Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

People are using "cultural marxist" as a synonym for "woke" or "critical theory", we should probably mention this prominently

This article seems rather obtuse and I worry that it makes wikipedia seem decidely biased. There clearly is a political movement surrounding marxist analysis of society along intersectional lines (race and gender). People are referring to this as cultural marxism. This thing exists and needs a name, that the name that people are using happens to have historically been a sometimes antisemitic niche conspiracy theory doesn't mean that is what the term now is. Do we actually think that Braverman, who is married to a Jew, is referring to an antisemitic conspiracy theory or might she be referring instead to the marxist intersectional analysis that fills the comment section of one of the UK's main broadsheets, The Guardian. I think it's perfectly fine to discuss how the term has a conspiratorial background, and was at times antisemitic, but I think it's misleading to pretend that is what is going on most of the time with current usage, and I think someone who searches for "cultural marxism" after a politician used and finds this article would be given an incorrect understanding of what is actually going on - that there is a popular political movement based on ideas like "privilege", "white supremacy" and "intersectionality" and some politicians don't like it.

• This piece equates uses of the term "cultural marxism" with "wokeness" and "colonial studies" [1]
• This piece equates it with "critical theory" [2]
• This article is pretty interesting, it was presented at a conference and doesn't have any cites on google scholar but it well referenced. (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-78690-8_30). The author, while talking about conspiratorial links, is clear that cultural marxism can refer to a real movement within academia and says he used the term "identitarian left" or "cultural left" as near synonyms for cultural marxism but believes the term can be useful. He cites a number of authors who he says are trying to separate conspiracy from the links between Marxism and the "cultural left". While noting the desire to find a "cabal" or academics responsible for these ideas and that it does not seem to be the case, he argues that there is a general movement within left-wing academia to engage in "cultural" rather than "class based" sociology.

Obviously WP:VERIFIABLE, but I think it's quite likely that we can demonstrate this second usage, which is basically a synonym for "Woke" or "intersectional politics", and I think this usage should be referred to near the beginning of the article (separate from the link) Talpedia 13:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is it unverifiable or should we mention it prominently? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe that something related to this will very much be verifiable, but have not necessarily found precisely the sources that we should use here, as I want to feel out a bit of consensus before expending too much time without a little more feedback. That said I have included a few sources here that discuss a more general "woke" meaning of the word.

Also I'm sort of forestalling the knee jerk WP:VERIFIABLE resources, by saying I think we can find the sources Talpedia Talpedia 18:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Do they? They seem to fall under the conspiracy side, no? The same conspiracy side that "the marxist intersectional analysis that fills the comment section of one of the UK's main broadsheets, The Guardian" falls under? Please see WP:FRINGE Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• shrug* I guess you think the OED are filled with conspiracy theorists. . Conspiracy theorists everywhere I tell you.

You might like to have a read of this section of the article on intersectional feminism and the influence of marxist feminism on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality#Feminist_thought

You know that marxism is a fairly mainstream term in sociology right not some "boogie man" concept. I suggest you gain a basic understanding of the topic, perhaps start with Conflict theory. Talpedia 20:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Although having a quick review. I'd say intersectional perspectives are occasionally presented within the guardian rather than "filling" the paper. The point is more that there is a thing there (politicised intesectional and postcolonial theory) that people are at times referring to when they use the term "cultural marxist" which is definitely a Conflict Theory as so perhaps a little "marxist" in a loose sense. Talpedia 21:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

«People are using "cultural marxist" as a synonym for "woke" or "critical theory"» => and «politically correct», and «socialist», since those terms are interchangeable bogeyman/bogeymen. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't you think that should mention this broader use? As it stands people who are referring to something that is real and exists, albeit by a term that also references a conspiracy theory, are said to be referring to an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

There is a real thing there that is being presented as a bogeyman.Talpedia 18:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

«There is a real thing there that is being presented as a bogeyman.» => Are you calling me a liar? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

«we should probably mention this prominently» => Only if reliable sources say so. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

«Do we actually think that Braverman, who is married to a Jew, is referring to an antisemitic conspiracy theory» => I personally do not think that the Cultural Marxism narrative is intrinsically antisemite, but i do think that Suella Braverman regurgitated (she was not just referring to it) the Cultural Marxism conspiracytheory, a far-right narrative with roots in nazi Germany which is currently labelled antisemite in wikivoice. In case you wiktionary:didn't get the memo:

• Association of German National Jews
• Yair Netanyahu relaying an antisemite drawing in 2017
• Ben Shapiro having a same-sex spouse
• r/LeopardsAteMyFace
• Nephew of Shoah denier Robert Faurisson rejoin the political campaign team of Éric Zemmour who is jewish
• famous jewish historian Robert S. Wistrich endorsing [3] a far-right conspiracytheory very similar to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion [4] wikidata:Q55653370

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the term cultural marxism has (at least) three meanings.

• There is a conspiracy theory, as well as some less conspiratorial writings in right-wing material
• There is a shift away from marxist ideas in sociology to more cultural ideas.

  In the left ideological paradigm, this transformation became known as the “cultural turn”; some early left authors also referred to this shift as “Cultural Marxism.”

• There is the modern usage in the press.

seems to suggest that the term originated within left-wing analysis and was then picked up by right-wing thinkers who turned it into a conspiracy theory.

Looking through the article itself we have this is the background:

Apart from any conspiratorial usage, the phrase 'cultural Marxism' has been used occasionally in accepted academic scholarship to mean the study of how the production of culture is used by elite groups to maintain their dominance. Generally no one self-identifies as a 'cultural Marxist'. 'Cultural Marxism' is sometimes treated as synonymous with the 'Critical Theory' that originated in the Frankfurt School;

Which is sort of doing what I want. So perhaps I just think that this needs to get into the lead! Synonym for critical theory and "far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory" are rather different things!

I think I might also want to add some discussion of this "cultural turn" and "identitarian left" to perhaps the background. Though I think it might be good to use some of the sources that references, and perhaps validate this with some other sources rather that using the source directly. Talpedia 19:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That is a minority usage and should not go in the lede. The idea that the Guardian is pushing cultural marxism is itself a conspiracy theory. Andre🚐 19:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that it is actually at present the majority usage and this piece has dug up an interesting if fringe usage from 90s conspiratorial right wing press and fringe groups on the internet.

Is everything that you don't agree with a conspiracy theory? I know this mode of argumentation has become quite popular of late, but on wikipedia we can uses sources and stuff. You'll note that I didn't say that the guardian was pushing "cultural marxism".

To be clear, I don't think the guardian is secretly following the ideas of certain social scientists from the 1930s to cause social change. I do think a reasonable number of their columnists have an intersectional bent.

But my real point is that I think there is a mode of sociological analysis that involves things like "privilege", "white privilege", "intersection", "white supremacy", "critical race theory" that is reasonable common in the UK civil society and that some people refer to as "cultural marxism". Talpedia 19:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

«Is everything that you don't agree with a conspiracy theory?» => No. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking in the OED (perhaps the correct source to determine usage). Talpedia 19:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The idea that people who are studying Intersectionality or critical race theory are actually marxists /is/ the conspiracy theory. MrOllie (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm... perhaps we are using different meanings of Marxist and I'm being a bit losoe with the term. They seem quite clearly to be Conflict theories which sort of puts them in the same ballpark as Marxist theories.

These theories assert that groups in some sense "exist" as structures with a kind of intent, and have power relations between one another and sometimes you look at the work that these groups do. (E.g. with analyses of unpaid childcare labour). I sort of view marxism as asserting that one of the groups is "in charge" in some sense having seen this distinction elsewhere - perhaps I should call this a "hegemonic conflict theory" or something similar. I think anything that is a conflict theory could be "marxist" in a loose, pejorative, sense.

I'm not particularly wedded to the the term but I think other people would refer to it as Marxist, and this is what can be meant by "Cultural marxism" when used informally. .

I guess most of the intersection / cultural studies stuff is not really revolutionary in the marxist sense, which this talks about. Talpedia 20:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking in the OED (perhaps the correct source to determine usage), the non-conspiratorial usage is included along with a reference to the source being conspiratorial. I'm not sure it tells us which usage is more common - though the definition does not refer to a shadowy cabal or elite.

1.1938– Used depreciatively, chiefly among right-wing commentators: a political agenda advocating radical social reform, said to be promoted within western cultural institutions by liberal or left-wing ideologues intent on eroding traditional social values and imposing a dogmatic form of progressivism on society. Later also more generally: a perceived left-wing bias in social or cultural institutions, characterized as doctrinaire and pernicious. This sense has its origins in the anti-Semitic belief that Jewish intellectuals were behind an attempt to subvert western culture. In quot. 1938 (in the context of fascist ideology), this belief derives from the fact that Karl Marx's family were originally Jewish; in later use it is associated with the fact that the Frankfurt School (see note at sense 2) predominantly comprised Jewish philosophers, many of whom emigrated to the United States. Cultural Marxism is now also used more generally simply to criticize perceived left-wing bias. Owing to the term's history, such use is often regarded as controversial.

I also looked a bit more into the history of the topics. The article "Cultural Marxism" was deleted in 2014 seemingly on the grounds that there wasn't enough of a concept there for an article. I had a bit of a look through WP:NOTDICT to see if that told us anything about discussing usage. I would argue that given prominent use of the term, and the habit of labeling people who use the term as far-right conspiracy theorists WP:WORDISSUBJECT may have been reached but that seems like a bunch of work. I would say discussion of *usage* of the word (and so the sense used when the word is used) belongs on wikipedia. That is perhaps made clear by the discussion of usage here. Talpedia 20:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

"I'm not sure it tells us which usage is more common" are you sure about that? Because it seems to indicate that there is a common usage and a fringe usage whose very use is criticized due to the common usage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I might have made it harder to read by removing whitespaces to fit in talkquote. My interpretation was that the "second entry" was the etymology of the term - so I think that it says that the term is vague, but it derives from conspiratorial sources. Talpedia 15:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I've read the original, it is clearer... But its clearly not what you're saying it is, thats not a competent interpretation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"competent interpretation" eh. Is your interepretation of my intepretation competent? Stop digging for insults Talpedia 16:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

«I think the term cultural marxism has (at least) three meanings.» => Those three meanings are identical in my opinion. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

"So perhaps I just think that this needs to get into the lead!" that's not really a substantial argument. Performing WP:OR to substantiate your particular understanding of what "woke" means, isn't what Wikipedia is for, and starts to look a lot like a WP:SOAPBOX.

So your argument is that "Cultural Marxism" is use to mean "Woke" in that both are intended to describe progressive politics - but that doesn't change the fact that "Cultural Marxism" as a term is heavily tied to a Conspiracy Theory (and has it's own idea of events of the past that didn't happen as they're claimed, eg. The Frankfurt School having a unified and long standing plan to take over America and replace it with Communism). This is the page for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory precisely because there's no substantial academic movement fitting the Conservative conception of the term's supposed pedigree and attachment to history.

That Conservatives use the term "Cultural Marxism" to refer to identity politics and progressive movements, is already described in the article, in the lede, and heavily through out... the fact that they also use "Woke" to describe progressive politics and identity politics isn't a necessary or noteworthy addition. They also use "far-left" and "social justice warriors" and "water mellons" (green politics outwardly, red communism inside) and "whacko pinko greenies" and "the ferral left" and "the revolting left" and "the leftwing agenda" - but there's no push to state all that "prominently in the lead". Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's certainly not a dictionary of associations substantiated by WP:OR readings of what are perhaps good sources, but don't justify exclaiming a definition in Wikivoice when the topic is a conspiracy theory. The genuine article being the page at Marxist cultural analysis or perhaps the page on progressive politics themselves.

I don't think you'll find a positive consensus here to do what you want to do, and you'll more than likely find a lot of push back and reverts. 203.214.58.161 (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

«the marxist intersectional analysis that fills the comment section of one of the UK's main broadsheets, The Guardian» => What the fuck are you talking about? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Commentary with an intersectional sociological analysis is fairly common in this UK newspaper. It is certainly the case that "intersectional" and "colonial studies" ideas have some influence in the UK Talpedia 18:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a concrete change to the article with source that you can provide? Andre🚐 19:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Not yet, I need to do a little more reading. I was seeing if anyone had anything more interesting to say. Why don't you go post some policies at me - I would suggest WP:FORUM. Talpedia 19:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

What the fuck is «marxist intersectional analysis»? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I basically just mean a Conflict theory based on an understanding of the interactions of various groups within society defined by gender, race and other "intersectional" factors with the idea that one group is in some sense "hegemonic" (i.e. not structural pluralism) - that was the "marxist" part - there's probably a better word for it. Talpedia 21:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Anyway... it looks like this isn't going to get consensus I think they'll be a bunch of WP:DUE arguments for not including information about the definition along with an article on the conspiracy theory. My personal feeling is that given a bunch of the content here is about the use of the term rather than conspiracy; the fact that the term has grown dictionary definitions, and we are starting to get newspaper articles written about the term itself, it might make sense to create an article on the word Cultural Marxism itself that references this article from that. This could address questions around the word itself, which is my concern here, since I think most people are interested in what people who use the word mean rather than a conspiracy that they probably aren't referring to (based on the OED definition - though a lexicographic publication - should one exist would be useful). Though given that this got caught up in gamergate and went to arbitration, this might still be a hard sell.

I guess an alternative would be to widen the article to be about cultural marxism, both as a word and as a concept (for example this happens on Misandry).

I also think it could be good to expand some articles addressing the history of these political theories so that discussion in general on the topic can be more informed, both in society and wikipedia. Though the question as ever is who is going to do the work.Talpedia 23:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a page for the more academic and general phrasing Marxist cultural analysis - which frames the academic conception as a mode of analysis rather than a properly defined and official movement, or something which The Frankfurt School called themselves (in fact they never used the term "cultural Marxism" at all). There is at least one mention on Marxist cultural analysis that "cultural Marxism" (two words next to each other suggesting a possible concept, rather than a proper noun or well defined school/ideology/goal/movement) has after the fact been used on rare occasion to mean a Marxist form of cultural analysis (but nothing there about the original academic meaning being used to mean "Woke").

But if you want to document somewhere that "Cultural Marxism" is another term for "Woke" politics, wouldn't you be better starting with the page for Woke? Something like "The term 'Woke' is sometimes used to perpetuate allegations of a leftwing take over associated with the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" ? After all, if you're trying to say that "Woke politics are a form of Cultural Marxism" - you'd be wrong in that many supporters of progressive identity politics, or civil rights movements have no Marxist inclinations, motivations or backgrounds. The Frankfurt School influencing The New Left, isn't the same as them having gone back in time to start the Feminism movement, or orchestrating Black Civil Rights, or Gay Rights (all three of those movements predating The Frankfurt School), or even Identity Politics (which was born of Black Civil Rights). The Frankfurt School simply can't claim credit for "Woke" politics - nor should we suggest that the conspiracy theory is responsible for creating the term Woke or that they're the same thing... despite that being the claim of some conspiracy theorists. We're not here to substantiate the conspiracy theory, as it has no reliable sources, all it has is argument from influence and guilt by association - neither of which are reasonable arguments. We're here to report on what Reliable Sources say about the conspiracy theory, not try to substantiate what WP:PRIMARY sources are claiming to be the case. The subject of this page is after all WP:FRINGE.

That said, we do say the conspiracy theory targets the progressive movement and identity politics, and we do already include DeSantis' claim that "Woke is a form of Cultural Marxism" (correctly attributing it as a statement he has made, not one in Wikivoice). Personally, if anything, I see the term "Woke" as having been a sort of, rebranding of "Cultural Marxism" which was only brought to the forefront of the Conservative lexicon once the Conspiracy Theory version of "Cultural Marxism" was shot down. Accordingly, I agree with you that both terms are used to target progressives and identity politics, but to me it's clear that Cultural Marxism has a lot of other historical claims attached. That's why this page is about a conspiracy theory, rather than a reasonable conservative critique. 203.214.58.161 (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply,

But if you want to document somewhere that "Cultural Marxism" is another term for "Woke" politics, wouldn't you be better starting with the page for Woke?

That seems like a good idea, thanks. I guess the question then becomes should cultural marxism redirect to "Woke"?

My main concern is that there is a subtle form of guilt by association going on here. Where it's like "look there was a conspiracy theory so X is an antisemite cryptofascist" when people just want a word for something they don't like. They should probably stop using "conspiracy tinged" words, but also... people should know what the words actually mean, and there's a risk that this being the main wikiepdia content on "cultural marxism" could mislead,

Personally, if anything, I see the term "Woke" as having been a sort of, rebranding of "Cultural Marxism" which was only brought to the forefront of the Conservative lexicon once the Conspiracy Theory version of "Cultural Marxism" was shot down.

Perhaps you are right about that. My take is that "Woke" ideas follow in an academic tradition of Conflict theory and looking at relations between groups. So they are going to be a little "marxist tinged" in the sense that they address the relations between loosely defined groups. And while we shouldn't pretend that there are crypto-communists hidden in academia plotting their leninist revolution through new means, it seems silly not to be aware of how these ideas related to marxist thought. Is this article and the use of the terms "Cultural Marxism" the best means to enact this? Perhaps not. Talpedia 13:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess the question then becomes should cultural marxism redirect to "Woke"? I don't think that's a reasonable question, as I've hopefully already communicated. I've stated quite clearly how and why they're different concepts, and that whilst they target similar groups (when used by conservatives), that doesn't give the terms the same history, claims, or backgrounds. So I'm not sure why you're still arguing that they're related enough to warrant a redirect in either direction.

There's no single "Conflict Theory" (as the page you've linked to makes clear), so when you say "My take is that "Woke" ideas follow in an academic tradition of Conflict theory" you could mean a broad range of different things there. If you really mean the idea that different groups in different societies do different things, that's again a really broad and common idea (and isn't actually representative of what Civil Rights groups were necessarily claiming, most of them were aware that their relative groups weren't uniform but still had enough shared understandings and needs to warrant fighting for their own rights). I also don't believe that when Conservatives use "Woke" as a pejorative that it really represents any solid or accurate understanding or representation the movements and theories it's leveled against, nor the histories and groups it came from. It's being used by Conservatives as a buzzword, not some well studied article of history, and I think you're giving it far more credibility than it has.

You've made your support and desire to legitimize the Conservative usages, and try to substantiate some sort of connection, but frankly, I don't believe you have any such WP:Secondary sourcing that reliably, and positively affirms a meaningful academic connection. It seems (like I stated earlier), that you're here trying to make an WP:OR case for poorly defined neologisms, known to be leveled at a wide array of subjects, movements, and social phenomena. For instance, Star Wars, Barbie, Lego, Black Civil Rights, Lesbianism, M&Ms, and any number of other things have all been called "Woke". So I suggest you don't attempt to make any edits on either Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, or Woke, without ample discussions because both terms are clearly controversial when used by Conservatives as pejoratives. Just be careful, and make sure to get other editors views before proceeding is my advice. 203.214.58.161 (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Woke does exist but shouldn't be conflated with anytime someone screams about a red scare or red-baiting. I think that IP editor is correct in this case as it's OR to conflate the moral panic about "woke" politics (i.e. pejoratively "social justice warriors"), "cultural Marxism" which is a predominantly antisemitic conspiracy theory of the Frankfurt school insidiously subverting society, and modern usage by political actors (see WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS). By claiming that there is a legitimate usage of critical theory or conflict theory or other academic concepts which, yes, are considered Marxian or Marxist if they follow analysis of class relations or what-have-you, and that is identical to the material in a mainstream reliable source like the Guardian which is considered left-leaning by conservatives but is obviously not Marxist or communist or a radical publication, you are merging the conspiracy and the reality. Indeed, there are conservatives across the US and UK that are eager to conflate woke-ism with Marxism, critical race theory with black history, and many other things that are not the same or even that closely related. Andre🚐 14:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

«when people just want a word for something they don't like.» => They can use/utilise «left» which is much shorter than «Cultural Marxism» and which lack roots in nazi Germany. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

So I'm not sure why you're still arguing that they're related enough to warrant a redirect in either direction.

The OED dictionary suggests a broader meaning, as do two articles in UK newspapers I have referenced. You say yourself that it is used as a conservative buzzword - this suggests the common usage of them is not referring to a conspiracy theory. There is discussion on this page about the use of term rather than conspiracy theories.

that you're here trying to make an WP:OR case for poorly defined neologisms

Kind of tiresome argument. WP:OR applies to the content of articles, not the process by which they are made.

But sure, I think a bunch of reading is the correct next step if anyone wants to suggest changes.

t's being used by Conservatives as a buzzword

Indeed, but if its a buzzword is it also an antisemitic conspiracy theory?

legitimize the Conservative usages

Not really "legitimize" but accurately describe what the word means when used rather than linking to an unrelated conspiracy. Even though what it means will probably be "nothing"

and try to substantiate some sort of connection

Not really, I would like wikipedia to contain material that sheds light on historical the relationship between the various different strands of conflict theory, such that discussions like that are more informed. I am pretty unclear on the exact relationship between these different theories.

So I suggest you don't attempt to make any edits on either Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, or Woke, without ample discussions because both terms are clearly controversial when used by Conservatives as pejoratives. Just be careful, and make sure to get other editors views before proceeding is my advice.

Sure. I imagine the next step would be a good deal or reading - but I'm more leaving this as a bit of suggestion before moving on. I might edit a bit around the history of a few of these theories, as I am generally interesting in them and the development of ideas however.

OR to conflate the moral panic about "woke" politics

I've got a newspaper article making such conflations, and an OED article using a far broader definition. But, sure, as to whether there are more scholarly articles looking at contemporary usage is a different question.

If you really mean the idea that different groups in different societies do different things

I more mean the reification of the group as acting as "sociological structure".

in a mainstream reliable source like the Guardian which is considered left-leaning by conservatives but is obviously not Marxist or communist or a radical publication, you are merging the conspiracy and the reality.

The Guardian's news journalism is considered reliable, not its commentaries. I'm not sure this point is particular relevant unless you general disagree that "Woke" exists as a meaningful set of philosophies that people sometimes refer to as "Cultural Marsim". Talpedia 15:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Your statement that "the term originated within left-wing analysis and was then picked up by right-wing thinkers" is incorrect. Right-wing thinkers slightly revised the term "cultural Bolshevism," which was used by the Third Reich. Only after coining the term did they find its use in a few occasions in the literature of critical theory. But the two concepts have nothing in common. Critical theory is about analyzing culture in capitalist society from a Marxist perspective. Cultural Bolshevism is a conspiracy to pervert capitalist culture in order to seize power.

Also, intersectionality and wokeness are not the same thing. Liberals say that everyone should have equal rights (wokeness), but that's not the same as challenging the power structure. The appointment of women and blacks to the Supreme Court was not part of a conspiracy to destroy Western civilization.

When one accuses the Democratic Party and the U.S. business elites of conspiring to impose Marxist government, that's a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"the term originated within left-wing analysis and was then picked up by right-wing thinkers"

My statement was that the source said this. The source may well be incorrect, I definitely view it as a started point for reading.

I'm mostly now concerned about.

• The current meaning of the term, and the suggestion that it migth be good to cover this somewhere
• Suggesting that it might be good to improve the coverage of the history of various cultural theories so that this debate in general is more informed

Talpedia 15:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:DICTS and WP:FRINGE don't mix well. Dictionaries aren't necessarily well researched or encyclopedic in their statements.

Your sources don't back your claim that "Woke exists as a meaningful set of philosophies that "people sometimes" MOS:WHATPLACE refer to as "Cultural Marxism" - and it's a moot point as the article is about the Conspiracy Theory usage of the term (as per the title of the page Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory).

Your OED source substantiates that it has antisemetic origins, and doesn't include the term woke, which isn't really a "meaningful set of philosophies" - as mentioned earlier, Barbie, Starwars, and M&Ms have also been labelled woke... and woke has it's own article, and history ect...

You're also not proposing any specific changes to the article. So I think this is becoming WP:NOTFORUM. You're bordering on advocating a belief in the conspiracy theory, in that you're trying to leverage the term "Woke" into the article, as a way to substantiate some non-conspiratorial usage... but if someone discussing a conspiracy theory doesn't know it's a conspiracy theory, that doesn't somehow make it no longer a conspiracy theory. For example, if I call the moon landing hoax, the moon landing project, it doesn't suddenly mean I'm not referring to the same set of beliefs.

If you want to say that "Woke" sometimes suggests allegations made in The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, that should be done on the page for the term Woke. If you want to discuss that Woke is a conservative term for the New Left then again, this is not the page for that - because this is the page for the WP:FRINGE Conspiracy Theory... and there's no real reason to actively conflate it with Woke simply out of one users preference to do so.

Do you have some substantial description of Woke which doesn't align with the Conspiracy Theory about The Frankfurt School which this page focuses on? If not, I don't see much of a case for what you're saying. But even if you did have a source expounding on how The New Left and Frankfurt School are what's meant by Woke, and it's completely unrelated to the conspiracy theory - then obviously this wouldn't be the page for that information.... so I'm just really unsure what you're setting out to do here. It seems like it might be coming down to a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too? 203.214.58.161 (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Your statement that "the term originated within left-wing analysis and was then picked up by right-wing thinkers" is incorrect.

I said that a source said that, the source might be wrong. Either way the source is a starting point. Given this sources existence I'm suspicious that there won't be sources we consider reliable looking at the relationship between marxism and newer theories.

Also, intersectionality and wokeness are not the same thing

I suspect "wokeness" is interpreted in a number of ways.

You're also not proposing any specific changes to the article

Indeed, if you read the first comment you are replying to I said I don't think there's going to be consensus here. And suggested that there might be an argument for creating an article on the word "Cultural Marxism", and thought it might be a good idea to expand material surround the history. But peole continue replying.

You're bordering on advocating a belief in the conspiracy theory

I think a new article on the phrase "Cultural Marxism" should prominently refer to the conspiracy theory in any case.

you're trying to leverage the term "Woke" into the article

Someone else's suggestion.

this is not the page for that - because this is the page for the WP:FRINGE Conspiracy Theory

Indeed - I've come to the opinion that the main issue is that "Cultural Marxism" redirects here and there is no other article on the term.

and there's no real reason to actively conflate it with Woke simply out of one users preference to do so.

Indeed any change should be based in the best sources available, I should read more before making such changes.

so I'm just really unsure what you're setting out to do here

I'm probably not going to do anything since creating an RFC for either creating an article on the word "cultural marxism" or a redirect to woke would take a lot of work. I'm raising it as an idea from this discussion before moving on to something else. If someone else wanted to do it I would suggest they write a well sourced draft article first given the controversial nature of this topic - but given the controversial nature of this topic it would take a lot of work.

I also think that people interested in the topic might have their time better served fleshing out information on how various different theories developed historically using good sources.

I'm mostly just replying to the comment people make now hopefully in a "minimally controversial way".

But even if you did have a source expounding on how The New Left and Frankfurt School are what's meant by Woke

No I think in common parlance "Culture Marxism" does not refer to the conspiracy theory at all, and its meaning can be synonymous with something like Woke - but I should find some decent sources for this.

I want people searching for "cultural marxism" to know about the common usage of the term as well as the conspiracy theory, and to be able to correctly understand where various controversial theoretical frameworks came from.

It seems like it might be coming down to a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too

Mostly just replying to comments in a "closing things off way". Someone with more energy than me in the future might like to try to bring to life an entry on the phrase "Cultural Marxism" or explore whether it is synonymous with woke.

Talpedia 16:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Good luck in any further research you end up doing on the topic. 194.223.32.126 (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

It's disingenous to say ""wokeness" is interpreted in a number of ways." The far right are referring to progressive policies such as same sex restrooms. And they are expressing a conspiracy theory by linking this to Marxism.

I found a paper that may address your concerns: "An anatomy of the British war on woke." As used by the far right, "wokeness" implies that the policies were derived from Marxist ideology and are intended to destroy Western civilization.

TFD (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

That is my understanding of the term, but given our disagreement it would likely be best for me to see if I can find some good quality lexicographic sources.

I had a read of that paper, it seems clear that some groups - including some more "mainstream" conservative groups are using "woke" as a synonym for "Cultural marxism" in more "conspiratorial fashion" that given my current understanding, overestimates the influence of the Frankfurt school. I suspect this could make a good addition to the Woke article.

As to whether, this usage accounts for *all* pejorative usage is a different matter, but it clearly is some. Talpedia 18:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand how "overestimates the influence of the Frankfurt school" is based in antisemitism? You seem to be describing the antisemitic conspiracy theory while denying both that its a conspiracy theory and that its antisemitic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Think this is getting WP:FORUM'y. But this is perhaps an interesting conversation. I don't think it's reasonable to call people antisemitic for believing that a particular school of thought was influential incorrectly, despite this forming part of an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

Hazarding a few guess as the the "full conspiracy theory"; there was a Nazi conspiracy theory conflated Judaism with communism, and in so doing used fear of a communist revolution to justify a genocide. I suspect such conflation was politically convenient in a number of ways, combining two sources of fear. Insofar as the one could view the frankfurt school theory as a branch "Jewish communism" escaping from Germany this can act as a continuation of the anti-intellectual conspiracy theory that Nazi's used to simultaneously justify genocide and government control of institutions.

One the other hand I think certain things can be true, despite forming part of antisemitic beliefs, or a belief parallel to an antisemitic conspiracy theory could be formed without knowledge of the underlying antisemitic conspiracy theory. For example, I believe that monetary incentives within the pharmaceutical industry can result in bias which we must protect against. But at the same time, I am aware that this (in my opinion true) belief forms part of fringe antisemitic theories that conflate capitalism itself with a jewish elite.

The excessive influence of the Frankfurt school forms part of a conspiracy theory while not being true. But I would prefer that these ideas are *wrong* and by the way used to be conspiratorial and "by the way this is exactly how the influence of marxism worked and actually there were a bunch of people thinking in this way besides marx", rather than being antisemitic.

On a general level my feeling is that the next authoritarian regime will likely not base its particular "other" on Nazi or antisemitic beliefs, since society is so sensitized to them, and so protection from authoritarianism should be based on more general principles than identifying antisemitic conspiracy theories. Indeed, I think the current risk of authoritarianism is itself based on the mislabelling of merely being wrong as participating in conspiracy theories, and a number of governments are currently engaging in censorship efforts based on a desire to prevent the "spread of misinformation" which is often likened to a disease (a mode of thought that itself formed part of Nazi propaganda). I am not entirely clear how antisemitism fits into this picture, but I rather dislike the fact that accusations of anti-semitism were repeatedly used to criticise opponents of lockdown [5], [6], [7]. Indeed, I think respect for the crimes of Nazi Germany involves not allowing antisemitism to be used as a political tool.

But this is all "writing great wrongs" territory, in wikipedia one is "interested in topics" and additions are due and verifiable and arguments are assessed on this basis. But one of the topics I am interested is a highly nuanced understanding of social issues.

Talpedia 19:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

It appears to be directly related to improving the content of the article so far far from FORUM. Did you know that the supposed nexus in the "Nazi conspiracy theory conflated Judaism with communism" was none other than the Frankfurt School? There is no non-antisemitic criticism of the Frankfurt school in this context, even the nicest and most polite ones are still blaming "these Jews" and not "the Jews" but thats still within the conspiracy theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"Overinfluences their influence" is misleading since the Frankfurt School had no influence on wokeness. Obviously you have never read anything by them.

Also, sources say the theory is implicitly not explicitly anti-Semitic. That's how they overcome '"sensitivity" as you called it. (The conspiracy theorists would call it wokeness.) TFD (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

It is amazing what a person can miss while having even a fairly mild case of Covid. :) Re: My personal feeling is that given a bunch of the content here is about the use of the term rather than conspiracy; the fact that the term has grown dictionary definitions, and we are starting to get newspaper articles written about the term itself, it might make sense to create an article on the word Cultural Marxism itself that references this article from that - the thing is, we are obligated to follow the sources on this, particularly the highest quality sources available. So far, I am not aware of any even marginally reliable sources that treat the use of the term as separate from the conspiracy theory. The Oxford definition, for example, is (among some right-wing thinkers) a radical political ideology said to be promoted by left-wing activists with the aim of undermining or subverting western social and cultural institutions, ultimately resulting in the imposition of a progressive agenda on society - this is quite clearly a reference to the conspiracy theory, not to any other supposed "use of the term". Newimpartial (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, this is what I found (there is a second sense that I did see before and note the etymology for this).

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

Talpedia 08:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The primary meaning is still the conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The etymology of the primary meaning is certainly the conspiracy theory in this source. Do you think "political agenda", "cultural institutions" and "social values" is enough to make if refer to the conspiracy theory? Talpedia 12:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question, I think the key phrase connecting the secondary meaning back to the primary is "characterized as doctrinaire and pernicious". Those be tropes, yo. Newimpartial (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Talpedia – I think one problem here (I made this observation previously a few weeks back up above) is that non-conspiratorial uses (e.g. "cultural marxism" as ~"critical theory") aren't very interesting to write about in "reliable sources": it's more interesting to write about Breivik or something than it is to write about low-influence conservatives whining about identity politics or whatever. (I think more prominent/savvy conservative writers are more likely to use different terms for CT-adjacent topics: e.g. Jordan Peterson has basically made a career speaking out against it but he almost never uses the phrase "cultural marxism".) And any reliable source is unlikely to do a survey of weighted uses of this particular term and conclude for us which one is the primary topic. So, best of luck, but I don't think you're going to find RS to back up making a change that presents the main meaning of "cultural marxism" as the non-conspiratorial one, even if, as I suspect, you are correct. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 02:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the Frankfurt School and the conspiracy theory are totally separate topics. The name of the conspiracy theory was an updating of the Nazi conspiracy theory cultural Bolshevism. They were unaware the term had ever been used by any members of the Frankfurt School. It's similar to conspiracy theorists picking up on terms such as "military industrial complex" and "new world order" and applying them to totally unrelated concepts. TFD (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we're all on the same page more or less about that? Talpedia – if I understand correctly – is trying to find sources to demonstrate that conspiracy thing isn't the main usage of the term. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 03:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I think better qualitify lexicographic sources to explore common usage (with the suspicion that there is a "weaker non-conspitorial usage" based on a few sources) would be a good next step. I may well even do it! Talpedia 08:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

And any reliable source is unlikely to do a survey of weighted uses of this particular term and conclude for us which one is the primary topic.

indeed. Perhaps there is a corresponding literature behind the work of lexicographers e.g. OED . Talpedia 08:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The OED only added the term in Dec. 2021. TFD (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

There's an article from 2003 on the SPLC website [8] It mentions Pat Buchanan as promoting the conspiracy theory and Lind as naming it. But of course Lind was not aware that buried deep in the literature of the Frankfurt School someone had actually put the words cultural and Marxism together, although with a very different meaning. But none of these conspiracists seem to have even a superficial understanding of the Frankfurt School. TFD (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I suspect this is the link intended above: [9] 220.235.246.82 (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

"Post-modern neo-Marxism" is not a thing

Some editors are mentioning this name a lot, so let me state it at once and clearly:

"post-modern neo-Marxism" is not a thing. It's not an organic ideology that anybody subscribes to or would subscribe to. It's not a coherent ideology, it's not even a coherent concept, and everyone who is not subscribed to this theory at best thinks it's a joke, and at worst recognizes it as the obvious dog-whistling that it is.

It's a Frankenstein term whose constituent terms are contradictory (meaning it is in fact self-contradictory). It's a term Jordan Peterson et al. invented to describe anything they don't like in modern society (and especially modern academic/university discourse), a precursor to contemporary right-wing panics about "wokeness" or "critical race theory" (the right-wing distortion of "CRT", not the actual academic theory).

No serious political researcher has picked it up. No one, not even philosophers, take it seriously, and they are inclined to take a lot of things seriously. It's someone's pet theory they use to explain the world, and it's not even a good pet theory. The reason it is discussed here, in an article about a conspiracy theory, is that it amounts to a conspiracy theory. It's not a serious topic, and that's why, despite the fact that some editors constantly talk about it in circles, they can't provide reliable sources discussing it neutrally to back up their various claims.

Some editors might feel compelled to respond to this post, to point out that these terms are indeed very real, and that they do have "sources" to back it up. To those editors, I can only say: I'm sorry. Reality doesn't care about your fallacies or propaganda chambers.

Also, read the d*mn FAQ. TucanHolmes (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention "post-modern neo-Marxism"; and nobody seems to be trying to add the phrase. I can't figure out what you're trying to do or what you want to see happen? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Editors – often IP editors – are bringing it up repeatedly in discussions. A lot. Over and over again. At least since I started watching this page. Which is why I tried to state my point most generally.

(Usually brought up because people want to have mentions of Jordan Peterson removed from the article. That seems to be the most common context in which this happens.)

(That is also why I started this section with Some editors are bringing this name up a lot, so let me state it at once and clearly:) TucanHolmes (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

You should add some of this to a FAQ Dronebogus (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The closest thing I could point at is something like Standpoint theory, it's got a bunch of literature and a bunch of people seem to subscribe to it. I would suggest that editors interested in "post modern neo-marxism" look at this piece rather than engaging with the rather niche literature surrounding this term. Perhaps we could link to it in the FAQ

If you look at the page you'll see that there is discussion of a "dominant culture" which in my opinion is likely dervied from Marxist ideas, and also has postmodern ideas about epistemic privilege. This plot shows the number of uses of "lived experience" in UK Parliament and shows a rapid uptick from the term basically not being used in 2015, it is now used multiple times a week weekly Talpedia 09:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the whole "lived experience" thing is a big part of "woke"/"critical theory"/whatever that you and I were both saying is sometimes (non-conspiratorially) labelled as "cultural marxism". But what is the upshot of your comment? Are you replying Tucan? Are you suggesting a change to the article? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It is... But its also a big part of liberalism, libertarianism, charismatic religion etc... Its not in any way a unique of defining feature. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure... I'm not certain that the influence is out of standpoint theory, or how much the concept has transmogrified from its original morning. But the uptick in 2015 is suggestive of a more recent source ideas. Anyway yeah, I should probably stop talking pending an actual FAQ suggestion. Talpedia 16:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm mostly replying to Tucan. I'm a little worried about "scope creep" beyond this article, so I'm adding some context of "hey this is quite close". I'm also suggesting that if we change the FAQ we might like to sign post people to standpoint theory. I would prefer that we just don't change the FAQ - but if other people are keen this is an argument against these change and a suggestion for contextualization. Talpedia 16:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

If you want to propose something to be added to the FAQ, go right ahead. But at the moment, this appears to be an off-topic speech, rather than a proposal to improve the article. I was tempted to just close it per WP:FORUM, but there's some merit to proposing an addition to the FAQ. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Post-modern neo-marxism is not real according to a deconstruction of the individual terms. However, by those who use it, Post-modern neo-marxism is a description of the collection of beliefs held by those who expound post-structuralist philosophy and conventionally left-wing political theory and is real to the extent that it is describable and has critics. This is really the bare minimum to be discussed on Wikipdia, who cares if it's "not a coherent ideology," that's never been a prerequisite for inclusion on Wikipedia.

This "Frankenstein theory," is real enough to be described in the article. Likewise, anybody who self-identifies as a post-modernist, or who identifies with post-modernism is "not real." To say that your totalizing meta-narrative is the rejection of totalizing meta-narrative is performative contradiction. Despite it being performative contradiction, it exists and has critics, which is sufficient to be described on Wikipedia and would likely be relevant on this page. I am a Leaf (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Topic sentence is unencyclopedic and should be changed

The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.

"Misrepresents" should be changed to "represents" for several reasons:

1. There is no correct representation, "misrepresentation" is both a nonfalsifiable assertion and a statement about the veracity of the conspiracy theory. "Representation" in this context would state the view of the conspiracy theory in a disinterested, encyclopedic manner. The use of "representation" also does not make a statement on the veracity of the conspiracy theory, and is more encyclopedic.

2. No sources linked to the topic sentence indicate anything about this theory being a "misrepresentation" of the Frankfurt School, the only usable source on the internet here indicates that it is critical of the Frankfurt School, not that it is a "misrepresentation" of it's beliefs.

3. The title of the article is "conspiracy theory," in the context of the title being "conspiracy theory," the assertion that this theory is a "misrepresentation" is completely tautologous. Of course it's a misrepresentation! It's a conspiracy theory for god's sake!

It's not that I disagree that Cultural Marxism is a misrepresentation of the Frankfurt School, it's that I disagree with putting assertive, emotionally charged language in the topic sentence of a Wikipedia article of something of significance in contemporary life. There are some who may be predisposed to those who believe in this conspiracy, who would stop at the topic sentence of this article and say "this was written by the other side, it is biased." It would be in both Wikipedia's and the public's interest for a more disinterested topic sentence. I simply believe one word should be changed. I am a Leaf (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I suppose that any misrepresentation is tautologically a representation. But in this case, as abundant citations throughout the article attest, the claims of Cultural Marxism falsely represent the actual influence of the Frankfurt School. So we should use the more precise word, "misrepresent", which is perfectly neutral.

I am, however, going to change one word myself; namely, "which" to "that" because it is better English.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a bogus factual claim, so 'misrepresents' is fine. There's nothing 'nonfalsifiable' about it. Since we don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE on Wikipedia, believers in this conspiracy theory are going to think that any fact-based article is biased. There's nothing we can do about that. MrOllie (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresentation indicates there is a correct representation and an incorrect representation. The word represent says nothing of veracity, misrepresentation does.

There is something we can do about conspiracy theory believers thinking a fact-based article is biased. Namely, we can remove the biased language in the topic sentence.

The change does nothing to the meaning of the topic sentence, or the article as a whole, it simply makes it more encyclopedic, which, if you've made it to this point of the talk page, you probably scrolled past a banner which says "Content must be written from a neutral point of view." We should try and adhere to that with this article.

In any event, if the statement "misrepresentation" is going to be used in the topic sentence, at least a source stating such should be in the topic sentence. I am a Leaf (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

"The word represent says nothing of veracity, misrepresentation does." isn't that an argument to use misrepresent (and a strong one at that)? The claimed representation is not veracious, it is in fact false. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the edits suggested here, the first sentence is deeply flawed, owing to the way it is less concerned with defining the topic than it is with applying prejudicial labels. Sennalen (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This is really what i'm getting at. The topic sentence for 'Moon landing conspiracy theories' would be a good model for an article about conspiracy theories, especially when "conspiracy theory" is used in the article's title.

"Moon landing conspiracy theories claim that some or all elements of the Apollo program and the associated Moon landings were hoaxes staged by NASA, possibly with the aid of other organizations."

Consider, however, if this sentence was

"Moon landing conspiracy theories falsely claim that some or all elements of the Apollo program and the associated Moon landings were hoaxes staged by NASA, possibly with the aid of other organizations."

In terms of meaning, these sentences represent the same exact thing. Falsity can be inferred by the use of "conspiracy theory." However, the sentence without "falsely" represents this meaning with a more neutral tone. This neutrality should be the goal of this article on the Cultural Marxist conspiracy theory. I am a Leaf (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

For another model, to which the Cultural Marxism is explicitly linked in the article, please see Jewish Bolshevism.

Also, since the only two people who have problems with the lead both have histories of POV-pushing and disruptive editing on similar articles, I'm at least temporarily checking out of this conversation.

In no way, however, should this be mistaken as an indication of consensus. I remain strongly opposed to the sort of tinkering with the lead along the lines you are proposing.

If anyone has a knock-down argument that they have for some reason been holding back, please just tag me.

Peace out, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thats not neutrality its WP:FALSEBALANCE, please do not confuse them in the future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me, I added it to Moon landing conspiracy theories. MrOllie (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Pls. review MOS:LEADCITE. Wikipedia's Frankfurt School article could use some TLC, but it would be an easy place to start. A more complete history can be found in Martin Jay's The Dialectical Imagination, should anyone be interested.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)