Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 → Archive 30

Balancing treatment of anti-Semitism within cultural Marxism

Per request, here is a new section under which to continue to discuss improving the article's presentation of anti-Semitism. There are undeniably anti-Semitic currents in this topic, but it is over-simplifcation to say that cultural Marxism simply is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. This needs to be handled in better accordance with NPOV policy. For comparison, there's enough material for an article on Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, but we don't simply call that an anti-Semitic organization in wikivoice. This is an issue that will have to be confronted head-on in order to bring the lede into harmony with the body text and sources. As a simpler first step, I suggest moving the anchor of the anti-Semitism sidebar to the anti-Semitism section rather than the top of the page. I don't see that it is actually providing any value to a reader at all, but moving it should be more acceptable compromise than deleting it. Sennalen (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

If the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory isn't an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory what is it? TBH your question doesn't make much sense, perhaps you are just confused and are babbling in confusion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
"cultural Marxism" is a value-neutral term of art within scholarship. There are some people who consider this thing called "cultural Marxism" to be good, while others consider it bad. Many of those who consider it bad are right-wing. Some of those are additionally anti-Semitic, and some additionally engage in conspiracy theories. The Venn diagram of all this is not a circle. Sennalen (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
"Cultural Marxism" isn't a neutral term of art. It's a loaded term with tons of negative connotations, since many right-wing conspiracy theorists believe the Frankfurt school or a Jewish conspiracy is trying to subvert Western society and turn it Communist, or some such. Andre🚐 17:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
This is not a page about academic concept sometimes referred to as Cultural Marxism, this is a page about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory which is an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and most of the time when high-quality sources are referring to "cultural marxism", they are covering the antisemitic conspiracy theory. This is therefore the primary topic for Cultural Marxism. Our article on Marxist cultural analysis should—and does—reference that "cultural Marxism" is sometimes used as an alternate name. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
This does not appear to be what Sennalen is referring to though, they appear to be conflating the conspiracy theory with criticism of the Frankfurt School writ large. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
It is true that I'm unclear on what Sennalen is referring to. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is conflating the conspiracy theory with criticism of the Frankfurt School writ large. That is the root cause issue. Sennalen (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
If there is any criticism of the Frankfurt School writ large in this article, it should be removed, since this is the article about the conspiracy theory. MrOllie (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
In what way is it doing that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
If you'd like to start the article along the lines, "When discussion of cultural Marxism takes an anti-Semitic or conspiratorial turn, then it is a cultural Marxism conspiracy theory," then sure. Otherwise you are attempting to maintain a WP:POVFUNNEL that restricts the article to a point of view. The main topic is always cultural Marxism writ large, and the article should be helping the reader to understand it. Sennalen (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
The POVFUNNEL accusation here seems very strange. This is an article about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. To my knowledge, it is not about anything else. So the question "is this conspiracy theory antisemitic" is on-topic (in principle) here, but the question "is the discussion of this (supposedly) value-neutral term of art a conspiracy theory" is not - that isn't an imposition of a POVFUNNEL; it is literally a question of article scope. Newimpartial (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
What do you think about starting the very first sentence of the article with "A cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is..."? Sennalen (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion, the sourcing in the article supports the existing lead sentence, and reflects the state of the HQRS, so I don't see a reason to change it. Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Do you believe, Sennalen, that the current consenus of high-quality sources is that "cultural Marxism" is a value-neutral term of art? If you believe this, what are the sources supporting your assertion? If they aren't strong, and you continue to edit in line with your belief, that is a transparent violation of WP:NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Ahh yes, Sennalen still trying to fulfill the desires outlined in their essay "Write the Infinite Article". If only the Free Congress Foundation hadn't paid William S. Lind to give his lecture to the Barnes Review, if only the theory hadn't been so popular on Stormfront.org, or with the alt-right. If only it didn't involve the claim that a small group of foreign Jewish folk were trying to infiltrate Western Institutions in order to destroy Western Civilization and Christendom.[1] If only it didn't have so much similarity to Nazi rhetoric... but it does, and they did.
Also; by way of comparison, many Holocaust deniers claim their theories aren't antisemitic either, but as you know, Wikipedia goes on what Reliable Sources say, not what advocates of the Conspiracy Theory say. 124.168.219.70 (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I think moving the sidebar is OK. Lets see what the wider consensus is about the rest. DanielRigal (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
«it is over-simplifcation to say that cultural Marxism simply is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.» => Yet the majority of reliable sources talking about Cultural Marxism during the first 20 years label it as antisemite. Maybe try again in 2033? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
It's a fairly significant anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, so it belongs here. Basically the proponents have stopped identifying the cabal behind the conspiracy as "the Jews," but it's pretty clear who {{{they}}} are. TFD (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Sennalen I'm not quite sure what you want to have happen here. tl;dr – to me, the problem is the redirect from Cultural Marxism. Wikipedia is conflating the conspiracy theory with criticism of the Frankfurt School writ large. That is the root cause issue. – I agree, FWIW. But this article is explicitly just about the sort of niche usage of the term by anti-semitic conspiracy theorists, so given that, it makes sense to talk about anti-semitism quite a bit here. (I'd suggest the article might even spend too much time talking about non-anti-semitic uses of the term! It probably does this because by far most usage of the term is, as you say Sennalen, just "criticism of FS writ large".) But then – what is the remedy; what are you trying to make happen here? To me the weird part here is that Cultural Marxism redirects here, since this article isn't the main usage of the term. I guess it's the main usage in "reliable sources" (those are indeed scare quotes), because it's a lot more interesting to write scholarly articles about anti-semitism and people like Breivik than it is to write about conservatives whining about idpol, especially when CM is only one of many imprecise politically-charged phrases they use. So how do you "fix" this, given WP rules/norms? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Largely agree with Erik. That there is confusion and conflation with anything other than an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, and the fact that the term Cultural Marxism without the identifying suffix is part of that confusion, means that the redirect from Cultural Marxism to the top of the article is a mistake, because it violates WP:RPURPOSE, and leads to more confusion, not less. The solution, imho, is to add a small section to the article on the confusion itself as a subtopic, and alter the redirect to point to that section instead of the top of the article.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
There's plenty of stuff available about it. Mathglot (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I get what Sennalen is talking about. There's lots of fairly mainstream conservative commenters who will use the phrase "Cultural Marxism" or similar (e.g. Jordan Peterson uses "postmodern neo-Marxism" but means something very similar) to refer to a related conspiracy theory, but who don't seem to personally have any anti-semitic intent or really even to target the Frankfurt School specifically.
This feels like a WP:DBTF situation to me: Cultural Bolshevism the Nazi conspiracy theory is obviously and intentionally anti-semitic. The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as originally promoted by William Lind is a descendant of that explicitly anti-semitic conspiracy theory, where Lind toned down the anti-semitism some but definitely not entirely. Then the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as promoted by a bunch of modern conservative commenters, several of whom are themselves Jewish, is a step removed again from William Lind. The article treats these three things as if they are all the same thing and therefore all equally anti-semitic, when it seems like they are in fact related but separate things. So it feels like the article is saying the equivalent of "the iPhone has a 3.5mm headphone jack": well, some iPhones definitely did but those iPhones and the current version of the iPhone aren't identical and it's irresponsible to treat them as if they were.
I don't know what to do about this, because there doesn't seem to be a lot of sourcing on the modern version of the theory at all. And even when there is sourcing, it's hard to tell which version they're talking about since every version is called the same thing and not all sources even acknowledge that different people mean different things by this term. Loki (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm convinced by your premise, Loki. One could make a parallel argument on the same grounds, asserting that some alt-right figures (including Jewish and Latino ones) disseminate versions of the Soros conspiracy theories and the Great Replacement conspiracy theory that are not explicitly antisemitic or white supremacist, that therefore these should be treated as different "versions" and that "different people mean different things" by the tropes they use. Really? These sound like equally EXTRAORDINARY claims in all three cases.
Given this, I would like to see high-quality, recent sources stating that the iPhone has really got rid of the 3.5mm headphone jack rather than hiding it under a smooth rubber plug for watertightness - the latter being a more apt metaphor, I think, for what "modern conservative commentators" have actually done. A dogwhistle is still a dogwhistle whether or not the one using it really means it, and even whether or not they actually understand it as such. They need only invoke its effects. Newimpartial (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that everyone that accuses George Soros of something is anti-semitic. Obviously, some of them are, but left-wingers accuse the Koch Brothers of similar things all the time, and for similar reasons.
The Great Replacement conspiracy theory, on the other hand, is in itself racist. There's no non-racist version of it because any version that was changed enough to remove the racism would also necessarily remove the Great Replacement part of the theory.
That's not true with Cultural Marxism: it's a "shadow government" style of conspiracy theory, and the common theme of those is that they tend to have explicitly anti-semitic versions where the "shadow government" is explicitly the Jews, that co-exist with non-antisemitic or at least not explicitly anti-semitic versions where the identity of the "shadow government" is stated to be someone else.
(Great Replacement is also one of those but it's so blatantly racist and so closely tied to the core parts of fascist ideology that there isn't really a "non-hateful" version out there.) Loki (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Or "Cultural Marxism" often refers to something other than shadow governments, of course. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
"Shadow government" here meaning that the conspiracy is about a vaguely defined group of people who nevertheless have mysterious amounts of power to manipulate giant institutions. As opposed to, say, MKULTRA conspiracy theories or moon landing conspiracy theories, where the conspiracy is clearly about a very well defined group (in those cases, the CIA and NASA respectively). Loki (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I think the relevant distinction for "shadow governement" conspiracy theories is between "explicit" and implicit antisemitism (Jamin's "overt" and covert antisemitism), and not between antisemitic and "non-antisemitic". And I believe the sources back me up on this - and not only for the Cultural Marxism CT. Newimpartial (talk) 09:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Wait, your example of the fact that different people use the term differently is Jordan Peterson who doesn't use the term at all? Also, I'm not so sure that Post-Modern Neo-Marxism is the same thing as The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, Jordan Peterson at least does discuss Post-Modernism at say 14:50 to 19:00 of this video.
But also, in more general terms (and I'm only saying this on the talk page, not suggesting it appears on the page), but in general conservatives use the idea of Cultural Marxism as a construct to allow them to attack the same groups the Nazis did. Hitler's headquarters after marching on Berlin was after all in the famous cross dressing establishment The Elderado Club (known for it's gender bending). The most photographed book burning was in no small part made up of books ransacked from Magnus Hirschfeld's sexology institute (an early LGBTQ organization). So the Nazis in no small part started out by persecuting the queer, cross dressing, and trans community - just like the right wing do today.
The groups put into concentration camps by the Nazis have a massive degree of overlap with those accused of being Cultural Marxists by the far right, hard right, and alt-right today... and now also (via this conspiracy theory) by mainstream conservatives and right-wing Christians: Gays, Jews, Communists and Subversives. Even down to the usage of the term 'degenerate' being the same. Basically I'm not sure I see a usage that doesn't align with the Nazi's values regardless of whether it includes antisemitism directly or not. So the question for me becomes: Can you have a Nazi who isn't antisemitic, and perhaps doesn't even think of themselves as a Nazi?
In the end, Wikipedia goes on what reliable sources say, not what advocates to the conspiracy theory say. Going against WP:RS and WP:FRINGE would require us to perform WP:OR and I just don't think that's going to happen. 60.242.53.119 (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Most bigots don't consider themselves bigots, that doesn't mean they aren't bigots. Someone can genuinely believe that they aren't antisemitic while doing and saying extremely antisemitic things... Those associated with this conspiracy will often say something like "its not about the Jews its about the ______" and then use a synonym for Jews like bankers or globalists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
«Jordan Peterson at least does discuss Post-Modernism at say 14:50 to 19:00 of this video.» => You can point a specific timecode with an URI fragment such https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gDKL2JSFis#t=14m50s Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
«Wait, your example of the fact that different people use the term differently is Jordan Peterson who doesn't use the term at all?» => Yes, Jordan Peterson almost never say the term «Cultural Marxism». Yet he repeat the Cultural Marxism narrative cf.
Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
«I don't know what to do about this, because there doesn't seem to be a lot of sourcing on the modern version of the theory at all.» => Ask, and you shall receive:
The first 10 articles are academic articles and the last website is a jewish website. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
While I don't have time to analyze them all in detail right now, from what I can skim the large majority of those are explicitly about William Lind's version of the conspiracy theory, and not about Jordan Peterson/Ben Shapiro's version of the conspiracy theory. And a lot of them are opinion pieces or not in reliable sources. Loki (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Without a source saying so it's WP:OR to conclude that the "Jordan Peterson/Ben Shapiro version of the conspiracy" is the same as the conspiracy theory which does use the term. The current page notes that Jordan Peterson had a hand in spreading the conspiracy - not because he has his own version, but because he has shared articles about the "Cultural Marxism" version of it. So as far as I know of the sources, Jordan Peterson discusses Post-Modern Neo-Marxism, where as the page is about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. 220.253.26.189 (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Actually, a memory has just come up... I believe Jordan Peterson did go on Sky News Australia, and was interviewed by Rita Panahi about Cultural Marxism... that could probably be used as a source. Here it is, he does indeed explicitly endorse the concept. 220.253.26.189 (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
In that clip Peterson proposes that all of Leftism is Marxism (and hence there's been an academic take over of academia, by Marxists), this of course ignores the fact that (as discussed here for instance), Leftism existed before Marx was born. 220.253.26.189 (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I think it's accurate to say Peterson usually uses different terms instead, like "postmodernism" to describe what others might describe as "cultural marxism", but he occasionally does call it "cultural marxism". (possibly usually when prompted to do so by someone else?) Does it matter? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
It mostly matters here because we require sources. Now that we have one, we can include information about his endorsement/usage. 220.253.26.189 (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
We already have that in the article, with sources? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
«I guess it's the main usage in "reliable sources" (those are indeed scare quotes), because it's a lot more interesting to write scholarly articles about anti-semitism and people like Breivik than it is to write about conservatives whining about idpol» => When somebody whine about idpol mentioning the term «Cultural Marxism» they are endorsing the Cultural Marxism conspiracytheory. Wikipedia having separate articles about political correctness, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, woke, instead having one article covering all those far-right talking point, is an editorial choice of Wikipedia that could and can be challenged. But i oppose that Wikipedia has separate articles covering
  • Cultural Marxism when Frankfurt School is mentioned
  • Cultural Marxism when idpol is mentioned
  • Cultural Marxism when Derrida is mentioned
  • Cultural Marxism in other cases
because that would be too narrow/specific/splitting hairs/small granulometry in my opinion. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
When people ascribe idpol to the "cultural Marxists," they are espousing a conspiracy theory because the cultural Marxists never wrote about idpol. Idpol is merely the U.S. tradition of both parties building coalitions among different demographic groups by offering them rewards. It's not part of a plan by Jewish Communists to destroy the West. TFD (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
nah. Clearly a sloppy label doesn't necessarily imply "espousing a conspiracy theory"? That can't be what you meant, TFD? I think usually when someone writes about alleged "cultural marxists" saying something, they are not accusing them of anything sneaky; there's no conspiracy involved. The alleged cultural marxists are happy to sell you books and so on. It's all in the open. e.g. this article says Cultural Marxism, also known as Critical Race Theory, and also encapsulated in the historical travesty called “The 1619 Project,” – see? You might think this is article is total garbage, but Nikole Hannah-Jones or Kimberlé Crenshaw etc. aren't being secret, right? Does Horowitz imply they're trying to do something that they aren't explicitly stating they're trying to do? I don't see it if he is; LMK if you disagree. I don't see any hint of conspiracy mongering here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
The conspiracy is that it's a unified group or movement traveling under a shared conception of what to do as a unified force, and that it's unified under a philosophy/ideology known as "Cultural Marxism" which was created by The Frankfurt School, to destroy America. This is a conspiracy theory because plenty of left-wing academics haven't heard of, and aren't interested in The Frankfurt School, they all have their own motivations for what they do (motivations which are often issues based), and none of them call themselves Cultural Marxists. Ergo, the claim that it's a unified movement with these attributes, is a conspiracy theory.
So if you don't see any hint of conspiracy mongering in say, this text from the article you're citing:

Today’s Left is driven by a Cultural Marxist ideology, which is itself a product of the transformation of America’s universities and schools into one-party training and recruitment centers for the political Left. A similar colonization of America’s philanthropic institutions and corporate cultures has taken place enabling this ideology to become a conventional wisdom nationally and the strategic outlook of the Democrat Party.

Then I would say you're somewhat blind to the concepts being discussed here, and should probably figure out what the page is about before participating further. 220.253.26.189 (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't address what I said. Trying again: "conspiracy" implies done in secret. None of the activism Horowitz is talking about there is remotely secretive. If it helps clarify: this page isn't about how Horowitz is using the term; which is fine. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
"None of the activism Horowitz is talking about there is remotely secretive." -ErikHaugen said in regards to:

Today’s Left is driven by a Cultural Marxist ideology, which is itself a product of the transformation of America’s universities and schools into one-party training and recruitment centers for the political Left.

So you believe that Universities have written down somewhere that they are in fact "one-party training and recruitment centers for the political Left" ??? - and that if you ask ANY leftists of ANY stripe they'll say they're "driven by a Cultural Marxist ideology" ???
I don't think that's the case, nor do I think that's a sane opinion you've expressed. YOU will have to provide EVIDENCE for YOUR CLAIM that it's happening, has happened and occurred out in the open some how, and likewise that THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM of leftwing thought has been behaving in a coordinated colonization as the quoted text puts it.
Of course you won't be able to provide such grandiose and broad reaching proof of this supposedly complete take over, you're only making the claim that it's "open knowledge" because you appear to be completely biased towards the conspiracy theory, and against the facts. You (going on what you're saying alone) appear to have lost objectivity on the matter, and are no longer speaking from reliable sources, evidence, and logic. Despite my pointing to the fact that Leftism predates Marxism, Feminism Predates Marxism, and there are Leftists that disagree with Identity Politics. What's more there are conservative, Mormon, Catholic, and traditionalist universities and highschools.
If YOU are making the claim that it's an open conspiracy and successful conspiracy (in line with the quote we're discussing) YOU will have to provide evidence of this. Until then you're going to look quite foolish for putting your support behind a conspiracy theory. 115.166.4.242 (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Horowitz wrote those things about "recruitment centers" and the dominance of "CM" of the Left, not I? Calm down there, my friend. I don't think Horowitz is biased toward thinking there's any conspiratorial aspect of this – I could easily be wrong, though. And I'm kind of weirded out that you're suggesting I am; I insist you stop. Other than that, I think I've written too much already here on this page that addresses most of the rest of this. LMK if you feel the need to ask me something specific and I'll try to respond. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
"I don't think Horowitz is biased toward thinking there's any conspiratorial aspect of this" -ErikHaugen
That would be unsourced OR on your part. The text makes it quite clear he's espousing a deliberate and unified movement operating over a large span of time and having been effective enough to cause the "transformation of America’s universities and schools into one-party training and recruitment centers for the political Left."
I think it's bizarre that you don't think he's proposing an understanding of a conspiracy theory there. 115.166.4.242 (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Horowitz also isn't implying some kind of "unified movement". Activism can succeed without hierarchical secretive organization, of course; there are plenty of examples of that, from the Tea Party to OWS, etc.
Granted, plenty of righties (and others!) are worried about conspiracies, so I'm sure some who write about "cultural marxism" like this in fact believe it's some kind of well-organized cabal. But that's like an orthogonal thing; we wouldn't assume without sources that Shapiro or Horowitz or Peterson or anyone else have succumbed to that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
What you're saying here doesn't match what Horowitz is writing: Progressives had lied about the nature of their movement and its agendas in order to accomplish their real goal The main thrust of his argument is that progressives are lying about their true goals (that is, the goals are 'secret'). MrOllie (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I don't know – this is in the context of Horowitz complaining about people like Chomsky denying the Cambodian genocide or something, right? (This kind of "giving cover" happens a lot, though: activists defend the extremes in their movement, because it's embarrassing or they feel they need to stay on message or plain old cognitive dissonance or whatever.) The author of this article had some kind of "moment of reckoning" when the genocide happened because he felt the genocide was an inevitable result of communist tyranny or whatever, and is disillusioned that his ideological allies didn't as well – so he assumes their motives are more cynical. This, again, does not necessarily imply secretive coordination, merely cynicism or delusion: he's saying Chomsky etc aren't being honest about the downsides of their position. (In reality wasn't it the Vietnamese communists who put a stop to the genocide?)
The main thrust of his argument is that progressives are lying about their true goals – actually, no! His main thrust is that they aren't being honest about the downsides of their movement. Chomsky, for example, is actually super transparent that his goal is exactly what Horowitz is saying Chomsky's "real goal" is (keep reading after your quote), and I'm pretty sure Horowitz knows that. That is not the lie Horowitz is accusing him of.
Look maybe you'll find something Horowitz wrote that makes it clear this person is in fact a conspiracy monger; and that he thinks Chomsky was carrying out orders from the cabal. like I said above I'm sure there are people like that. I missed this "lied about the nature of their...agendas" line, for example, maybe I missed something else, too, that shows he's a conspiracy monger. The only point I'm making here is that people talk about 1619 or CRT or <whatever political marketing word> with the term "cultural marxism" all the time. It's a smear: marxists are bad, so calling Hannah-Jones a marxist will make you think she's bad, get it? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Its a smear because it references the conspiracy theory, otherwise the smear would be "marxist" and not the anti-semitic smear. The people talking about 1619 and CRT generally appear to be referencing the conspiracy theory, thats not separate in any way. Also note that conspiracy does not necessarily imply secretive coordination, many of the conspiracy theorists claim (as you appear to be doing) that it isn't a conspiracy theory because its self evident... All one has to do is open the Epoch Times and you will see. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
that assumes the question, obviously :) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
If thats the case perhaps you can tell me what the difference between the smear "marxist" and the smear "cultural marxist" is if not a reference to this conspiracy theory? The non-conspiracy usage of cultural marxism (which you claim to be the primary usage) isn't a smear. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I kind of agree with Horse Eye on this point. If you're raving about Soros and secret Marxists but you didn't explicitly refer to Jews or antisemitism writ large, that still can belong on this page, and the conspiracy theory or group of related theories as a whole still originates from an antisemitic place. Andre🚐 17:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
They seem to clearly not originate from antisemitism, but in any case hopefully I've made it clear this isn't what I'm talking about – sure I think I agree those properly belong on this page. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
perhaps you can tell me what the difference between the smear "marxist" and the smear "cultural marxist" is if not a reference to this conspiracy theory? Honestly not sure what you're asking me. I don't think there's much difference between those two. They seem to be used interchangeably in this context. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
What is different between the two? Cultural must modify marxist in some way otherwise there is no purpose in adding it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I sorta agree/disagree with Erik here. IMO, "cultural Marxism" is always a conspiracy theory, but it doesn't always refer to the actual Frankfurt School per se. The way a lot of the people who use the phrase use it, it appears to be not that sophisticated of a conspiracy theory, and basically means that they think much of the left/center are secretly Marxist.
There's also a bunch of places where Jordan Peterson articulates fully what he means by "postmodern neo-Marxism" (which is basically the same thing) and it's somewhere between the two extremes. He seems to mean "the modern American left is the intellectual product of ex-Marxist intellectuals who retreated into postmodernism after 'realizing they were wrong' after the fall of the Soviet Union" (scare quotes mine). But not necessarily the Frankfurt School specifically.
Either way, both of these are conspiracy theories, insofar as they're accusing their political opponents of actually being the result of a conspiracy by a small number of boogeymen. But there's clearly been a lot of cultural drift here between the original Nazi Cultural Bolshevism theory and what modern conservative pundits are pushing. Loki (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
That is a fair point. The modern incarnation of the theory might rightfully be considered a new thing in the future, given that as Peterson and others use it, it is more general, more vague, and not really anchored in anything. However, ultimately, they're still pretty much talking about the same thing. They just don't know it. Andre🚐 20:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Horowitz also isn't implying some kind of "unified movement". - ErikHaugen
Oh okay, so when your source states:

Today’s Left is driven by a Cultural Marxist ideology, which is itself a product of the transformation of America’s universities and schools into one-party training and recruitment centers for the political Left.

That doesn't suggest he's talking about a unified movement to you? 115.166.4.242 (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Of course not. If a certain ideology gains popularity and significant-enough influence among <some group>, then we might say "the first drives the second"? "drives" == influence, yes? (IMO he overstates its influence on the Left, FWIW, but that isn't relevant here.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
"drives" ⩵ influence, yes? -ErikHaugen
No, and it's not our job to create a little swap book of words so we can "decode" proponents meanings however we like. What's more you're not even using the same language as your source, which clearly states outright that: "Today’s Left is driven by a Cultural Marxist ideology" there's nothing really ambiguous about that. He's not saying "influenced" because we all know that wouldn't carry the same weight and force, and we must assume the author intended their own phrasing, rather than your preferred phrasing. He's not saying it's part of what "drives", he's not saying it's some of what "influences". He's specifically saying all of modern leftism is driven by a single ideological source. He's saying outright "Today’s Left is driven by a Cultural Marxist ideology" - a claim that's demonstrably false.
In short, no we don't need you to use your original research skills to develop a little swap book of words so you can speak on behalf of proponents of the conspiracy theory. Their own words state pretty clearly their beliefs about the state of academia, or their beliefs about a unified left seeking to install Marxist doctrine in schools (or as in this case, proposing that part of the plan has already been accomplished despite the various religious and conservative schools and universities out there). 115.166.4.242 (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Right; I'm not sure what you're point is. ok sure: "drives" is more emphatic/extreme than "influences". I said in the message you're replying to that I think he overstates it, but I don't know why were talking about Horowitz' opinion on that point, or whether some people think the Left is ideologically coherent. Are you trying to say something relevant to this WP article here? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
"I don't know why were talking about Horowitz' opinion on that point, or whether some people think the Left is ideologically coherent. Are you trying to say something relevant to this WP article here?" -Erik Haugen
We're discussing it because you asked of the source "Does Horowitz imply they're trying to do something that they aren't explicitly stating they're trying to do?" - and have since suggested we interpret his words in a way other than how they're written. I've told you several times that the text is saying there's an all encompassing conspiracy (and there is no such thing to be a part of, so yes he's implying something that's not happening) and that creating our own interpretation of his words (as per your suggestions) would constitute Original Research on our behalf, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Yet with each exchange you've continued to push your views and so we're still discussing your dead horse. The stick is not glued to your hand, you can put it down and walk away.
Also, what does whether the left has a coherent ideology have to do with anything? Obviously nothing as generalized as "the left" will be coherent anymore than "the right" is coherent. Both are huge areas of political discourse, that is to say, they represent ongoing discussions within themselves about the what/when/where/who and how of their particular politics. So they're in constant disagreement and revision within themselves. Of course such a large area of discourse isn't going to be coherent. That's the point. So I have no idea why you've brought up "the left" in this regard. This is WP:NOTAFORUM after all. 115.166.4.242 (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
@Visite fortuitement prolongée "But i oppose that Wikipedia has separate articles covering" — good point; I feel like we do have a lot of articles in this space. Notable phrases like "political correctness" and "cultural marxism" probably deserve their own articles (I'll add "social justice warrior" to your list, and in a sense 2020s controversies around critical race theory – but that can't have its own name because "CRT" as a "Righty talking point" won't out-PT the subject of the article critical race theory) – because the labels have a different historical contexts and slightly different implications. I wonder if it would be best to have the common bits centralized though, to the extent that is appropriate – some of these terms are somewhat different but like, SJW and CRT-as-Right-political-rhetoric do seem nearly-synonymous, although used in slightly different ways, would you agree? This would allow us to take some of the non-conspiratorial stuff out of this article that seems out of place, perhaps? I'll observe we have lots of articles about somewhat similar scholarly and activist pursuits that the above "talking points" try to criticize, like critical theory, western Marxism, etc, etc. (They're different, but similar, lots of the same people & history, etc.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
ErikHaugen, Nikole Hannah-Jones, the lead director of The 1619 Project is not a cultural Marxist, nor does the Project express any views or opinions that could be described as critical race theory, cultural Marxism or even Marxism. AFAIK, Kimberlé Crenshaw, who teaches critical theory, was not involved in the Project.
So if cultural Marxists were not openly involved in the 1619 project, the only way they could have been involved is "secretly," which is why it is a conspiracy theory.
Incidentally, can you name any ideas in the Project that reflect cultural Marxist views. Of course not, but there are expressions of support for capitalism and liberal democracy.
TFD (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Nikole Hannah-Jones was involved with 1619, and not secretly. (I never suggested Kimberlé Crenshaw was; I don't know for sure – I'd be surprised to learn that.) People call her & 1619 "cultural marxist" because ... they're confused? They see a similarity between her activism and Frankfurt School/Critical Theory? They're trying to say her ideas are like Marxist ideas, but applied to "cultural"/identity oppression rather than just economic oppression? They want you to associate her ideas with communist genocides? They're jerks? I don't know. But I don't think very many people accuse Nikole Hannah-Jones of being part of a secretive conspiracy/cabal. She, like Crenshaw, is an activist/scholar doing her thing, and is *extremely* transparent. I don't think I've ever heard anyone accuse her of being sneaky about something, really meaning something she didn't say? (I mean, I'm sure someone has said that, but this is not, by far, the main thing people say about her, right?)
Incidentally, can you name any ideas in the Project that reflect cultural Marxist views. I don't understand this question. WP has many articles about Marxism-adjacent topics, and things that are possibly incorrectly called "Marxism" but are better named as something else, I guess.
To take a step back: I'm just trying making a point about how using certain RS to analyze PT causes problems with articles like this. I get that some people think they're the same topic anyway – the article even quotes sources that make this point. (See the Hanlon quote.) Are you trying to convince me of this? If so, maybe rest assured you've made your point and stop? Hopefully it's clear I'm not going to be convinced by "someone called someone a marxist who doesn't call themselves a marxist therefore conspiracy". (that just isn't what those words mean.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't understand your point. If someone falsely says that Cultural Marxism is "encapsulated" in the 1619 Project, isn't that a conspiracy theory? Wouldnt that require cultural Marxists to secretly influence the Project?
OTOH, if Hannah-Jones had unwittingly become a cultural Marxist by brainwashing at the University of Notre Dame? Would that not presuppose a secret plan by the cultural Marxists to disseminate subversion? TFD (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
If someone falsely says that Cultural Marxism is "encapsulated" in the 1619 Project, isn't that a conspiracy theory? I don't see the key parts of the definition of "conspiracy" in there, no :)
Regarding it being false: 'Cultural Marxism' is sometimes treated as synonymous with the 'Critical Theory' (from the article, and this usage is what I'm discussing in this thread) – this is the kind of thing people mean when they say 1619 is or is adjacent to CM. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't see in the article the term Cultural Marxism being used as anything but a conspiracy theory. It's a term specifically linked to a conspiracy theory about destroying America. In the article it's being used to claim there's a unified an intentional movement that's taken over academia and has converted it into a "one-party training and recruitment center" - and the article ends by saying all this is an attempt to destroy America: "Above all, conservative, patriotic Americans need to stop compromising the truth to appease their political enemies who want to destroy them and the country they love." - just making sure we're talking about the same article here. Because it's pretty bluntly straight forwards about it, and the only evidence I've seen you provide to the contrary is that YOU don't take it that way, and that YOU are willing to argue for softening interpretations to downplay the obvious bluntness of it's use here.
A usage that ticks all the boxes, he says "Cultural Marxism" has transformed America's education system (despite obvious examples of Private Charter Schools, Religious Schools, and Conservative Schools existing), he says it's colonized "America’s philanthropic institutions and corporate cultures" (despite every conservative think tank claiming non-profit "charity" status to get philanthropic donations from large corporations - again indicating there's obvious counter examples that disprove his claims) - okay so that's those things covered, he's (incorrectly) expressed a belief that "Cultural Marxism" has taken over schools, philanthropy, and corporations, he's made it clear he believes it to be a single/set ideological movement, he's said there's been an "infiltration" of politics (he uses that word specifically), and makes it clear he believes it to be an "infiltration" based on bolshevik ideas (citing Trotsky). Specifically he expresses his sense of betrayal by claiming "Progressives had lied [to him] about the nature of their movement and its agendas in order to accomplish their real goal, which was the “fundamental transformation” of America and the creation of a socialist state." - so he's also very clearly and directly claiming there's been an intentional deception/plot.
He's outlined an opinion about his view of this deceptive, unified, organized, and successful "Cultural Marxist" take over aimed at destroying America. To me, going by what he's saying directly - it's very clear and straight forwards that he's using the conspiracy theory usage of the term, to indicate a belief in a grand conspiracy agenda, by a single ideological movement, which has been successful in said take over... and there's no evidence in the article that his viewpoint is anything to the contrary of this, the Conspiracy Theory usage.
Perhaps it is political hyperbole on his part, aimed at creating an affect. A massive exaggeration which he believes serves a political purpose for his "side" of politics. But if that IS the case, he's not made that clear, and so we must take him at his word that he believes it to be a long lasting and unified ideological plot to destroy America. 115.166.12.132 (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
"I don't see in the article" You can use ctrl-f to find the quote I quoted. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Oh I can see the quote you're talking about: "Cultural Marxism, also known as Critical Race Theory, and also encapsulated in the historical travesty called “The 1619 Project," - but it's completely in line with the conspiracy theory usage. The context for the quote is that it's found in an article claiming that the "transformation of America’s universities and schools into one-party training and recruitment centers for the political Left" has happened, was intentional, and had a unified organized purpose, and that the "colonization of America’s philanthropic institutions and corporate cultures" is part of the same plot.
That's a conspiracy theory. Where as a "side" of politics having a discourse - sharing ideas and trying to influence each other and society - DOESN'T CONSTITUTE A CONSPIRACY THEORY. So when someone who wasn't part of The Frankfurt School, but was an academic in legal studies, maybe read some of The Frankfurt School's work, and said "I think some of this is right and can be applied to Legal Studies" and came up with "Critical Legal Studies" - that's just an organic part of how academia works. Ideas, influencing other ideas. There's no "plot" here, or "organized take over" - The Frankfurt School didn't envision "Critical Legal Studies" specifically.... and likewise, when someone LATER and STILL not connected to The Frankfurt School, but studying, Critical Legal Studies, perhaps some of the Frankfurt School's ideas, and then they come up with "Critical Race Theory" - that's just a new area of discourse. Again The Frankfurt School didn't envision this specifically - and there's no sign that there's any "plan" or "plot" to take over society as is being suggested in your cited source.
It also doesn't help that none of the people he's accusing claim to be "Cultural Marxists" or have written anything about achieving "Cultural Marxist" goals in this supposed plot.
There's no whispering between these thinkers on what to do next, or demanding they accomplish some tangible pre-written goal. Being on the same side of politics is different than being part of a singular unified plot or pre-established set of commands/beliefs.
Thatcher saying "There’s No Such Thing as Society only the individual" and then Reagan taking up some of her ideas, and rolling them into his conception of trickle down economics - for instance - isn't all of a sudden a conspiracy theory. But it would be a conspiracy theory to claim that Thatcher had a secret plan to implant her ideas into Reagan's head in order to take over America. You see the difference right? How there's a difference between a political discourse, and political thinkers influencing each other over time, and the first political thinker having an organized plot to achieve a set outcome in a set way.... right? Horowitz is claiming the latter. He's stating that The Frankfurt School had a plot (and created a set ideology around it, calling it "Cultural Marxism") and that plot was successfully put into place, and achieved the "transformation of America’s universities and schools into one-party training and recruitment centers for the political Left" as well as the the "colonization of America’s philanthropic institutions and corporate cultures".... is that any clearer now? That there's a difference between thinkers influencing each other's ideas over time, and an organized and unified plot being laid out and/or accomplished?
Well anyways, your quote is from an article which is claiming a plot. I hope that helps you understand the difference... and like I said earlier, perhaps if you're still unsure on the difference between a fringe conspiracy theory and facts from reliable sources, perhaps you should step away from this topic for a bit. 118.210.215.32 (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
oh I meant the quote I had just given you: Cultural Marxism' is sometimes treated as synonymous with the 'Critical Theory. As for the rest, I'm not sure why you're saying all this to me. Much of it is rewording what I've written here already :) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
"oh I meant the quote I had just given you" my mistake, I didn't understand which quote you meant. That quote refers to the fact that it was only after The Frankfurt School were pretty much done, that other outside theorists have applied the term "cultural Marxism" (lower case, upper case) to them. This is not a term they used themselves. What's more "cultural Marxism" is a theoretical idea, it's just two words that aren't in the proper noun form (the term it's self in leftwing academia expresses the act of theorizing a meaning). "cultural Marxism" in the academic sense, has never found a solid and widely agreed upon definition. So Wikipedia's consensus has so far been that it's non-notable (and thus Marxist cultural analysis is the title used for the page that expresses similar ideas/analysis).
In general, "cultural Marxism" (aka Marxist cultural analysis) is the analysis of culture through the framing of Historical Materialism, and the Capitalist profit motive (so not necessarily anything to do with say; identity politics or standpoint epistemology)... and in saying this, I'll state that there is a delineation between Marxist theorists, and later theorists such as post-colonial theory, gender-studies, and Post-Modernism, combined areas of discourse which aren't primarily interested in expressing Marxist values anymore, seeking different lenses and recommendations, and thus they quickly cease to be mere analysis (they're later movements, and often the products of civil rights movements and things that aren't focused so much on Marxist analysis although they may list it as an influence).
More importantly, they're no longer from the original "Critical Theorists" (who were mostly freudo-neo-Marxist) in the traditional sense... and Critical Theory is it's self a confusing subject, because there's "Critical Theory" which tends to refer to the original contributors - the original "Critical Theorists" at The Frankfurt School, and to some extent, The Birmingham School in the case of "British Critical Theory" - but there's ALSO "critical theories" which to paraphrase Max Horkheimer (which everyone seems to do when asked about this) - "critical theories" are characterized as theories which seek "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them". So someone can have a critical theory, without being (in the academic sense) one of the "Critical Theorists". Having a Critical Theory, or even using the term "Critical Theory" (as in Critical Race Theory) won't necessarily get you acknowledged as being a "Critical Theorist" in the strictest sense of the academic meaning.
...there's a lot of linguistic mazes on the topic, and that's why it's difficult to understand. Part of this is due to the over-classification of any criticism of Capitalism as being innately Marxist or Marxist by default, a general zeitgeist of the era The Frankfurt School and Birmingham School were operating in (I may be wrong, but I don't think terms like "social democrat" had been widely popularized in the English speaking west just yet)... and it was in this burgeoning Cold-War era that the "New Left" ended up being created... and as a term "The New Left" is a much more clear name for them, and less open to interpretation. So we're dealing with a series of linguistic hangovers here. In doing so, delineations have to be made.
Most of the topic area can be discussed using the term "The New Left" - it's the broadest terminology. University students, and often people who get a kick out of theory - or worse get a kick out of jargon and obfuscating terms - might prefer to discuss "Critical Theory" (but that doesn't automatically mean they've read The Frankfurt School or are aware that they're generally speaking the most widely accepted as being "The Critical Theorists") and then there's "cultural Marxism" lower case, upper case, (which as stated earlier, in the academic sense is fairly non-notable) and "Cultural Marxism" in the Capitalized pronoun/conservative/conspiracy sense, which generally refers to the idea that there's an intentional, organized, and unified plan to take over society (often interpreting this as an attack on Christianity and Western Civilization, and often expressed with the understanding that the objective is to install communism).
So there we have it, Critical Theory, Critical Theories, The Critical Theorists, The New Left, cultural Marxism, and Cultural Marxism.... all of which denote more of an era, rather than a single coherent philosophy or totally unified body of understanding. Ultimately The New Left was a new area of leftwing discourse, and it perhaps goes without saying, that it's not the same thing as The Critical Theorists alone, and it's not about trying to take over or attack Western Civilization or Christianity, and isn't a plan to install Communism. 04:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC) 118.210.215.32 (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
The thing is, Erik, we have this article about a Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory because that is the term the best sources use. The scope of discourse discussed in these sources includes both the pur-et-dur antisemitic far right sources and the softer, alt right, "intellectual dark web" sources like Peterson. The HQRS typically emphasize the overlap and blurred lines between these rather than any clear distinction between them.
What all of these practitioners of the conspiracy theory have in common - and I personally prefer "trope" to "conspiracy theory" as an umbrella label, but the sources don't follow me on this - is that they posit a political-cultural project that doesn't exist. And so whenever someone like Ron DeSantis points to something as "Cultural Marxism" and attacks, it isn't just that he is slurring people as Marxists who aren't Marxists; he is invoking a political project that has been made up by Conservative writers as a bogeyman. And attempts to sort out some distinction between when Peterson or DeSantis does this, and the original version, therefore seem somehow beside the point and are certainly not based in RS. Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
When you say they posit a political-cultural project that doesn't exist, does this mean something different than they posit activists doing something, but no activists exist? Do you see what I'm getting at? made up by Conservative writers as a bogeyman – yes, some conservative writers try to argue that activism for these ideas leads to harm. (Most people would agree that activism for the ideas they disagree with isn't good?) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
The fact that an activist or group of activists are active on some specific issue does not imply that they are attempting to undermine Western civilization or to seize the means of production. The "Cultural Marxism" trope everywhere and always implies some such sinister project; if it didn't, that particular trope would not be used. Newimpartial (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
The fact that an activist or group of activists arw active on some specific issue does not imply that they are attempting to undermine Western civilization – it does mean that to someone who thinks that the activism will "undermine Western civilization". Let's look at that phrase: if someone sees the "liberal ideals" that CT critiques as being kind of a core thing that makes western civilization what it is, then "attempting to undermine Western civilization" becomes a hyperbolic way to talk about those activists. This is all pretty straightforward, right?
always implies some such sinister project – I agree it pretty much always implies activism the speaker disagrees with, yes. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I believe we agree that, as described in the sources cited in this article, the pur-et-dur conspiracy theorists believe that "Cultural Marxists" are engaged in a sustained and deliberate effort to destroy Western civilization or something similar. What you seem to be saying is that a kinder, gentler "conservative" usage of the phrase employs "Cultural Marxists" as a term of disparagement for activists while alleging that the result of activists' actions will be the destruction of Western civilization even if it is not their intention, and that the latter is not a conspiracy theory (it is presumably just some kind of "take").
However, this whole train of conjecture looks like WP:OR on your part, unsupported by reliable, secondary sources - even if it were plausible, which editors in this discussion seem not to accept, your conjecture could not by policy be allowed to shape this or any other article on enwiki, at least not according to policy. Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
So if conservatives just said that id/pc are harmful, without attributing it to a conspiracy by cultural Marxists, it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
If we're still talking about the Horowitz article I linked to in particular, regarding "intention" I think he at least makes it pretty clear: "We saw ourselves as warriors for social justice, acting on the “right side” of history. We could not have been more mistaken." He's describing the people he's talking about as acting in good faith despite unintentionally disastrous results (according to him); this is quite clear, in this article at least. I agree we'd probably want sources saying he said that before we included it in an article, I guess; sure. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I found it humorous that he included Obama in the generation of radicals he's discussing, even though he (Horowitz) was born in 1939 (so being 21 at the start of the 1960s) where as Obama was born in 1961, so would have been a small child during the 60s, and not an adult until the late 70s to early 80s (when Horowitz would have been in his 40s, and had already switched to being a Conservative). There's a few strange things like that which suggest a rather loose grip on general and political history in the article. But saying the entire left are Cultural Marxists out to destroy America is probably the largest and most prevalent oddity through out. I read the basic thrust of it as being "We had good intentions in the 1960s, I changed my mind, Obama was a radical, now I believe the democrats are bad and have a plan to destroy America." it's a one man conservative polemic, that much can be said. 115.166.12.189 (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Erik, I wasn't talking about Horowitz. I was talking about your claim that some conservatives use "Cultural Marxism" to talk about activists who might cause bad outcomes, rather than a movement to bring Western civilization down. You've made that distinction whole supporting it with no sources at all (and Horowitz doesn't say anything like this, nor would he be a reliable source in this context).
You seem to be engaged in speculation that cannot possibly influence what any WP article should say. Our articles are based on reliable, secondary sources and not on what editors happen to believe to be true. Newimpartial (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I said in my original note, yeah. I think the threads are lost; let's give up :) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Although people like Horowitz claim they were acting with good intentions, they still say that it was a conspiracy, although they may have played a small unwitting role. But they never give the benefit of the doubt to people still in the movement. TFD (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
What you appear to be getting at is an endorsement of the conspiracy theory. These activists are not attempting to undermine western society. Nor do they appear to be centrally organized in any way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
What you appear to be getting at is an endorsement I'm not sure what you mean. Nor do they appear to be centrally organized in any way. Right. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
So if these activists aren't part of a plot to undermine western society how is saying they are not a conspiracy theory? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Some discussion of the word "undermine" just above. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't get it, you're describing conspiracy theorists and then saying "Nah these are just conservatives" which IMO is slandering conservatives. The New World Order (conspiracy theory) doesn't become not a conspiracy theory because from the perspective of those who believe in it its real. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I can't follow you, if that's a question for me; beg pardon. None of that seems like a fair paraphrase of anything I said. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
How would you characterize your argument that it does in fact undermine western society because those who subscribe to this conspiracy theory believe it does? We don't appear to have a single RS which says that the plot exists, from any perspective. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
your argument that it does in fact undermine western society My argument? what? (I said using those words would be hyperbole.)
We don't appear to have a single RS which says that the plot exists I'm not sure why you're bringing up this observation. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
You appeared to be arguing that being hyperbolic meant it was not a conspiracy theory, did I misinterpret that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
being hyperbolic meant it was not a conspiracy theory Ok, that is more or less my point there, yes: more specifically: "CMs undermine western civ" doesn't mean that CMs are trying deliberately to screw us over (i.e. conspiracy), it is instead that they are doing a thing that will harm the character of what we want western civ to be, instead making it what CMs think is better. You know, activism. Sorry, I can't make sense of the rest of what you said in your 22:31 comment. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
The problem is those activists for the most part aren't cultural marxists or marxists at all, thats why its a fantasy and not just an exaggeration of the truth. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
@ErikHaugen The issue as I see it is that almost none of the people conservatives accuse of being secretly Marxist are even influenced by Marxism. Like, they're not just talking about the actual American far-left (who I think it's reasonable to say, while still not part of some kind of secret conspiracy, at least actually have been influenced by Marxism). We're talking about Joe Biden and corporate HR departments. The theory that all these people are part of some sort of huge conspiracy to spread Marxism is, well, a conspiracy theory. Loki (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
It feels like you're making an argument for a different assertion, which is that CM is not a good name for it because it isn't particularly Marxist. I think I agree. (IIUC Marx would agree with you too.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
The point is that there's no insidious left conspiracy slowly subverting society - there are many forces both left, right, center, crazy, sensationalistic, whatever, there are all kinds of forces in society. The CM conspiracy theory is the theory that, through the academic establishment of intellectuals, left-wingers are brainwashing people to social engineer society. Fundamentally, a delusional idea, as I'm sure we all agree. But there's no "legit CM theory." There's no coherent proposal of how activist ideas actually do influence society (which is through a lot of individual activities that aren't coordinated over a long period of time, and through many fits and starts that meet resistance). Still, that's neither here nor there; "cultural marxism" isn't a real phenomenon, but the panic about a possible phenomenon that couldn't possibly be happening or have happened. So it's kind of irrelevant that some real conservatives are making a "real" conservative argument. It amounts to the same thing: a canard. Andre🚐 23:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
The discussion has become pointless. ErikHaugen is claiming that the false assertion that a group of cultural Marxists is secretly trying to overthrow Western civilization is not a conspiracy theory because it doesn't meet their definition. Also, Erik, could you please stop re-posting other editors' comments. We can read them for ourselves. TFD (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not claiming that that thing isn't a conspiracy theory? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Good. So when "conservatives" refer to CM, they are endorsing a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
ErikHaugen, if I understand you correctly, conservative opposition to change is not conspiracism and if they falsely attribute change to Marxist influence, it still does not make it a conspiracy theory.
My problem with that argument is that the proponents claim that the influence is deliberate. The Marxists found that class politics would not lead them to power, so they replaced that strategy with identity politics. If they can't make the proletariat class conscious, they can certainly make them conscious of their race, gender, sexual identity etc. Somehow they managed to get liberals to promote id, and they are acing (if unwittingly) as agents of revolution.
David Horowitz himself says:
"The Left’s obvious goal is a “fundamental transformation” of American society. Such a transformation, as I have already observed, requires a dismantling of the existing social order. To justify this destruction, the Left creates narratives that provide it with ways to condemn and delegitimize the present and its defenders, and justify its criminal agendas."
So a cabal that is extraordinarily power, knowledgeable and evil is secretly trying to destroy us. That meets all the criteria of a conspiracy theory.
TFD (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, activism can be deliberate. I think all this has been hashed out too many times above already. :) all the best, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
What is the relevance of your several paragraphs about Noam Chomsky? Chomsky isn't a Marxist or cultural Marxist. TFD (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

To argue on Erik's side for a moment, I think all the evidence that Horowitz doesn't actually believe in the Conspiracy Theory can be found in this single sentence from the article "If you are in a battle of words – which is the nature of political warfare – and you are calling your enemies “liberals,” portraying them as not really understanding the gravity of what they are doing, while they are calling you “white supremacists” and “Nazis,” you are losing the war." Which suggests he's speaking in hyperbolic terms throughout the rest of the article (even though he's being rather direct in professing the conspiracy theory as an agenda of mass deception aimed at taking over and destroying America through out).

We can't know what his "wink and nod" statement applies to and doesn't apply to, and so should go on what he claims directly for the rest of the article (eg. his conspiracy theory usage), rather than massively over emphasizing this singular suggestion that he may be using hyperbole. He wants to be treated as if he's claiming the conspiracy theory usage, so we must go along with his suggested interpretation that he believes this conspiracy theory about the modern left (as that's what he's intentionally put forth for the vast majority of his statements in the article). It may well be tongue in cheek and aimed at provocatively dancing on the border of belief, but we have to take it as his genuine opinion about what's happened in America. 115.166.12.132 (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory/Archive_24&oldid=1182120359"