewdar  21:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, whoops, I forgot, of course there is no [C/c]ultural Marxism' (scholarly analysis), because Joan Braune says so.  Tewdar  22:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, Sennalen, my explanation was Subsequent edits depart from the consensus of sources and Talk page consensus, and could confuse the reader, which is quite a bit more than a sole explanation of no consensus as you suggest.

My concerns are centred on the paragraph you added in this edit, which reads:

Cultural Marxism as part of critical pedagogy can help students resist media manipulation. Scholars associated with the Frankfurt School sought to create a better society by struggling against patriarchy and capitalist exploitation, goals that could seem threatening to others who have an interest in maintaining the status quo. Objections to Cultural Marxism have come from varied sources. Some authors work within academic literature and "claim to produce a legitimate knowledge" while others operate on a speculative basis driven by nationalist ideologies, Which of these categories a work belongs to is not always clear, and many authors operate on a continuum between them. Accepted interpretations and conspiratorial interpretations of Cultural Marxism share a common basis of facts about the identities of the Frankfurt School scholars and their major works, but Conspiracy theories diverge from consensus reality when it comes to:

as well as the bullets that follow; the passage is all sourced entirely to Jerome Jamin. As I have previously noted, this article is not supposed to be Jerome Jamin's views about Cultural Marxism - attempts to add much more of his commentary in this article is UNDUE, particularly because he is almost alone in the RS literature in using "cultural Marxism" as the label both for the Marxist humanists and for the object of the conspiracy theory. Unlike the status quo version of this article (which I restored), your added text uses Cultural Marxism in wikivoice to designate the Frankfurt School and other practitioners of "critical pedagogy". (This is in alignment with your several previous proposals to alter sourcing or otherwise restructure this article, e.g. this one. Community-wide consensus, as expressed at AfD and other venues, have consistently opposed changes that would lead to reader confusion about the main usage of "Cultural Marxism" - namely, as the object of a conspiracy theory. A selective reading of Jamin to say "this is what how Cultural Marxism in the conspiracy theory differs from real (sic.) Cultural Marxism" is prone to confuse the reader in precisely the way the community has warned against. Newimpartial (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Jamin is qualified and disinterested, and the work is a survey. Those qualities make it the ideal source to frame the issue following WP:YESPOV.

For the first sentence Cultural Marxism as part of critical pedagogy can help students resist media manipulation. the source in Jamin is

Cultural Marxism thus strengthens the arsenal of cultural studies by providing critical and political perspectives that enable individuals to dissect the meanings, messages, and effects of dominant cultural forms. Cultural studies can become part of a critical media pedagogy that enables individuals to resist media manipulation and increase their freedom and individuality. It can empower people to gain sovereignty over their culture, and to be able to struggle for alternative cultures and political change. Cultural studies is thus not simply another academic trend, but can be part of a struggle for a better society and a better life (Kellner, 2013, p. 15)

For this Jamin cites Douglas Kellner's Cultural Marxism and cultural studies. There is room for compromise on the phrasing, so long as everyone understands that the current phrasing sticks closest to sources.

It isn't the case now and was never the case that fringe sources are distinguished from legitimate sources by the use of the phrase "Cultural Marxism". The boundaries between Cultural Marxism, Western Marxism, Critical Theory, the Frankfurt School, and related terms are ill-defined. Scholarly sources use all of these, and we have secondary sources commenting on the use saying that they can be interchangeable. Minnicino's essay meanwhile - the very definition of the conspiracy theory - does not use the phrase "Cultural Marxism". There is even less support for the notion that the capitalization of the C matters. Wikipedians in 2014 or whenever major RfCs took place did not have the benefit of as many searchable digitized texts as are available now, and they drew the wrong conclusions.

In the literature, Cultural Marxism often means particularly British Cultural Marxism that entails more post-structuralism than Critical Theory, but this is not exclusively the case. Frederic Jameson for instance crosses those lines and is called a Cultural Marxist. In the 1980s, Henry Giroux and Stanley Aronowitz reunified both of these strands of Western Marxism in the course of popularizing critical pedagogy. As Issaac Gottesman writes, Education scholars thus increasingly preferred a cultural Marxist lens that looked at the ideological structure and content of schooling as opposed to the political economic Marxist lens that theorized capital and assessed quantifiable inputs and outcomes of schooling’s reproductive tendencies. Although we'll never know for sure, it's possible the ensuing arglebargle about political correctness is exactly the form in which William Lind encountered the phrase.

Let there be no mistake that the conspiracy theory is wrong, but it is wrong because it is mistaken in the facts, not because of its choice of terminology. The conspiracy theory is a conservative criticism of Western Marxism as it exists and is known to all scholars. The criticism is wrong, not because they hallucinated Western Marxism, but because Theodor Adorno did not invent methods for mind control, Herbert Marcuse was not an agent for the CIA, and Walter Benjamin did not push LSD. Everyone would do well to focus on these substantive matters, not by taking positions that anyone could refute by opening a copy of Eros and Civilization. This was a theme deftly taken up by The Point[3].

Editors are right to be wary of potential abuses of Wikipedia, but the response is to adhere to reliable sourcing and neutral point of view. Consensus on Wikipedia can change, as consensus in sources can change. Martin Jay is rightly one of the guiding lights for structuring our article, given his expertise and how many of the other sources ultimately lean on him. In the 2019 expansion of his essay, he concludes, [...]It would be counterproductive to pathologize their politics too quickly and subsume them under theoretical categories that rob them of any critical self-reflectivity or ability to alter their views or behavior. Instead a willingness to empathize with their dilemmas and hear their grievances may well be a more constructive way to address the increasing polarization of our body politic[...] Lütticken also deserves a close reading. Sennalen (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Sennalen: we do readers a disservice if we use terms inconsistently in an article, when the respective sources use terms consistently but in ways that may be specific to each source. The status quo version of the article doesn't treat "Cultural Marxism" as the name of an actual movement, and you don't get to do so because one anomalous RS uses the same label (some of the time) for real scholarship and for the object of a conspiracy theory. And BTW, WP:YESPOV is not a license to take a non-mainstream POV (such as, "there is a real 'Cultural Marxism and a conspiracy theory that distorts this real thing") and present it as the spine of an arircle section, particularly when (as in the text you added) you are trying to present this non-mainstream POV in Wikivoice as fact.

Re: In the literature, Cultural Marxism often means particularly British Cultural Marxism that entails more post-structuralism than Critical Theory, but this is not exclusively the case (in your reply to me) - this statement is horse excrement, unsubstantiated by competent sources. Jamieson (who, unlike most of these authors, I have met as well as read) by no means crosses these lines - understanding and writing about postructutalism by no means makes anyone a poststructuralist. Your often claim here simply isn't true, and the vast majority of the sources for the Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, Marxist Humanism and the cultural turn in Marxism (or, as you seem to imply here, new social movement theory) either never put the word "cultural" in front of "Marxism", or only do so incidentally to designated an activity - "cultural" as opposed to "economic" or "trade union" or "political" Marxism. That isn't the name of a school or a movement, and pretending that the main sequence of sources is designating a movement, when they do not, strikes me as incompetent intellectual history to give the very utmost of WP:AGF.

The idea that The conspiracy theory is a conservative criticism of Western Marxism as it exists and is known to all scholars is, again, unsubstantiated by the reliable sources. Not even Jamin goes this far, and the rest of the sources don't even concede the token "this is what the conspiracy theorists were referring to" that Jamin does. But evrn Jamin does not at any point conclude that the conspiracy theorists have been engaging with Western Marxism as it exists, and the fact that they grabbed hold of a lesser synonym, "Cultural Marxism", turned it into an imaginary movement and a conspiracy, doesn't imply - as you proposed that Wikipedia state in its own voice - that a common basis of facts links the conspiracy theorists with legitimate scholarship. That isn't even what Jamin is saying, and it certainly isn't what Jay is saying, but for some reason it is what you want Wikipedia to say.

CONSENSUSCANCHANGE certainly is Wikipedia policy and is also in some sense grounded in a defensible ontology and epistemology, but your argument that "I've been right about this for years but nobody but Tewdar paid attention!" isn't an argument at all likely to move the consensusometer, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

In fact they didn't originally grab hold of a lesser synonym, they literally invented it, possibly as an alternative to "cultural Bolshevism," and only later found scattered use of the expression in Marxist literature. That's why the two concepts are separate and the conspiracy theory is not actually about the "cultural Marxism" as understood by critical theorists, but about an imagined conspiracy of Marxists to undermine Western civilization as a means of taking power. TFD (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You might be right, but do you have a source for that first sentence? Even a totally unreliable one would be better than nothing.  Tewdar  16:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: You've made arguments of this form before: either never put the word "cultural" in front of "Marxism", or only do so incidentally to designated an activity - "cultural" as opposed to "economic" or "trade union" or "political" Marxism. That isn't the name of a school or a movement. It seems fairly central to your thinking on this topic, and while it's true on the face of it, it doesn't seem to be an important distinction. As the article on Western Marxism says, Less concerned with economic analysis than earlier schools of Marxist thought, Western Marxism placed greater emphasis on the study of the cultural trends of capitalist society, and that's no different than the sense in which Minnicino uses it. Cultural Marxism is a synonym for Western Marxism. Academic sources use it that way, conspiracy theorists use it that way, and academics say conspiracy theorists use it that way. If this is really the crux of your objection, it does not do too much harm for the Wikipedia article to follow suit and say "Western Marxism" in place of where I said "Cultural Marxism". Sennalen (talk) 03:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You appear to have missed the key point that the topic of this article is neither "Western Marxism" nor is it even "the Western Marxism conspiracy theory". Many Western Marxists could be found wearing lovely coats (and hats), but let's not WP:COATRACK this article with off-topic content. Wikipedia articles on other antisemitic conspiracy theories are not primarily concerned with the question, "what real phenomena is the conspiracy theory 'based on'?", nor should this one be. Newimpartial (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cover a topic, not a term. WP:NOTDICT. The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory about Western Marxism. All articles on fringe topics should place the subject in the proper context.

WP:FRINGELEVEL Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community.

WP:EVALFRINGE Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations.

Sennalen (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

But sources do not support your assertion that the proper context for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is actually existing "Cultural Marxism" or, for that matter, "Western Marxism". Scholarship does not support your implication that the originators and developers of the conspiracy theory actually read primary or secondary texts by or about the Frankfurt School or the Marxist Humanists, or Critical Theory or Post-Marxist texts for that matter - not to any significant extent. Nor does scholarship suggest that they were reacting to "Western Marxism" as an intellectual movement, or to "political correctness" as you have proposed - similarly, your attempts above to lump in "post-structuralists" as some kind of grey area that might possibly be Cultural Marxism as well simply show you following the sloppy thinking of the conspiracists. The only RS that supports even part of your interpretation is Jamin, and you had to ignore roughly half of what Jamin actually says about that relationship to produce the tendentious paraphrase you proposed for this article (nor does Jamin support your woolly thinking about poststructuralism).

Cultural Marxism, the object of the conspiracy theory, cannot be described "clearly and objectively" because no such object ever existed - the mishmash of Western Marxism, the Birmingham School, the Long march through the institutions, "political correctness", post-1968 liberalism, feminism, and postmodernism that makes up the object of the conspiracy was never called "Cultural Marxism" by anyone until the conspiracy theory came along, and no part of this complex and diffuse Venn diagram was ever known primarily as "Cultural Marxism". There is simply no there, there, and it is not the role of this article to conjure up a POVFORK history of Marxist thought to create "context" for conspiracists that does not otherwise exist. Newimpartial (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

...the mishmash of Western Marxism, the Birmingham School, the Long march through the institutions, "political correctness", post-1968 liberalism, feminism, and postmodernism that makes up the object of the conspiracy - well, that's not what our awesome lede says: The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims that Western Marxism is the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture (my emph.)- perhaps someone could add those other fellows to that sentence?  Tewdar  12:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

We have to simplify for the lead (and "Western Marxism" stands better here than other competing terms), but if this article suggests anywhere that Western Marxists actually do practice "political correctness", or the Long March, or postmodernism, then please point those passages out so we can fix them. The conspiracy theory posits a movement "based on Western Marxism" that does these things, but its claims are baseless. Newimpartial (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with something like "...claims that Western Marxism, liberalism, political correctness, and postmodernism are...blah blah blah"? The conspiracy theory does not only blame 'Western Marxism', and it would probably be better to say so in the lede.  Tewdar  14:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to any revisions to the lede that do not make it worse. Newimpartial (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Since lede follows body, it would be premature to do much while body revisions are pending. When the body fully reflects the consensus of reliable sources, then it will be time to rewrite the lede. Sennalen (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You're trying to wage a one-person war against the existence of synonyms. That's not the real locus of dispute on Wikipedia or in the sources. Sennalen (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I am suggesting that we (continue to) follow the sources, which do not generally treat these terms as synonyms. Newimpartial (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

follow the sources - LOL, this article was riddled with demonstrable fictions at the start of the year, and the consensusometer fought tooth and nail to try and keep them.  Tewdar  14:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a diff for the tooth? Or the nail, even? Newimpartial (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Look, I don't really want to be singling people out here while we're all getting along so well 😂, but anyone who's been paying any attention at all to this page probably wouldn't need to ask for diffs.  Tewdar  15:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Cultural studies can become part of a critical media pedagogy." is future tense opinion, and thus shouldn't be said in Wikivoice. Also, this article is for the fringe Conspiracy Theory usage. If you wish to discuss some other more legitimate usage, I recommend doing so in Marxist cultural analysis. "The boundaries between Cultural Marxism, Western Marxism, Critical Theory, the Frankfurt School, and related terms are ill-defined." then you shouldn't be writing as if there's a hard boundary. "Editors are right to be wary of potential abuses of Wikipedia", indeed, and trying to scrap together a coherent school of thought or movement out of a hodgepodge of disconnected authors across large amounts of time - is just that. Again, we have pages for Critical Theory, critical pedagogy, The New Left, Western Marxism. Pushing the "Cultural Marxism is a widely accepted term" stuff isn't right for this page. Consensus on this has not changed. This page is for the conspiracy usage, because there's not enough shared consensus or notability for any other shared usage. You'll have to put in a request for deletion review if you think otherwise (see: WP:DRV). 194.223.51.184 (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

trying to scrap together a coherent school of thought or movement out of a hodgepodge of disconnected authors across large amounts of time - is just that Indeed. That's a point that I made in the disuputed edit, using Jamin, and it was part of what Newimpartial reverted. Sennalen (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That's the point you thought you'd made. Personally it didn't read that way to me. 194.223.51.184 (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That's because it wasn't actually the direction the argument was facing. Newimpartial (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

From reverted version: In popular language, the phrase "Cultural Marxism" has been used imprecisely and interchangeably with other terms, including political correctness, critical theory, socialism, postmodernism, intersectionality, identity politics, and cancel culture.[26] It is typically used to criticize a target for alleged illiberalism.[26] Conspiracy theorists often fail to differentiate the exact contributions of different philosphers and collapse distinctions between them. - looks like it did a better job explaining this than the current version.  Tewdar  19:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Without wanting to cast race-based aspersions on trolls, I will simultaneously point out that I do not hold the Hanlon source in high regard, recent as it may be. Also, I don't really care how "Cultural Marxism" is used in popular language since (as with most other conspiracy theories) people express tropes of the conspiracy theory without being conscious of the underlying framework. Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

If you're serious, keep it in. If you're not, delete (not strike) it please make this clear. I shouldn't have written it.  Tewdar  19:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Check the page history.  Tewdar  19:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, I tried.  Tewdar  19:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, any "race of trolls" is purely fictional. Does that answer your question? Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I am very satisfied with this answer, but still would have preferred to delete the whole diversion. 🧌 Tewdar  20:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean, it was funny. I think my humour levels must be a bit low today.  Tewdar  20:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

So aaaaaaanyway... you may not have liked the sourcing, but you can't claim that Sennalen wasn't trying to make that point.  Tewdar  20:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, there is still some dissensus about what the point was. I've already registered my issue about popular language. I have an analyticaly distinct issue with Conspiracy theorists often fail to differentiate the exact contributions of different philosphers and collapse distinctions between them - while this statement is accurate prima faciae, Sennalen's framing lends it the implication that there is a version of "real Cultural Marxism" characterized by certain "exact contributions" and "distinctions", and then a sloppier version put forward by conspiracy theorists. This is still implying more there than is actually there, IMO, which has been the problem with Sennalen's main line of contributions since they arrived. Newimpartial (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You may want to review the citations and quoted text at Marxist_cultural_analysis#"Cultural_Marxism"_conspiracy_theory that you negotiated for at length. You have been shown the evidence. Your continual refusal to acknowledge the evidence is disruptive. Sennalen (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Your WP:BOLD edit here does not align with 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, which is the lead sentence of the passage you just linked. Your insistence on your WP:POV over the past year, including your tendentious use of sources and your refusal to acknowledge evident consensus, is the source of disruption. Newimpartial (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the article text (which was softened and made vague to suit you), but the citations behind it. You make pronouncements about consensus this and community that, but you have never yet engaged with what the sources say. Sennalen (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. I read all the sources these articles use (as well as many they don't), and have corrected your text proposed at Marxist cultural analysis so that it aligns with the BALANCE of the sources, compensating as necessary for your selective presentation of sources when they happen to coincide with what you "know" to be true (i.e., the WP:POV you bring time these topics). If you didn't see me engaging with the sources, then you weren't paying attention. If, on the other hand, the only mode of engagement with sources you would recognize is arguing with you about what specific sources mean by specific passages - that is something I only do when it is unavoidable, and it is rarely unavoidable. Insisting on that, in my experience, is typically a WP:SEALION tactic. Newimpartial (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The only sources you care to cite are Braune and the time you got Terry Eagleton's autograph or something - whatever it was, it's OR. Yes, you do actually need to read the words on the page here. Sennalen (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Please strike your inaccurate accusation about The only sources (I) care to cite .... In this discussion last year, I quoted at you from Jamin (at length, to remedy your selective appropriation) and Busbridge as well. But I need not WP:SATISFY you just because you taunt. Speaking of which, re: you do actually need to read the words on the page here - either you are just being snide, or you have utterly failed at reading comprehension when approaching my comments for content. Neither would bode especially well for your future as a WP:SPA contributor. Newimpartial (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

"I've been right about this for years but nobody but Tewdar paid attention!" - nice. The consensusometer seems to consist mainly of the Holy Writings of RfC participants from 2014 who confuse Sage Encyclopedia entries with self-published sources and who may or may not be retired or dead, and SPAs who show up once every three months solely to revert changes to this article (no offence, but WP:DUCK etc.). So perhaps the consensusometer could do with a few replacement parts. The reverted edit was not perfect, but if we can include 'academic' Joan Braune and 'academic' Stuart Jeffries' comparisons of the Frankfurt School with the conspiracy theory, we can include 'academic' Jérôme Jamin's comparison too.  Tewdar  14:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Jamin content is already in the article; it would be UNDUE to add a new section to further emphasise his work.

And you can scarcely blame the possibly dead 2014 RfC participants for the continued finding in community processes in 2019, 2020 and 2021 that "Cultural Marxism" isn't, y'know, a real thing. Newimpartial (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I do not blame the dead for that. Hey, academic Joan Braune's uninfluential single article is cited 12 times here, perhaps someone should take a look at that, per WP:DUE or WP:ETC...  Tewdar  14:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

No comment is the new impartial, huh? 🤐  Tewdar  23:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I am trying not to chase the squirrels, and your presentation of citation counts out of context when you don't like certain sources - well, it's not one of your more endearing qualities, innit? Newimpartial (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed.

This statement "Predating any conspiratorial usage, the phrase "cultural Marxism" had occassional use in accepted academic scholarship to mean Marxism applied to matters of culture." is not supported by the sources given. 194.223.51.184 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The sources given are

Jamin In concrete terms, next to the history of Cultural Marxism as a well‐documented theory, devel�oped by Marxist scholars and thinkers within cultural studies from the 1930s, another theory has emerged during the 1990s, and is particularly influential on radical forms of right wing politics.

Hanlon The term "Cultural Marxism" even had an accepted and primarily descriptive (as opposed to conspiratorial or polemical) usage in the 1930s to refer to Frankfurt School theorists' general intellectual program of recognizing the impact of economics - particularly under capitalism - on culture and "cultural production." Sennalen (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)