Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2023

Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy theory nor is it anti-semitic. There is a clear, sustained and ongoing attack by progressives against conservative values to change societal standards. This has nothing to do with far-right nor anti-semitism and to have this article in its current format demonstrates the far-left liberal bias of wikipedia. At the very least, this should be a neutral article on the subject of cultural Marxism representing both sides of the argument. What is demonstrative of the fact that it is not far-right nor anti-semitic is that mainstream conservatives have espoused the view and none have ever tried to attach it to anit-semitism in any way shape or form. If cultural Marxism is an anit-semitic notion then why is Marxism not an anti-semitic notion as well? Mbda5007 (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a properly formed edit request... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Note that neutrality does not include giving false balance to a conspiracy theory. The article is written to reflect mainstream reliable sources, not partisan minority ones. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

What is demonstrative of the fact that it is not far-right nor anti-semitic is that mainstream conservatives have espoused the view and none have ever tried to attach it to anit-semitism in any way shape or form. - yes they have, you're just mistaking your lack of knowledge for knowledge of the opposite being true. Here, I'll show you:

The term "Cultural Marxism" in reference to the conspiracy theory about The Frankfurt School has a lot of white nationalist baggage because a conservative think tank in 2002 paid to have it be promoted at a holocaust denial conference:

William S. Lind came up with "Cultural Marxism" as a conspiracy theory narrative about The Frankfurt School, and in 2002 was paid by The Free Congress Foundation (a conservative think tank) to give a lecture about his theory at a Holocaust Denial conference. The Free Congress Foundation claims this was a form of outreach to many different groups on an issue by issue basis. In the lecture Lind made sure to mention that The Frankfurt School "were all Jewish" ...and part of the lecture was about them working for Hollywood (which is untrue), as well as being the source of America's supposed degeneration.

Subsequently by 2010 The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory was a common topic on the White Nationalist forum StormFront.org, and by 2014 had spread to 4chan's neo-Nazi threads. Which is how it became part of alt-right doctrine. This was its pathway to being mainstream right wing and conservative ideology.

Hitler had a similar idea he called Cultural Bolshevism. The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is essentially about a small group of foreign Jews coming to America with a plan to destroy western civilization (and in some versions, Christianity) by taking over the media, academia and politics. That's just the general outline of the theory (reads as pretty antisemitic). The Frankfurt School had no such plan, and in fact, were warning against mass media, which they considered to be a type of commercial propaganda, they called it The Culture Industry (today known as mainstream media). Frankfurt theorist Theodor W. Adorno writes more about this in his essay here. They were also Jewish refugees, fleeing from Hitler (rather than seeking to destroy their host country).

What's more identity politics was NOT created by The Frankfurt School, and is instead a home grown American theory. It was created by two black American women, Barbara Smith, and Kimberle Crenshaw. Barbara Smith being the first person on record to coin the term Identity Politics, Kimberle Crenshaw coming up with the idea of "intersectionality" or the idea that no one person is part of a single demographic alone, but that all identities stand at an intersection of many different demographics (for instance, a poor white mother with a disability, fits into 4 or 5 groups at once, the poor, women, white people, pregnant people, and disabled people).

Oh, also, the same person who founded The Free Congress Foundation (a man named Paul Weyrich), also founded The Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank considered very MAINSTREAM), and both have received funding from Koch industries. Promotion of the culture war is mostly done by conservative think tanks, and their billionaire donors. Even someone like Jordan Peterson gets a portion of his funding this way.

Here are some examples of it's antisemetic usages - for starters, there's a bunch of antisemitic imagery on its knowyourmeme page. There are conspiracy theorists ho claim The Frankfurt School sociologists were Sabbatean Satanists practicing black Jewish Kabbalah magic, others conservatives claim they were doing 'the work' of Satanists (note, that link is from The National Review, considered to be the most mainstream conservative outlet). There's a very strange claim that one theorist (Adorno) was trained by The Tavistock Institute to write music for The Beatles, in order to create mass environmental social turbulences, the conservative website Breitbart put their own spin on this claim saying "Theodor Adorno promoted degenerate atonal music to induce mental illness, including necrophilia, on a large scale."... and of course Lind has his previously mentioned claims that that The Frankfurt School had sway over Hollywood, and used that sway to put gays on Television. This is all reads a bit like Hitler's degenerate art theory (the idea that Jews and Communists were ruining Germany by purposefully ruining Germany's culture)... and so Postmodernism has somewhat become part of the target for conservatives, even though it's really just a specific type of art/literature.

So - the claim that Cultural Marxists are somehow in charge of - or ruining culture, has it's antisemitic side. Likewise, the claim that The Frankfurt School are responsible for the recent boom in trans rights, could be seen as a call back to the blood libel mythologies of old. But that might be a stretch, at any rate - The Frankfurt School never wrote about trans people... and the point of a conspiracy theory is to spread misinformation. I hope this clears some things up, or at least suggests why people might see the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as antisemitic. It certainly gets used by a lot of antisemites and parallels a large variety of White Nationalist and antisemitic ideas... some of which have been spread in mainstream conservative American think tanks, and media. So now you know! 110.175.51.233 (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Re: "There is a clear, sustained and ongoing attack by progressives against conservative values to change societal standards." That's basically a restatement of the conspiracy theory. Using faulty logic and dubious facts, conspiracy theorists explain events by blaming sinister forces. TFD (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

What is true is that both progressives and conservatives have an axe to grind against the status quo. Of course, that does not necessarily mean they are the most relevant forces which change culture. Perhaps moderates/centrists have the greatest merit for cultural changes. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The lead should be reverted so that it's referring to The Frankfurt School, rather than "Western Marxism".

Whilst researching I've just come across this source which discusses at length how The Frankfurt School weren't really Marxists as such. So if we've got Hoggart actively saying he's not a fan of Marxism [1], and a large variety of sources (found in that first link) about The Frankfurt School not actively being pro-Marxist... then perhaps Western Marxism is not the right term for the lead? Here's one quote from the article quotes of Adorno, that he "rejected the “moral pressure” from “official Marxism” to put philosophy into practice.[72] and over all seems quite well sourced.

This in combination with the previous complaint that Western Marxism involves numerous western intellectuals and philosophers who go completely uninvolved with the conspiracy theory's allegations (eg. Louis Althusser, Nicos Poulantzas, Galvano Della Volpe, Antonie Pannekoek, Herman Gorter, Hegel, Lucien Goldmann, Henri Lefebvre, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Jean-Paul Sartre), now, I think provides ample grounds that the lead is not very accurate in it's current state. It's not a theory that targets Western Marxism, it's a conspiracy theory that targets The Frankfurt School as the root cause for progressive identity politics, and claims these movements as being involved in a plant to subvert "western civilization". 118.210.58.91 (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Whether the Frankfurt school was pro-Marxist: reasonable people can disagree. Anyway, the conspiracy theory equates the Frankfurt school with "cultural Marxism". So, regardless of whether its claim is true or false, that's what the conspiracy theory posits. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

THere is nothing "far right conspiratorial" about Cultural Marxism. It's obvious when you listen to people like James Lindsay break down the history, the "classic" or "vulgar" Marxism from the 1850's was shifted to cultural marxism by the Frankfurt school 100 years later in the 1960's to embrace the energy of the critical movements like the radical feminists and civil rights movement. The middle class America was a "buffer zone" so they gave up on the middle class/working class and focused on race, sex/gender, disabled, and any other oppressed group till you get Intersectionality from Kimberle Creshaw in 1989, and eventually 30 years later till now you have CRT and "Wokeism"-- we see and hear it every day, it's all over the tv and internet, it's advertised in every store and there's Pride Parades celebrating it. The revolution is going to be through what Obama called the "Coalition of the Disposessed", this is literally a Maoist cultural reform going on, this is the class warfare the Left is lauching is the people who are the Bourgeuoise and have the "whiteness" or "patriarchy", and those who are victims and oppressed.. the black culture, feminists (to a small dergree), but most importantly Trans and LGBTQ are their new and biggest victim class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:441:4300:FE60:E8EE:3C43:BFF7:4D56 (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

"race, sex/gender, disabled, and any other oppressed group" for starters, thank you for acknowledging that those groups have been oppressed from time to time throughout history. Secondly, feminism, gay rights, black civil rights - all these movements predate the work of The Frankfurt School, and no Marxism is required for those groups to be able to form, be political, speak up, and protest for themselves within a fairly liberal, pro-democracy, pro-free speech society (it's exactly what oppressed people would logically do under democracy). That doesn't require a conspiracy to occur (in fact, many people in those movements had nothing what so ever to do with Marxism, but were just liberals, or progressives, or whatever their individual politics were). What's more, The Frankfurt School weren't activists, and whilst some of their writings may have been read by some individuals from those movements, that's not the same as them being in charge of, controlling, or even having a major role in any of those movements. Intellectuals get read from time to time. Again, this is not a Marxist conspiracy.

"the black culture, feminists (to a small dergree), but most importantly Trans and LGBTQ are their new and biggest victim class" "their"? So your comment has kind of fallen into an "it's them" - "they're out to get me" mentality at this point because you're citing an anonymous "them". You're not being specific. None the less to say, James Lindsey, doesn't bring anything worthwhile in terms of evidence, and is not an appropriate academic/sources. He interprets history and slips his misinterpretations into your mind until you come here and complain without any real evidence.

No, The Cultural Marxists aren't controlling Obama, CRT, Kimberle Crenshaw, your Television, or what the local shops are putting in their windows. In fact, under the Marxist view of culture (see Marxist cultural analysis) - Obama would be a member of the ruling class, and what's on TV and in the shops would be examples of The Culture Industry (which The Frankfurt School were arguing AGAINST). You have no case, and have provided no evidence - just a bunch of claims indicative of a belief in the conspiracy theory. This is why you see it as all encompassing, and overwhelming (when nothing you've cited is innately Marxist or the cause of The Frankfurt School). In actuality leftwing history (just as rightwing history) doesn't function that way, it's instead broken up into different schools and viewpoints, parceled out over time, and those different groups engage in active academic discussions and disagreements with each other (as many of the groups you've cited do). No, The Frankfurt School are not responsible for "woke" culture - and there's no set worldview titled "Cultural Marxism" other than what you can read about on Marxist cultural analysis. That's what The Frankfurt School did by the way: Analysis. 27.33.109.153 (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The source does not say the Frankfurt School were not Marxists, it merely says they were anti-Communist and supported by the CIA. In fact it uses the term "Western Marxists" to refer to them.It does however effectively debunk the theory that they were working for the Soviets or were in any way trying to undermine capitalism or the United States.

Since the death of Marx, his followers have included both revolutionaries and reformists. They don't all support the Russian Revolution.

TFD (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

British cultural Marxism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'British cultural studies' would be far, far, far more common. I think there's an argument that British cultural Marxism is synonymous with British cultural studies, but that British cultural studies isn't really synonymous with British cultural Marxism - which might seem counter intuitive at first, but that's just how seldom British cultural Marxism is used as a term, and how far beyond and removed British cultural studies has become from Marxism. It's a wider discourse. Frankly it wasn't all that Marxist to begin with, Richard Hoggart specifically had somewhat of an aversion to Marxism [2] (article available on Sci hub). Hoggart and Williams both faught in WW2, Hall was probably the most actively Marxist of the three, but is considered more of a pioneer in analysing racial politics than Marxist politics - all in all I think they're much better described as sociologists, cultural theorists and intellectuals rather than as activists. Hence establishing The New Left, not something the group would likely have done had Marxism suited their views just fine. That said they are 'Marxist influenced' thinkers - for what that's worth. I'm sure they had a lot of other influences too, as people (especially academics and intellectuals) tend to. 14.201.15.203 (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  A rare victory for common sense. 🎉  Tewdar  07:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

'...culturally liberal values'

Hmm... atheism, socialism... not really 'liberal values' are they? Atheism has been found in some proper illiberal states, and socialism definitely ain't liberalism. Plus, not really supported by the cited sources. How about replacing 'culturally liberal values' with "multiculturalism, atheism, socialism (etc.)?  Tewdar  11:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Colloquially speaking, atheism and socialism are "liberal" values, as in they are typically found left-of-center. The suggested change is just wordier and doesn't read well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

How very Americentric. And, like I said, not really supported by the sources. That doesn't even make any sense. Even US "liberal values" doesn't mean socialism except on the extreme lunatic right.

How about 'progressive' values, then? Or something else, even?  Tewdar  14:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Unless the Democratic Party are now promising an ultra-egalitarian US society in their 2024 manifesto, of course.  Tewdar  14:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't find your argument compelling, so I changed it anyway.  Tewdar  15:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Their primary opposition appears to be to the value of tolerance, why leave that out? Or is tolerance included in multiculturalism for you? IMO that doesn't cover tolerance of LGBTQ and those who don't adhere to traditional gender roles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

'tolerance' (of which multiculturalism is a component, not the other way around) would be a fine addition, if you have some sort of source for that...  Tewdar  16:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The current sources seem adequate, same sources as support your chosen summary. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The difference being that my wording is explicitly supported by the sources. We could add 'tolerance' I suppose. I'd rather be explicit ('sexual freedom' etc., perhaps) or use some other summary phrase (but not 'liberal values')  Tewdar  16:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

You don't appear to have presented any support, explicit or otherwise, for your chosen wording. Am I missing something or did you misspeak? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s a conspiracy theory that alleges that a small group of German Marxist philosophers called the Frankfurt School developed something called Cultural Marxism that overturned traditional values by encouraging multiculturalism, political correctness, homosexuality and collectivist economic ideas. - Grand Hotel Abyss. Do you have access to the four cited sources?  Tewdar  16:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

That is explicit support for multiculturalism but not for atheism and socialism. I thought you said that your wording was explicitly supported by the sources? Is that a statement that needs to be retracted? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Collectivist economic ideas can be summarized as 'socialism', but I can probably find the word 'socialism' if you insist. Or we can just say Collectivist economic ideas if you prefer. If you want me to provide evidence from all four sources (which you really should know back to front and inside out by now), I will. Somehow though I sense that you are trying to be difficult.  Tewdar  17:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

You said they were explicitly supported not that they was likely explicitly supported, if you don't have the sources to back up a claim like that then don't make it. I'm not the one insisting that the wording is explicitly supported, that would be you. If Collectivist economic ideas can be summarized as socialism then how can "Even US "liberal values" doesn't mean socialism except on the extreme lunatic right." be true? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Explicit does not mean word for word identical. This conversation is shit, so I'm going to do something else.  Tewdar  17:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Then why is tolerance not explicitly supported by the given sources? You clearly claimed that it wasn't but it seems to have the same level of "explicit support" as much of your chosen wording so how is "The difference being that my wording is explicitly supported by the sources." true? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I already said tolerance is alright. I'll add it if you really want and are feeling lazy.  Tewdar  17:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

So "The difference being that my wording is explicitly supported by the sources." was untrue? I can strike it for you if you're feeling lazy. As for adding tolerance to the article I actually prefer the original "liberal values" or the near synonyms "progressive values" or "modern values" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

American theoreticians of Cultural Marxism fear relativism and the obliteration and replacement of Christian values by a form of State atheism -Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right  Tewdar  17:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Summarizing State atheism as atheism would be misleading, are you sure thats the source you meant to use? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Buchanan shows a deep fear for the future of Christian, White America due to the rise of ‘relativisms’ that favour consumerism, individualism, atheism, egoism and lastly nihilism, all caused by the influence of Cultural Marxism. How come you weren't this critical of the original wording, for which there was no source presented?  Tewdar  17:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Nobody claimed that the original wording was explicitly supported by the sources, as the lead should be it was a summary. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

'Liberal values' is not an accurate summary.  Tewdar  17:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Then tell us Tewdar, what is the opposite of traditional values? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Why would we need the 'opposite'? And I suppose even 'progressive values' would be better than the 'liberal values' that you have reinstated. If you have a better summary phrase which doesn't require a list, I'm all ears.  Tewdar  17:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Because we have a lot of sources who say that what worries these conspiracy theorists is opposition to traditional values. Would "modern values" work of you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

'Modern values' is preposterous.  Tewdar  17:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Why is it preposterous? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Also note that 'LGBT' appears exactly once in the article, to state that LGBT social movements are demonized by the conspiracy theory.  Tewdar  16:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

And in the Jay quote " All the 'ills' of modern American culture, from feminism, affirmative action, sexual liberation, racial equality, multiculturalism and gay rights to the decay of traditional education, and even environmentalism," Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

When describing a belief system, isn't it usual to use their terminology, even if it is non-standard? TFD (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

No. We should use the language of the reliable sources if we're going to Wikivoice it, not the terminology of a shower of conspiracy theorists.  Tewdar  16:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

When describing a belief system, isn't it usual for reliable sources to use their terminology, even if it is non-standard? ~~~~ TFD (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Where do the reliable sources say that conspiracy theorists say that 'Cultural Marxists' promote 'liberal values'?  Tewdar  17:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If liberal values aren't the opposite of traditional values what are? You've already rejected progressive values so I'm curious as to what you would use. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I said progressive values might be an option. Why do you say I rejected this? 'Liberal values' could mean a lot of things (as could progressive values, I suppose).  Tewdar  17:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

You then mocked it "Unless the Democratic Party are now promising an ultra-egalitarian US society in their 2024 manifesto, of course." If your intention was not to mock it with hyperbole I am stuck as to a good faith reading of that comment. Its especially odd because you're objecting to the idea that socialism is liberal in the US context but you then go on to declare all collectivist economic ideas (such as those promoted by American liberals) to be socialism "Collectivist economic ideas can be summarized as 'socialism'," Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The so-called (US-usage) 'liberal' Democratic Party are not described as socialist (or 'ultra-egalitarian', as Jamin describes the conspiracy theory version), even in US discourse, except on the far-right fringe.  Tewdar  17:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Then how can "Collectivist economic ideas can be summarized as 'socialism'," ? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory states that the conspirators want to replace capitalism with an "ultra egalitarian" society. This can be summarized as socialism, or we can just use the original wording.  Tewdar  17:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't the conspiracy theorists who made those claims, it was you. You made the contradictory claims and only one of them can be true. Thats the problem with a Gish Gallop, you lose any hope of making an internally coherent argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If Collectivist economic ideas can be summarized as socialism then how can "Even US "liberal values" doesn't mean socialism except on the extreme lunatic right." be true? - I don't understand the "contradiction". I believe 'socialism' is a reasonable summary of 'ultra egalitarian' and 'collectivist economic ideas'. I also believe that, in the US, nobody describes 'liberals' (in US parlance, e.g. the Democratic Party) as 'socialists' except for the extreme right. I fail to see the contradiction here.  Tewdar  18:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If 'collectivist economic ideas' can be reasonably summarized as socialism then the Democratic Party can be reasonably described as socialist because it holds 'collectivist economic ideas.' Either its an unreasonable summary or you're a member of the "extreme lunatic right" per your own argument Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

the Democratic Party [...] holds 'collectivist economic ideas' 😂 I think I see the problem..! the idea that the Democratic Party are 'collectivist' is hilarious to me. I suppose we just have different ideas about what 'collectivist' means too. There is nothing remotely approaching socialism in the whole of mainstream US politics. The sources do not mean a half-arsed barebones healthcare system when they say 'collectivist' ('ultra egalitarian' was a strong clue here). I think this difference of opinion is a good reason to use the language of the sources.  Tewdar  18:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

There are mainstream democratic socialists in the United States, there are also plenty of people who are not technically socialist who hold 'collectivist economic ideas.' We've already established that your proposed wording is not the language of the sources, is there a new wording you wish to propose or perhaps you wish to expand on your argument that "modern values" would be preposterous? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that "ultra egalitarianism, political correctness, and multiculturalism (and 'tolerance', if you think this is encyclopaedic)" is accurate, source-based, and due. But you keep your 'liberal values' if you like that sort of thing. Perhaps we should have an RfC, where more, erm, 'liberal' editors can take a look and see what they think, instead of just the regulars here.  Tewdar  18:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I prefer "modern values" over "liberal values" but both are accurate, source-based, and due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Let's see what the RfC has to say about that.  Tewdar  18:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Unless you've started it on another page no such RfC currently exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

And I'm extreme lunatic left, thank you very much.  Tewdar  18:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It honestly just looks like you're pissed at 'US-centric' terminology, so you're throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I just don't think that 'liberal values', whatever that means to you, is a very good summary of what the conspiracy theory says. I can't find a source that uses this terminology either. I don't know why you would say I am throwing everything at the wall - my summary was source based and accurate. The current version is not. I am not sure why you lot want to stick with 'liberal values', must be a generational or cultural thing I guess...  Tewdar  17:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not arguing in stringent favor of "liberal values," I just take issue with your rather incessant argument against it. Especially when it's pointed out that my summary was source based and accurate has been disputed already. And when it was pointed out that your own wording was not found in the sources, you declared the conversation to be shit & you were going to do something else.

So this entirely comes across as a petty bit of bickering for no good reason. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It was disputed, but all the terms I used were supported by sources, including 'socialism', which is already in the article sourced to Cultural Marxism and the Cathedral: Two Alt-Right Perspectives on Critical Theory, which says: Minnicino believes that Adorno and Benjamin wanted to use art and culture to displace the centrality of Christianity in Western civilization and replace it with a desire for socialism. The disputation came across as rather petty pedantry, at least to me.  Tewdar  06:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, the original objection struck me as pedantry, so I'm not surprised the rest of the debate went that direction. I'm not particularly married to any of the above, the whole thing just seems to have gone off the rails & become a mountain out of a molehill. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

On the plus side, the responses from TFD and the Australian IP were quite productive, I thought.  Tewdar  20:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

And polite.  Tewdar  20:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

See "Mainstreaming Far-Right Conspiracies", (Sarah Cammarata, Global Network on Extremism and Technology 2023): "American conservative thinkers in the 1990s reinterpreted this literature to construct a conspiracy that became a moniker for all liberal values and ideas that the right rallies against."

So that type of wording is acceptable in reliable sources. I appreciate this wording relies on a narrow defintion of the term liberal, while a broader definition might include the Western values the conspiracy theorists claim to defend. But most if not all U.S. political terminology has the same problem.

TFD (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, at least there exists a source for this now, even if it isn't exactly great (imo) and isn't in the article. I still don't think that 'liberal values' is a particularly useful summary for the lede, but I'll give it a rest for now. Thanks for finding a source, and for at least engaging with the point I was trying to make.  Tewdar  21:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I think progressive values is probably the most accurate shorthand available (and has been suggested by people on both sides of the discussion). 110.175.51.241 (talk) 05:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I still don't think that would suggest atheism or socialism, at least to me, but meh. Progressive values would be an improvement I think.  Tewdar  07:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

There's a nice summary of the supposed goals in the 'Cultural Marxism’ and the British National Party chapter cited in the lede: the chimeric aims and motivations of ‘Cultural Marxists’ vary between iterations. For some individuals and parties Cultural Marxism means a political movement intended to undermine Christian values and instead impose an atheistic materialism; for others it means a political movement intended to undermine the White Man (the gender-specific noun here is intentional); for others, it is both these things and more, because the ostensible goals of undermining Christian values and the White Man can be fitted into a broader meta-narrative involving complete hegemonic control over Us. Control is central to the thesis – control over Us, contrary to Our interests, and a controller who profits from Their dominance – and processes of undermining (‘Christian values’, the White Man, etc.) are the first stage on the path to achieving this power. So again, I don't think that the supposed goals of the conspiracy are easily summarised as 'X-values'. But I can see such a summary might be desirable, I just can't think of an 'X' that really captures everything at once.  Tewdar  07:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

NPOV

Having read both this article and Marxist cultural analysis, it's pretty clear that neither adhere to WP:NPOV. In the latter article, there is literally zero criticism of "Marxist cultural analysis". Instead, all criticism of "Marxist cultural analysis" has been relegated into the synonymously-named "Cultural Marxism" article and branded a "far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory". Not to impugn motives, but this seems very much designed to push an agenda and defend "Marxist cultural analysis" from criticism. This very construct ensures that both articles fail both the letter and spirit of WP:NPOV, in that they ensure that all criticism of the school is inherently branded by Wikipedia's editors as a racist conspiracy theory. I suggest that the articles be merged and legitimate criticisms of "Marxist cultural analysis" be explained neutrally, as Wikipedia's policies require. Anti-ideologue (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Having read both articles, have you read the very extensive talkpage archives and FAQ as requested at the top of this page? Acroterion (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Any discussion of Marxist cultural analysis or its criticism belongs there, not here. TFD (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The OP's comment seems to assume that reliably sourced "criticism of Marxist cultural analysis" is synonymous with allegations based on the CM conspiracy theory (e.g., the claim that the Frankfurt School and other Western Marxists are engaged in a systematic attempt to subvert western culture and values). Similar assumptions voiced previously on this page have not been supported by reliable sources, or really anything other than the strongly held convictions of some editors citing op-eds and other non-RS. Newimpartial (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

You should cite some sources, but make sure to understand Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policies first. Click these letters to learn more: WP:RELIABILITY. 220.235.255.87 (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)