Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 → Archive 20

Cultural Marxism disambiguation

Making the "Cultural Marxism" article into a disambiguation page instead of redirecting it to this article would make sense. The phrase "cultural Marxism" has been used to refer to both of these very different topics and clearly both of the topics are prominent. The two articles have not a lot to do with each other and a disambiguation page would make it redundant to substantially mention the conspiracy theory in the Marxist cultural analysis article, which is a completely different topic. Cultural Marxism is not the topic of this article, it is the cultural Marxist conspiracy theory. Cultural Marxism, as often defined by the proponents of the conspiracy theory, simply does not exist. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see how the average layperson could confuse marxist cultural analysis with “cultural Marxism” Dronebogus (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The tradition of Marxist cultural analysis has occasionally also been referred to as "cultural Marxism", in reference to Marxist ideas about culture. This is a direct quote from the Marxist cultural analysis article. There are a multitude of academic sources referring to Marxist cultural analysis as "cultural Marxism". 98.192.82.105 (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no prominent usage of "Cultural Marxism" prior to the conspiracy theory usage. Occasionally does not mean prominent. Wikipedia has a policy on notability which defined the notability requirements. Culture studies is just not a very prominent discourse in of it's self. The usages that do refer to things via "cultural Marxism" are using cultural as an adjective (English language modifier), not a pronoun (proper name). Cultural Marxism (pronoun) is the conspiracy theory, cultural Marxism is just an English language usage, non specific and never defined anywhere. Find a definition of cultural Marxism if that's your position.
Some protests, such as Occupy Wallstreet could be called cultural Marxism, but they're not Cultural Marxism... and they didn't really have anything to do with the Frankfurt School, Birmingham School, or the work of E.P. Thompson (eg. Marxist Cultural Analysis). Also, re-creating the old page (which only had 3 solid sources) would violate WP:SALT. Even a usage that seems prominent, like "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain" mostly ends up discussing E.P Thompson. Hence that reference appearing as further reading in the E. P. Thompson article. 14.203.74.203 (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
“There is no prominent usage of "Cultural Marxism" prior to the conspiracy theory usage” That is simply not true. The word has been in use before the conspiracy theory emerged and gained popularity. The word has been used and is still used (more prominently in Europe and Britain) in a very particular sense to refer to Marxist approaches to cultural analysis as it was prominent in 20th century Europe. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
“Re-creating the old page (which only had 3 solid sources) would violate WP:SALT.” I am not advocating for recreating the old page.
“Some protests, such as Occupy Wallstreet could be called cultural Marxism, but they're not Cultural Marxism” Cultural Marxism, as a historic form of Marxian cultural analysis, has nothing to do with Occupy Wallstreet, the US, modern conservatism, or contemporary sociopolitics.
There is a long tradition of scholarly analysis starting all the way from Gramsci and Lukacs, which incorporated ideas such as historical contingency, cultural hegemony, and Hegel’s dialectic of history, which eventually came to be referred as cultural Marxism. The early tradition had a strong influence on British cultural Marxism (Birmingham school) and influenced later thinkers such as Barbara Taylor and Sheila Rowbotham. Cultural Marxist analysis has had a profound influence on some Neo-Marxist schools of thought. The field long predates the emergence of the contemporary conspiracy theory.
The way fringe, delusional, American far-right conspiracy theorists have recently appropriated and subverted the meaning of the phrase is an affront to the historically-rich academic field of anti-capitalist Marxist cultural critique. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Let's look at your references that supposedly defy the claim "There is no prominent usage of "Cultural Marxism" prior to the conspiracy theory usage"...
...Reference 1 (Kellner, using 'cultural Marxism') is from 2021, well after the conspiracy theory usage came along. Reference 2 (Dworkin, using 'British cultural Marxism' within the cover) I've already dealt with in my previous reply, but regardless on page 3 it states "My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline" so actually works against your claim that it's a pre-established and well known theory, ideology or mode. You yourself describe it as a "Marxian cultural analysis" hence it's current article title. Reference 3 is the same as Reference 2 (Dworkin, let's not waste our time with repeats). Reference 4 (Jameson, using Cultural Marxism as it's a book title) doesn't actually include or discuss the term beyond the appearance in the title (disappointing I know). Reference 5 (Feng-dan Li, using British cultural Marxism) is interesting, but not really enough to prove your case. Especially considering it mixes the term with Western Marxism, and focuses on the same area as Dworkin (British cultural Marxism). Reference 6 (Nick Stevenson, using cultural Marxism) is from 2016, so just after the conspiracy theory usage hit the mainstream alt-right. Reference 7 (Kellner) is just Reference 1 again, another repeat.
So I don't think there's enough here to upgrade Marxist Cultural Analysis to a disambiguation page focusing on a different term (not without a British cultural Marxism article involved). You yourself describe cultural Marxism as Marxian cultural analysis which supports the current categorization. 2 of your References were repeats. One doesn't contain the term within its pages at all, one claims to be the "first intellectual history" so works against your claim that it's a unique, specific or well known lineage, and one wedges it in with Western Marxism (by the way, Marx was a westerner, he is part of Western Marxist history). Most of the new sources you're providing here focus specifically on British cultural Marxism, and you're welcome to create a Wikipedia article under that title. Almost all of them use the form 'cultural Marxism' (an adjective modifying a pronoun, not a proper name).
But Wikipedia is not here simply to satisfy your particular nomenclatural preferences or terminological desires. Your sources have come up lacking (for instance, none give a solid definition that includes all three 'schools'), and they even somewhat support the current article headings. I'm sorry, there's just not enough meat here to make your case. The long march through the institutions will have to continue without Wikipedia implementing this suggested change to Namespace. We are currently treating the term as a poorly defined WP:NEO Neologism, with a more prominent usage in the conspiracy theory world (thanks to the popularity of the American alt-right). Perhaps in a decade or so "cultural Marxism" will have fleshed it's self out in western academia enough to justify your desires. But so far, it stands where it is; as Marxist Cultural Analysis, shared between The Birmingham School, The Frankfurt School and E.P Thompson (with a liberal dash of Gramscian influence). By the way, these theorists don't all necessarily agree with each other. Their works progressed to inform the development of the New Left, and of Cultural Studies. The lineage has moved on to other terms. Wikipedia reflects the academic history as best as it can given the popular right wing assault on the discourse/name. The current hatnote will have to suffice to direct people to the content they're after. Keep in mind, we also have a page on The Frankfurt School, a page on E.P. Thompson, a page on Gramsci, a page on Western Marxism, a redirect for The Birmingham School, as well as sub pages for thinkers within each school... as well as pages for the new left, and cultural studies. I suggest improving those pages would be a better use of your time. Or as I suggested earlier, seeing how far you can get creating a page for British cultural Marxism. For now, the previous consensus on the names stands. 14.203.74.203 (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Here are some other examples of 'cultural Marxism' used in a non-conspiratorial sense. The referencing is a bit scrappy (no years, sorry, but there are doi/isbn)  Tewdar  08:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Actually, none of the examples in your link use the term 'Cultural Marxism' they all use the term 'cultural Marxists' - so a claim about The Frankfurt School et al. a third hand interpretation. Thus it would be WP:OR to construct a whole ideological movement or understanding based on Schroyer's claims alone. He's not even a Marxist. Likewise The Frankfurt School never even referred to themselves as The Frankfurt School, let alone as "cultural Marxists" let alone discussing anything called "Cultural Marxism" (double caps). So to create an article under that title would require a lot of WP:SYNTH. Hence why we only have a more general page called Marxist Cultural Analysis - a term you can also find multiple references for, and pretend is a single ideology. That's not what the article is about, but it's certainly something you could do if you wanted to sit around violating WP:OR, WP:N and WP:SYNTH. Not to mention WP:NEO which states a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title. Which is what we've done. 14.203.74.203 (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Also, I am not entirely convinced that this term would necessarily need to have a copper-bottomed definition in a Marxist dictionary to count as 'prominent usage', as seems to be suggested above.  Tewdar  08:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    I think making 'Cultural Marxism' a disambiguation page ("may refer to: (1) Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory or (2) Marxist cultural analysis") is a pretty good suggestion. Not sure why there is so much resistance to this idea.  Tewdar  08:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    Finally, it would be nice if the article started with "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory..." instead of "Cultural Marxism..."  Tewdar  08:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory..." instead of "Cultural Marxism..." I agree. I think making 'Cultural Marxism' a disambiguation page ("may refer to: (1) Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory or (2) Marxist cultural analysis") is a pretty good suggestion.
    I agree with your first point (about rephrasing the intro), not so much the second (the disambiguation page). Feel free to go ahead and make that first change. Also feel free to try to create a consensus here about the disambiguation page. I suggest putting it to an RfC or other voting mechanism. 14.203.74.203 (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    Also, the claim was that there's no prominent usage of Cultural Marxism (double caps) prior to the conspiracy theory version... extending that the claim is that "cultural Marxism" (single cap) isn't a set, well defined, or localizable discourse. It's just the word Marxism (an existing discourse/ideology) with the word 'cultural' put in front of it. Equally I could use the term industrial Marxism, but it wouldn't necessarily warrant a Wikipedia page. Or say wikipedia Marxism, internet Marxism, cabinet Marxism, aquatic Marxism, articulate Marxism, aesthetic Marxism, abstract Marxism. Some of these you could probably find writings about - it doesn't mean they're notable enough to construct a Wikipedia article around. 14.203.74.203 (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
In contrast to your examples, the term “cultural Marxism” has repeatedly been used in academic and scholarly context to refer to a certain movement (cultural Marxist analysis) within the Marxist school of thought, hence the article that exists on that topic. There are multiple articles on movements or schools of thought that were popular during a certain period of time and which refer to, originate in, or modify the original Marxist thought (Orthodox Marxism, Classical Marxism, Neo-Marxism, Marxist archaeology, Marxist feminism, Marxist geography, Marxist humanism, Western Marxism etc.). 98.192.82.105 (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't know whether or not you have read the (fairly frequent) discussions of this topic, but from the evidence presented to date, "cultural Marxism" was never the COMMONNAME of any certain movement, in contrast to Marxist cultural analysis, or the Frankfurt School, or Western Marxism, or Marxist humanism (or Freudo-Marxism, which still seems to me a less relevant construct than Frodo Marxism, but I digress). Each of these other, more "certain" movements, has a fairly clearly delineated scope and denotation, but "cultural Marxism" did not, until the conspiracy theory came along. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  • For "cultural Marxism" in the context of social theory and cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis. - if there is no prominent usage of "cultural Marxism" in this context, why do we take the trouble to say this?  Tewdar  09:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I explicitly said that the term has been used in the non-conspirational sense before (dating back to at least the 1970s) and after the popularity of the conspiracy theory. When it was used after the conspiracy theory had become popular it was used in a sense that had nothing to do with the conspiracy theory.
I have not claimed that “cultural Marxism” was a widely known and singularly prominent ideology by that name, it was simply a term often used to refer to cultural Marxist analysis, by some in a way to differentiate it from earlier forms of orthodox Marxism and dialectical materialism. Marxist cultural analysis, in its separate but related manifestations throughout 20th century Europe, has been often referred to as cultural Marxism by different scholars in the last 50 years.
The topic of the current article is the “Cultural Marxist conspiracy theory”, not the term cultural Marxism, a term which has had at least two prominent uses recently, of which the conspiratorial sense is the neologism. The topic of this article has become more widely known among conspiracy theorists by the name "Cultural Marxism" in the mainstream since the early 2010s. Earlier conspiracy theorists more heavily focused on scapegoating the Frankfurt School specifically. It might as well be named the "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory", but obvious that is not the name by which the conspiracy theory has become popular.
"I think making 'Cultural Marxism' a disambiguation page (…) is a pretty good suggestion (…) Finally, it would be nice if the article started with "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory..." instead of "Cultural Marxism..."" This summarizes my point and these changes would be useful too for current and future learners of Marxism and cultural studies who search using the term “cultural Marxism”. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Your suggestion - that we reconstitute Marxist cultural analysis into a new article titled 'Cultural Marxism' violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NEO - that last policy states In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title. Here cultural Marxism (single capitalization) is a notable topic, not a well defined concept or ideology, but a notable topic (not a pronoun indicating a thing, but a topic). Cultural Marxism is not an "accepted short-hand term" due to the conspiracy usage, due to the limited number of sources, and due to the fact it's not a pre-existing pronoun or well defined concept. It's a topic or area. Capitalizing it would be crossing a line and attempting to make it something more than it is. So we must follow Wikipedia policy which; as you can read in plain English states: Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title. - so we use Marxist cultural analysis. Not an ideology, or well defined, but also not contentious, there's no conspiracy theory by that name, nothing to argue or object to about it. It is a plain English language description, being used as the title. Pushing any further with this would violate multiple Wikipedia policies. I hope that makes things clearer for you. 14.203.74.203 (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
You misunderstand my suggestion. I am not advocating for a new article titled “Cultural Marxism”. The “Marxist cultural analysis” article’s title and topic are proper and informative the way they are. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
You'd be best trying to start an RfC on the idea then. WP:RfC details that process (I've never done one personally, so can't help too much). But I believe something like RfC|soc|lang|media|pol would be appropriate, as the topic covers a wide range of categories. A question like "Should Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and Marxist cultural analysis have a disambiguation page to further distinguish legitimate and illegitimate usages?" might be good (although, is that what a Cultural Marxism disambig would do?) - I'm personally not convinced that the term cultural Marxism had wide currency or usage. I suspect that users end up on this article after having encountered the Conspiracy Theory usage. If Wikipedia policy is - as I suggest above - that cultural Marxism was a non-specific combination of two words, rather than a pronoun use defining a consistent movement or ideological approach, such as is suggested by the double capitalized form "Cultural Marxism", then constructing the usage of Cultural Marxism further would (in my view anyways) constitute a violation of WP:NEO, Marxist cultural analysis, with a simple hat note and no disambiguation page (whilst less impactful) seems fine to me. But if you want to try to start an RfC, that would be the quickest way to attempt to gather a consensus. I wonder if it's possible to have cultural Marxism be the disambiguation location - or does Wikipedia automatically capitalize articles? I have no clue. Good luck. 14.203.74.203 (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
While I understand your concerns in regard to user searches (this is the exact same concern I had regarding the other article), note that users who have encountered the conspiratorial use of the term and search on Wikipedia using the “cultural Marxism” term, would still end up on this article because 1) Wikipedia autofills the search bar with the names of existing articles (thus if you search using the term “cultural Marxism”, the “Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory” article suggestion appears. This would not change even if a disambiguation page existed), 2) even if they ended up on the disambiguation page, that page would redirect them here.
Neither of the two articles in dispute should have the natural title “Cultural Marxism” and neither of them does, I think we can both can agree on this. WP:NEO concerns article titles and defines neologisms as words that “have little or no usage in reliable sources”. This is clearly not the case here.
The topic of this article for a long time (from 2013 to late 2020) was under the title of “Frankfurt School conspiracy theory” variably as a standalone article or as a redirect to the “Conspiracy Theory” section of the Frankfurt School article. This article with its current title has only existed since the end of 2020. This alone indicates just how recently the conspiracy theory become associated with the “cultural Marxist” term.
I agree with your suggestion to have “cultural Marxism” instead of the “Cultural Marxism” as the disambiguation page. However, I do believe that Wikipedia automatically capitalizes the first letter of each title. On the disambiguation page, the non-capitalized version “cultural Marxism” should exclusively refer to Marxist cultural analysis, while “Cultural Marxism (conspiracy theory)” to this article.
If you don’t mind, I would like to take some additional time to see if we can arrive at a solution here that is acceptable for the both of us. If we cannot, and given that this is mainly a dispute between the two of us and about a choice between disambiguation and redirect on another page, I would first suggest to resolve this by using the third opinion (WP:3O) process. If, after the conclusion of the third opinion process we still cannot arrive at a satisfactory solution, we can always initiate a more time-consuming and complex RfC. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Re: This article with its current title has only existed since the end of 2020. This alone indicates just how recently the conspiracy theory become associated with the “cultural Marxist” term - this is a nonsense statement. Prior to 2014, there was an article on Wikipedia entitled "Cultural Marxism" which, to varying degrees at various times, accepted uncritically the understanding of "Cultural Marxism" put forth by conspiracy theorists. That article was then deleted following a widely-participated AfD which, essentially, reached consensus that "Cultural Marxism" (as the object of the conspiracy theory) was not an encyclopaedic topic but that the conspiracy theory itself could be discussed elsewhere, such as Frankfurt School conspiracy theory. So the term "Cultural Marxism" was associated with the conspiracy theory well before the creation of the current article (and indeed, as the current article documents, this connection was established by conspiracy theorists in the 1990s) Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestion to have “cultural Marxism” instead of the “Cultural Marxism” as the disambiguation page. However, I do believe that Wikipedia automatically capitalizes the first letter of each title. for me, that's a bit of a deal breaker - as the linguistic distinction between cultural Marxism and Cultural Marxism is so consistent (as we saw with those references above).
The talk pages for this topic have always noted the imperfect coverage on Wikipedia. So we've gone for a model of picking the least imperfect solution.
1) Wikipedia autofills the search bar with the names of existing articles (thus if you search using the term “cultural Marxism”, the “Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory” article suggestion appears. This would not change even if a disambiguation page existed), 2) even if they ended up on the disambiguation page, that page would redirect them here. For myself, the current solution is at least mitigated by the hatnote which states "Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For "cultural Marxism" in the context of social theory and cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis." - and a hatnote has the added benefit of being unlikely to get edited out. Where as if we used Cultural Marxism as the functional disambig for cultural Marxism, the nuance of the cultural Marxism and Cultural Marxism distinction might easily get edited away by well intentioned users who assume that because it has a Wikipedia article, it must therefore be a pronoun or proper name. The current solution also has the added benefit of being backed by both consensus AND policy.
Back in 2013, the article titled Cultural Marxism only had 3 sources which actually used the term, all three were using cultural Marxism. 2 of those 3 were from Douglas Kellner (so really only 2 sources which used the term). The third couldn't be found in full (as it was a printed text medium out of date/print). I wouldn't look back for better models. Previous solutions were very unstable, weren't well sourced, and were politically charged. I don't really see utility in returning to those older solutions. Right now we're maximizing policy backed consensus, and using a good variety of sources to distinguish the terms. I believe this to be the best possible current solution. Which is why I was suggesting you attempt an RfC. This topic has gained wide interest on Wikipedia, hence having 13 pages of talk page archives here, and another 18 on the Frankfurt School article. All dealing with this one topic. A 3 person consensus (which we don't even currently have) - just wouldn't be enough in my opinion. I'm interested in wide community based consensus on Wikipedia (like the one we currently have), hence suggesting an RfC if you believe WP:CCC. 14.203.74.203 (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
“Where as if we used Cultural Marxism as the functional disambig for cultural Marxism, the nuance of the cultural Marxism and Cultural Marxism distinction might easily get edited away by well intentioned users who assume that because it has a Wikipedia article, it must therefore be a pronoun or proper name" “cultural Marxism” does not have a Wikipedia article and editing away that distinction would be WP:OR and go against nearly all sources cited in relevance to the Marxist cultural analysis article. A simple solution to mitigate against this is by making the disambiguation page fully protected so it cannot be edited or modified by anyone (just as the current Cultural Marxism page is fully protected).
”Back in 2013, the article titled Cultural Marxism only had 3 sources which actually used the term, all three were using cultural Marxism.” Those might have been the 3 sources that were cited on Wikipedia but, as we have went over this, the term “cultural Marxism” has been present in sources going back to the 1970s.
I believe the Marxist cultural analysis article should focus on the wider scholarly topic and the actions, thoughts, and writings of those who engaged in that, largely 20th century European and British thinkers and their followers. The fringe, right-wing conspiracy theory that become well-known in last 10 years has zero relevance to that article, yet that article has a whole section on it. The only reason that article includes the conspiracy theory is because the conspiracy theory is named using a term that has also been referred to Marxist cultural analysis. If that term was not prominent as a synonym for cultural Marxist analysis, there would be no reason to even mention the conspiracy theory that has nothing to do with that article’s topic, let alone have a whole section on it. You don’t see any substantial mention of Marxist cultural analysis in this article’s lede or body.
There is a reason this issue has come up before and likely would come up again and again in the future. The only reasonable solution I see is to untangle and disambiguate the two different meanings of the same phrase. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
TL:DR summary of the below - I agree with your point on MCA being a general term which shouldn't be limited to the three schools of 'cultural Marxism'. I think we can either define the problem further (who is outside of MCA's wider meaning who is in) - OR we can merge MCA to sections of cultural studies (perhaps new sections like 'development' or 'theoretical history'). OR we can re-title MCA to cultural Socialism (or perhaps Social Marxism) and escape the 'Cultural Marxism' right wing quagmire entirely (still attempting to follow WP:NEO. These are the remedies as I see them. 14.203.74.203 (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

- What? I read the longer version, but that WP:WALLOFTEXT does not merit extensive discussion. If there is a proposal to dismember Marxist cultural analysis, the place to discuss that is on its Talk page, not this one, and some reason would have to be given other than people's feelings about the term "C/cultural Marxism", a term that is not the primary topic of that other page.

The fact remains that "Cultural Marxism" in its nearly-universal contemporary usage is the name of a conspiracy theory and also the central trope of said conspiracy theory (hence the name), a trope that is also a shibboleth in contemporary culture wars. That's it. That's what all reliable sources say, essentially, and is also what Wikipedia has determined as WP:CONSENSUS through repeated, formal processes. Nothing said on this Talk page is going to change that in any way without a community process (RfC, RM or whatever) with similarly wide participation. I would advise other editors not to waste their time on special pleading here. Newimpartial (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Those might have been the 3 sources that were cited on Wikipedia but, as we have went over this, the term “cultural Marxism” has been present in sources going back to the 1970s. Present, but not notable. Present in a handful of sources, in terms of the 70s, I'd say there's less than 3 usages (from that decade) that I've come across. I can only think of Schroyer, and one line in a highly obscure book about feminism. So I don't think it's in notable/prominent usage back then.
I believe the Marxist cultural analysis article should focus on the wider scholarly topic and the actions, thoughts, and writings of those who engaged in that, largely 20th century European and British thinkers and their followers. I think that's a legitimate point to make. But what you said after it, isn't as compelling (after all, if they're largely British then British cultural Marxism is still available for creation). Onto what's not compelling; the fact that the conspiracy is mentioned on the MCA article, but MCA doesn't have a full paragraph on the Conspiracy Theory page is due to notability, and which meaning is more widely used. Unfortunately the conspiracy theory usage is just more well known, than the relatively obscure and non-notable academic usage, which is more casual and has less definition. That very fact, in a strange way, is in support of your argument, I agree it's unfair that wider Marxist cultural analysis (beyond the limited scope of The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School and E.P Thompson) now will somewhat be limited on Wikipedia. Displaced if you will... and I think that's a genuine and legitimate argument against having Marxist Cultural Analysis as the title. So there - we agree on this problem, from this perspective on (that MCA should be wider) and on this legitimate point you've made.
The next step must then extend to the MCA talk page. This point has to be raised there. Then reasons and remedies must be explored. This problem you've raised specifically warrants community discussion, asking for instance; 1) if we are to ostensibly limit MCA to those 3 schools/theorists, who is being left out? Who are the Marxist cultural analysts being obscured by Wikipedia's errant titling. Zizek comes to mind for instance, as someone who is not directly from, or anything to do with those schools but claims to be Marxist, and analyzes culture. Foucault, as well, is specifically not connected to those three schools (stating so on page 116 of "Remarks on Marx"). But these theorists aren't for me to come up with.
You'd also need some way of defining or categorizing which Marxist cultural theorists, are dealing with culture, and which are more general philosophers, wider cultural theorists, or purely economic theorists. I'm not sure how you'd do that (Douglas Lain and Richard David Wolff come to mind as test cases). Only then, once you've defined your problem correctly - explored it - can we look for appropriate remedies, as the remedies should suit the actual fleshed out, substantiated problem. Because one remedy for example (an example I don't think you'd like) might be letting go of the original non-notable and general-English language usage of cultural Marxism all together! Avoiding WP:OR by recognizing it as having never been satisfactorily defined in academia, or agreed on by a series of experts, and then, from this fact, simply: Adding all Marxist cultural analysts you wish to the MCA page (seeing if Zizek, fouccault et al. can be added in somehow). Because I agree, it's not Wikipedia's job to limit such a general umbrella term (this is perhaps a flaw in WP:NEO's recommended action). Whilst I appreciate that there is some relationship of ideas or "constellation of thought" between The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School and E.P Thompson, history has not provided a well defined or well discussed term for that connection, beyond say "The history and development of Cultural Studies" or some such. Perhaps there'll need to be some merging between Marxist cultural analysis and Cultural studies - in order to clean up both pages. That would free up your hand to add whatever theorists you want, to Marxist cultural analysis, and have it be more of a general umbrella. More work right now behind the scenes, but less work for Wikipedians in the long run. Give the category more accuracy, saves people having to defend the category as artifically limited, when it's not IRL.
So we have presented this new problem, and a new (competitive) solution is now on the table. One that might end Wikipedia having or needing any page called, touching on, or attempting to define (by name or otherwise) a constellation of thought associated with the term "cultural Marxism" what so ever. I support this, because "cultural Marxism" never found notable usage, and I agree Marxist cultural analysis is a general term that shouldn't be limited to those three schools.
For me, the original usage is a form of labor history of the plight of cultural workers, producers, and consumers. This fits in with Stuart Hall's Encoding/decoding_model_of_communication - there in lays the rub. This concept - of what these school were on about, touches on cultural studies, communication theory and sociology - but isn't quite summed up by any of them. I think because those subjects (and many of their theorists) moved on from Marxism which is, in my opinion, a doggard but exhausted terminology for modern political discussion. Perhaps cultural Socialism might be an alternate term for the MCA page. Thus MCA can become for general theorists, and cultural Socialism can be Wikipedia's general english language attempt at employing WP:NEO and escaping the "cultural Marxism" alt-right quagmire all together. Huh, so that's 2 or 3 remedies now. Sorry for the wall of text. 14.203.74.203 (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Other terms that fit WP:NEO's requirements might be Marxist Anti-capitalism, Cultural anti-capitalism, Cultural anti-capitalist psychology, Western anti-capitalism, cultural anti-capitalism, Anti-capitalist Sociology, Anti-capitalist studies... the field is fairly open as to what Marxist cultural analysis could be renamed to. Basically anything BUT Cultural Marxism. 14.203.74.203 (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree with a lot of what you have said, but I believe any kind of discussion in regards to the content and the naming of the MCA article should be first discussed on that page's talk. That being said, defining the problem further seems to be a better option to me than renaming or moving the article. Most of the proposed solutions (renaming or moving the MCA article) most likely would constitue WP:NEO. I do not think that "cultural socialism" would be a satisfactory term because 1) it would be fall under WP:NEO lacking much of academic sources, and 2) socialism is a term that encompasses a wide range of political, economic, and cultural doctrines and is not equivalent to Marxism (althought it does have roots in Marxian and Engelian ideas).
My point in regards to the mention of the conspiratory use of "cultural Marxism" on the MCA article was that the two meanings of the phrase are separate and unrelated (e.g. Cultural materialism). Different topics, even if they have the same name (which is not true in this case here), are dealt with on different articles without conflating the two meanings within one article. The two topics should not be conflated and should be treated separately on different articles, especially given the fact the MCA is not titled "cultural Marxism" and the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" does not have any notability as a topic to be discussed on that page, but again this would be something to be discussed or done about on the MCA article and not on this article talk page.
I also agree with your point that the MCA article deserves expansion and should not solely be limited to the three school that are currently featured. Those schools, which have been associated with cultural analysis following or deriving from Marxist philosophy in sources (in line with Wikipedia's policy), could be included. It would be a good idea to have some overlap and synthesis between the cultural studies and Marxist cultural analysis articles, just like you said, to the extent that both deal with Marxism and culture. I also agree with you that British cultutal Marxism is a notable topic that deserves further expansion, perhaps first by extending the relevant section of the MCA article and then if that section becomes too voluminous, it would probably deserve its own article.
You have raised an interesting point about Zizek and Foucault. Zizek is a famous contemporary political and cultural theorist whose influences are very diverse, and include Hegel, Marx, and Lacan. He clearly has been influenced not just by Marxism, but by psychoanalysis and German idealism. I am not sure if he could simplistically be cast as a cultural Marxist. Foucault, in my opinion, is more closely associated with postmodernism and skepticism, although he did have Hegelian and Marxian influences, just like Zizek. Again, calling him a cultural Marxist would be too simplistic.
I agree that "cultural Marxism" is somewhat of an umbrella term in the sense that it refers to separate but related schools of thought which all prominently use culture as a substrate of analysis using Marxian methods. This, however, does not mean that the use of the phrase in this sense cannot be notable or if there was nothing by which the development of cultural Marxist thought added to previous orthodox Marxism or contributed to future modern cultural studies. I still believe that a fully protected disambiguation page would serve as the best solution to untangle and clarify the two prominent meanings of the phrase. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I for one have seen no policy-relevant rationale for turning the Cultural Marxism page from a redirect into disambiguation; the phrase has a very clear primary meaning (designating the conspiracy theory) and whatever small traffic might be following dated references to Thompson and Lukacs using this key phrase (which was never more than an ill-defined alternate label, at most) can follow the disambiguation notice at the top of this page. Newimpartial (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


  • TBH, when I first typed 'cultural Marxism' into the search bar and got redirected to this article, I was genuinely astonished.  Tewdar  14:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
From your link: Ensure that redirects and hatnotes that are likely to be useful are in place. If a user wants to know about the branch of a well-known international hotel chain in the French capital, they may type "Paris Hilton" into the search box. This will, of course, take them to the page associated with a well-known socialite called Paris Hilton. Luckily, though, a hatnote at the top of that article exists in order to point our user to an article which they will find more useful... ...We cannot control all astonishment – the point of an encyclopedia is to learn things, after all. But limiting the surprises our readers find within our articles' text will encourage rather than frustrate our readers. 210.185.122.149 (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • This article is the primary topic of "Cultural Marxism". (t · c) buidhe 21:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    Why not just rename this article "Cultural Marxism", then?  Tewdar  08:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    WP:FRINGE, WP:NEO. 203.221.45.24 (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    Perhaps you could explain which particular passages in those essays prevents us from renaming "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" to "Cultural Marxism", IP?  Tewdar  12:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    FRINGE isn’t about article titles, but it says that we need to present fringe thought unambiguously as fringe. The current article title does that much better than the proposed change, IMO. "Cultural Marxism" is ambiguous about referring to the name of the conspiracy theory or the object of the conspiracy theory. The current title isn't. Newimpartial (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    Exactly. BTW did you mean 'ambiguous'?  Tewdar  12:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    Our sources, however, which are not FRINGE, generally use "Cultural Marxism". By which they mean, the conspiracy theory. Not the object of the conspiracy theory.  Tewdar  13:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    To your first reply: yes. My phone is possessed. Fixed (the word, not my phone...)
    To the second, if you look more carefully, I think you will find the reliable sources using "Cultural Marxism/Cultural Marxists" for the object and supposed protagonists of the conspiracy to a very large extent. Newimpartial (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    Braune, Woods, Jamin, and Busbridge all use "Cultural Marxism" to mean the conspiracy theory itself. Some of these also use the term in other ways.  Tewdar  14:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    Also, there's another 'ambitious' to fix I think. Get an exorcist...  Tewdar  14:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    Where can I find a phone exorcist? Also, I never said that the RS don't use the term as the name of the conspiracy theory, I said they also use it for the theory's object (and "Cultural Marxists" for its protagonists). That's what makes the bald phrase "Cultural Marxism" ambitious ambiguous. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    Sounds like a disambiguation page would be useful, then. Oh, and you can get an exorcism via your phone these days, perhaps that'll work...  Tewdar  16:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

But Tewdar, the name of the conspiracy theory and the object of the conspiracy theory are both on-topic for this page, and off-topic for other pages. You don't need to disamimbiguate within a single page (I hope). Newimpartial (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No, you're right, you probably wouldn't need a disambiguation page if those were the only meanings of [C/c]ultural Marxism. Perhaps the existing hatnote is good enough disambiguation to fulfill WP:policy without the need for a separate disambiguation page. Doesn't look like there is much support for the idea, anyway. ☹️  Tewdar  16:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
After such a long discussion, I am still convinced that a fully protected disambiguation page would serve as the best solution to untangle and clarify the two prominent meanings of the phrase. I was too surprised to end up on this page after typing in "cultural Marxism". There are people (especially outside the Anglo-American political world) who are not familiar with the conspiratorial use of "Cultural Marxism" but are familiar with the sense that refers to the topic of Marxist cultural analysis. Also, can we start the lede with the bolded "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" instead of "Cultural Marxism", as has been previously proposed and more in line with other similar Wikipedia articles (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4)? I thought we have already had an agreement about this. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe your suggestion for a disambiguation page has been discussed and dismissed adequately above. For the lead sentence, you mean something like this? Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: Your change is a slight improvement, but unsatisfactory. I would probably be reasonably content if the term 'Cultural Marxism' was completely replaced with 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory', at least in the lede sentence, which might be a bit tricky given the current wording. The term 'cultural Marxism' is ambiguous, even if it doesn't technically need a disambiguation page (which I would still prefer).  Tewdar  08:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I've not been following this huge discussion in detail. I'd just like to say that if anybody does come to this article by mistake the very first thing they will see is a disambiguation notice pointing them directly to the article that they most likely want instead. Its not like they get stuck in a dead end and can't find what they want. I'm not saying that minor improvement is impossible but I don't see a fundamental problem here and I'm not sure why this discussion is so long. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
especially outside the Anglo-American political world - en.wikipedia.org is for Anglophones. There are other versions for other languages, such as hif.wikipedia.org if you want a Hindi version. A full list can be found here: List_of_Wikipedias. Only a handful of languages relate to both articles, which has to do with where the theorists came from, what languages they wrote in - but as this is the Conspiracy Theory page - I'll note; all of the conspiracy theorists who initiated the theory were English speaking. 203.221.45.24 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
en.wikipedia.org is for Anglophones, but it is not supposed to be Anglocentric. Perhaps I have failed to understand the relevance of your comment.  Tewdar  08:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The other IP editor is free to add their local cultures mainstreaming of the conspiracy theory under the "Entering the mainstream discourse" heading - which lists usages in several countries. 220.240.182.44 (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm reasonably sure that you have completely misunderstood the other IP's comment above.  Tewdar  17:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Tewdar, that is correct.
Newimpartial, while it has been discussed in length, the idea of a disambiguation have not been “adequately dismissed” at all. There have been support for both keeping the redirect and changing the redirect to a disambiguation (both in the past and in the current discussion). I feel that a new RfC might be warranted.
As for the first sentence of the lede, I agree with Tewdar. The change is unsatisfactory. I am not sure if you looked at any of the conspiracy theory articles I linked. That is not how they handle the first sentence of the lede. Tewdar’s previous suggestion of starting the lede with "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory..." instead of "Cultural Marxism..." would be a satisfactory solution. We could say, for example, that
“The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory claims that Western Marxism is the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture. The believers of the far-right, antisemitic conspiracy theory posit that an elite of Marxist theorists...”, or
“The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims that Western Marxism is the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture...”
98.192.82.105 (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
As far as the lede is concerned, I would propose an RfC with three options: the status quo ante, the proposal I recently made (which is current), and one of you proposals. I favor your first over your second because I don't like The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory...is a conspiracy theory, but that's up to whoever drafts the RfC.
As far as a disambiguation page is concerned, changing the status of Cultural Marxism would require a widely-participated community process, given the decisions that have gone before. Do you really think anyone has given a policy-grounded reason why it would make sense to consider disambiguation? The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Cultural Marxism" seems (painfully) clear (and it's not my long-lost friends at Birmingham). I for one haven't seen anyone put forward a case for a disambiguation page that isn't, in the end, WP:ILIKEIT. Newimpartial (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I gave you twenty-seven reasonably decent sources that use the term 'cultural Marxism' differently to how this article uses the term... how is that "ILIKEIT"?  Tewdar  20:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Those twenty-seven sources don't even use 'cultural Marxism' the same way (and many of them are not recent, reliable sources that would count for WEIGHT). And even if they were employing a consistent denotarion and were appropriately recent RS (and they don't and aren't) - they would be entirely outweighed by the many, many RS using 'Cultural Marxism' in relation to the conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Fine, but WP:ILIKEIT, really? Oh well, I suppose I should be thankful that I didn't get directed to WP:CIR...  Tewdar  08:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Do any of your sources define the term? TFD (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • "cultural Marxism" is a critique of "Marx's concepts of the relations and forces of production for inadequate attention to the conscious experience of institutions and creative practical reasoning"
  • "cultural Marxism”: the view that after Marxism's death as a programme for social change...it lives on as a fruitful form of cultural diagnosis.
Not that these are particularly good "definitions". On a related matter, does anyone have a watertight definition of "Marxist cultural analysis" to hand? The sources used on that article's lede appear to completely fail verification, one citation is the entirety of Communicative Action, and one of them appears to be defining the Frankfurt School, rather than "Marxist cultural analysis".  Tewdar  12:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Neither term appears as an entry in Bottomore's Dictionary of Marxist Thought.  Tewdar  12:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
We do not have watertight definitions in social sciences. For example, according to the Historical Dictionary of Socialism (2006), the Dictionary of Socialism (1924) listed 40 definitions of socialism. But the second book was able to identify common themes. And of course there are books and articles about socialism, so we have enough to write an article about it. But we don't have enough to write an article about cultural Marxism, other than how it is defined by conspiracy theorists, i.e., as part of the international Communist conspiracy. And we know that they coined (or re-coined) the term before they found that Marxists had used it. And they created the concept before they coined the term. They probably developed it by altering the term "cultural liberalism," which is actually closer to their concept. To them, cultural liberalism is the method by which the Communists are trying to destroy Western civilization. TFD (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
we don't have enough to write an article about cultural Marxism - nobody is suggesting this. Or discussing the other stuff you mention. And where is the definition, watertight or not, of "Marxist cultural analysis"?
All I am suggesting, is that (i) we reword the lede so that it starts with "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory..." rather than "Cultural Marxism...", (ii) a disambiguation page (rather than a mere hatnote, which obviously implies already that there is some ambiguity with the term), which I have already noted, finds little support, and (iii) that people ought not to summarize the collection of 27 sources with example usage of a term as "WP:ILIKEIT", as I find this somewhat dismissive.  Tewdar  13:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
On (iii), most of your collection of 27 sources appear to use "cultural Marxism" as a simple adjective+noun grouping, rather than as a phrase referring to something clearly defined. Why should we not be somewhat dismissive of such a list? Newimpartial (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
That would imply that there was a concept in reliable sources that was the subject of the conspiracy theory. So a few writers added the adjective cultural to Marxism in the past. I am sure that before the U.S. Civil War, some writer must have used the words "West Virginia" to refer to the western part of the state. but we don't begin that article as "The state of West Virginia" in order to distinguish it from some earlier usage. TFD (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Here's a random 2022 PhD thesis, which uses a capital letter for "Cultural", and even comes from Canada: The development of Cultural Marxism was an attempt to address these shortcomings of Marxism without departing from Marxism entirely. Brenkman (1983) posits, “Cultural Marxism is the theoretical and interpretive project that approaches culture in its dialectic relation to the social totality” (p. 22). As Jamin (2018) describes, “Cultural Marxism considers cultures and ideologies as inextricably linked to the economic, social, and political context: they are tools in the hands of the powerful to control the people” (p. 4). Put these ways, Cultural Marxism moves away from the teleological perspectives of traditional Marxism (Cohen, 1992) and away from views that see economics as the core shaper of the various facets of society. It begins to see more interconnected relationships between people and systems. In acknowledging various contexts, this branch of Marxism gives attention to difference, as with different contexts come different cultures. Taking a stance that aligns with Cultural Marxism, but referring to Marxism more generally, Bakan (2014) argues that although Marxism is critiqued as devoid of a politics of difference, “difference can be understood […] to refer to various forms of conflictual social relationships that occur within the totality of capitalist society […] it is implicitly integrated into the categories of human suffering identified in Marx’s work” (p. 97). Cultural Marxism may better address relationships than traditional Marxism, and it may acknowledge contexts and difference in ways that traditional Marxism ignored. However, as Davies (1991) recalls, “by the 1980s, British Cultural Marxism became more culturist and less Marxist” (p. 324). While the Marxism element remained part of some critical lenses analyzing culture, it was not as central to all, and thus, Cultural Studies evolved (Davies, 1991; Kellner, 2003).  Tewdar  15:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Ouch; that is far too close to home (physically, not intellectually). This is part of the borrowing by scholarship from the conspiracy theory following Jamin. Still, it is very far from the scholarly consensus, nor widespread enough to validate your concerns, by being present in a sloppy doctoral dissertation. Newimpartial (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
      • You could probably call round next week and ask (Dr?) Dr Currie whether this is indeed part of the borrowing by scholarship from the conspiracy theory following Jamin, couldn't you?  Tewdar  16:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
        • Much as I have enjoyed needling marginal (and not so marginal) scholars in the past, I think I'll give that one a miss, thanks. I remember one time I got Gad Horowitz quite worked up, and Shannon Bell stepped in to defend me. :p. Newimpartial (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Passing mentions in a thesis (not yet approved) of the few scholars who used the expression Cultural Marxism doesn't prove widespread usage. Also, the expression as used by these scholars is strange. We don't expect Cultural conservatism to refer to the study of Communist art and literature. TFD (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I believe Tewdar was simply trying to provide one example of the non-conspiratorial usage (although not in a reliable source) where the phrase was clearly defined. I do not particularly see any issue with the usage of the phrase in the “adjective+noun grouping” as long as the sources that use it refer to the same or similar concepts, that is, the analysis of culture using Marxist methods. That topic is notable, which is the reason we have an article on it.
Newimpartial, while I disagree with, I do understand your reasoning and rationale for opposing turning the redirect into a disambiguation. As for the start of the lede, I just don’t seem to get why you are so opposed to starting the lede with the actual name of the article instead of a term that is ambiguous (evidenced at minimum by the hatnote). Per WP:DICDEF, articles should be focused on topics, not terms. WP:MOSLEAD and WP:SBE explicitly say that ”an article's title is typically repeated at the opening of the article's first sentence (in bold) usually followed by is or was and a definition”.
Even if there was no additional usage of the term "cultural Marxism", it is the generally accepted standard to start an article with the article’s title. Take a look at the example of Chemtrail. The term “chemtrail” has no secondary use and refers strictly to a conspiracy theory. Chemtrail is a redirect to the Chemtrail conspiracy theory article. That article starts with the following sentence: “The chemtrail conspiracy theory posits the erroneous belief that…”.
TFD, what is your opinion on this? 98.192.82.105 (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
For my part, it wouldn't be the worst possible thing, but (1) a new lead sentence should go to RfC; (2) I like my text better, perhaps just because it's mine, and (3) almost all of the alternatives I think of begin "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory...", which seems like it should be the opening lyric of an Eric Idle song or something. Newimpartial (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
That's a problem with the suggested phrasing. The chemtrails phrasing ("which posits that") is terrible prose too. I think it is or should be more common to use phrasing such as ""Pizzagate" is a debunked conspiracy theory." The other problem is that the wording validates the argument by more recent advocates of the conspiracy theory that while there is a conspiracy theory, cultural Marxism actually exists. In reality, it's a rarely used description for something entirely different. TFD (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I don’t think a change would validate the conspiratorial usage. How can you have an entire article titled “Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory” recognizing and debunking the claims of the proponents of the conspiracy theory and, at the same time, validating (in any way) the veracity of those claims? The topic of “cultural Marxism”, as in Marxist cultural analysis, has an entirely different focus of content, in regards to both geography and time. As long as “Cultural Marxism” is not the namespace or title of either of the discussed articles, I’m not really concerned about the far-right deriving validation from or hijacking the content of them. 98.192.82.105 (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Why would a Natural Language distinction stick around AFTER the conspiracy usage has been mainstreamed? "cultural Marxism" (lower case, upper case) was a product of the term being in casual use (not having a set definition, but instead being the due course of the English language). The capitalized form "Cultural Marxism" only came about as the Conspiracy Theory usage came to prominence. Hence I wouldn't expect the cultural Marxism/Cultural Marxism distinction to stick around. It was a product of Natural Language, not an academic distinction. So citing a PhD thesis from 2022 (well after the CT was mainstreamed) is irrelevant. The distinction is only good prior to mainstreaming. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Of the non-conspiracy usage, I could not find their first reference (which just reads as 1949 Mod. Q. Autumn 381/2). I assume it's a journal, but it's very old, and I've never heard of it. Their second reference is here - it's from 1979 by a Catholic Theologian who became a Sociologist. So is in the correct field. I doubt it provides a definition of "cultural Marxism" though. Their third reference is here - but according to the author's own webpage, was actually written in 1989... so again that's quite old.
What did you want to do with this information? What point do you feel this information serves? We've already acknowledged that there was this previous usage. That it uses the lower case, upper case mode, and that the term is seldom, if ever, well defined. I'm not sure what these new sources are meant to resolve. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
What did you want to do with this information? - I've already told you. At least twice.
What point do you feel this information serves? - it tells us that there are two notable senses of the dictionary headword 'cultural Marxism' in the OED, and that the second sense is not 'rare', as has been falsely claimed numerous times, because else it would be marked rare.
We've already acknowledged that there was this previous usage. That it uses the lower case, upper case mode, and that the term is seldom, if ever, well defined. - the professional lexicographers at the OED seem to have done a reasonable job defining the second sense of this term.  Tewdar  11:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
The OED definition of 'cultural Marxism' - "The theory that the oppression of the working class is effected through social and cultural means." doesn't exactly give us a lot to work with. I'm also not sure that it sums up what The Frankfurt School wrote about. I think a major problem is that the authors who the term is attributed to - never used the phrase 'cultural Marxism'... so again, the problem of defining the term without violating WP:OR still stands in my opinion. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I've read some funny stuff on here, but I think the implication that using the OED as a source qualifies as original research wins the prize...  Tewdar  12:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
What can I say, I think if you want to construct a page titled Cultural Marxism that is about the philosophies of The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, and E.P Thompson, then you should actually reference those authors - rather than just the OED and its two sources. I'd find such a stub article rather unsatisfactory myself. This is not Wiktionary (which has lower standards) - this is Wikipedia. You have to be WP:HERE for the right reasons. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
What in the name of Perkwunos are you on about, nobody has ever suggested that, stop claiming that people are trying to do that, nobody wants to do that, barely 10% of your comments even make any sense, please read what is written more carefully. Thanks.  Tewdar  13:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I feel like you're very good at goading other editor. I think it works against your goals though. WP:CIVIL 124.170.172.106 (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:CIR - if you cannot comprehend basic proposals, after being told that you've got it wrong umpteen times, perhaps you should not be WP:HERE.  Tewdar  14:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
You know what, I'm not actually against using Cultural Marxism as a disambiguation page - that links to both Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and Marxist cultural analysis. As long as Cultural Marxism is never the namespace of either linked article, I'm fine with that. So I'm going to bow out of this discussion. I'll keep an eye out for the RfC if anyone ever gets around to making one though. Hell, at this point I think people should consider being WP:Bold and seeing what happens. Struck my comments, as Tewdar's vitriol has since convinced me they're on a WP:SOAPBOX crusade, and not here in WP:GOODFAITH. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
That's right, I'm on a secret mission on behalf of the far-right in collaboration with the Oxford English Dictionary to create a disambiguation page for cultural Marxism. That's just stage one of our cunning plan, of course. Next, we're gonna add "citation needed" tags to the lede of the Marxist cultural analysis article. Bwahahahahahaaaa. 😐  Tewdar  22:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
What happens is, the BOLD person is insta-reverted by Newimpartial 2 minutes after they wake up...  Tewdar  12:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
That's an example of why the best practice is WP:BRD rather than BBB. Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: I actually prefer to discuss and workshop first, if change is likely to be controversial. As we did when we collaboratively restructured this article and added the 'Development of the conspiracy theory' section, which resulted in very tangible improvements and took place in a very pleasant atmosphere of camaraderie, at least from my perspective.  Tewdar  11:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
As my edit history demonstrates, I have no objection to making improvements to the article. :) Newimpartial (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Sure, I mean... we can disagree without calling other editors children, trolls, right-wing conspiracy theorists, etc. right? Unlike certain anonymous (talk page-only) editors... Tewdar  11:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
What exactly are you trying to achieve here? 124.170.172.106 (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I'll put the 2 senses of cultural Marxism from the OED here, on the off-chance that anyone wants to talk about that, instead of ridiculous nonsense:
  • (1) 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.
  • (2) The theory that the oppression of the working class is effected through social and cultural means.
  • Perhaps I should point out, yet again, that I am *******not******* proposing that we have a brand new cultural Marxism article based on this definition. Obviously. (to most people, I hope)  Tewdar  14:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOT#DICT Of the non-conspiracy usage, I could not find the OED's first reference (which just reads as 1949 Mod. Q. Autumn 381/2). I assume it's a journal, but it's very old, and I've never heard of it. The OED's second reference is here - it's from 1979 by a Catholic Theologian who became a Sociologist. So is in the correct field. It doesn't provide a definition of "cultural Marxism" though. Their third reference is here - but according to the author's own webpage, was actually written in 1989... so again that's quite old. These two "new" sources don't offer anything new. No definitions are given in these sources. Both use the casual version cultural Marxism (lower case, upper case). There's no new information here, despite Tewdar's game of WP:DEADHORSE. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
"Modern Quarterly", I expect...  Tewdar  22:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Modern Quarterly (British journal)  Tewdar  22:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Also an American anti-communist magazine. If anything this whole conversation has lowered my opinion of the OED. What patchy sources. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:OR  Tewdar  08:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:OR doesn't apply to talk pages. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Also, this is not the correct "Modern Quarterly". Please try harder, you're starting to convince me that the conspiracy theory might have some substance.  Tewdar  08:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I think you've made your position pretty clear that you're a fan of the conspiracy theory. I see you crafting your little WP:SOAPBOX. It's pretty obvious. You're not here in good faith, hence saying dumb things like citing WP:OR for a talk page comment. Be less obvious, quit complaining "I'll be reverted" - you get reverted because you're WP:TEND. You're a child, trying to goad people for some reason. Basically a troll. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
For the record, I think that the conspiracy theory is utter bullshit. Please point out where I have told you you'll be reverted - I've never said this to anyone on Wikipedia.  Tewdar  08:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
This is not the place to record your opinions. See WP:NOTFORUM. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Childish, me? 😂  Tewdar  13:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
What exactly are you trying to achieve here? 124.170.172.106 (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia describes Modern Quarterly (American magazine) as (becoming) anti-Stalinist, not anti-communist, so perhaps you'd like to update that article for us.  Tewdar  08:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Not interested bud. I linked to a jstor article, never made a suggestion of editing any page. Quit griping about petty BS, this is a WP:TALK page, WP:NOTFORUM. Grow up. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Please read the comments more carefully, your replies rarely make sense.  Tewdar  08:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
So like I said, you're goading other editors in bad faith, and on topics that aren't related to substantial edits to Wikipedia articles. This is WP:NOTFORUM. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
You were confused. You had the wrong journal. Wikipedia even has a disambiguation page for Modern Quarterly...  Tewdar  09:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
"Also an American anti-communist magazine" doesn't indicate a confusion. I'm merely highlighting that words get used in conjunction with other words regularly. Modern Quarterly, cultural Marxism, that doesn't make them substantially unified. "Also an" doesn't indicate confusion. But thanks for imposing your opinion of my internal state. Speaking as you know. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory/Archive_15&oldid=1088476612"