Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Image removal

A stray keystroke cut off my edit summary. I was saying: Generalrelative, if you have a theory of how a historical photograph can be SYNTH, let's talk about it on the talk page. Sennalen (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

For reference, here is the image and caption I removed.

The caption is WP:SYNTH, stringing together three separate statements in an apparent effort to tie the subject of the image to the topic. But of course the image (German students standing around at a classroom protest in 1968 with inane slogans on the board) does not illustrate the topic, neither the overall topic of the article nor the topic of the subsection: "Background". Passing mention of the "culture wars of the 1960s" does not justify inclusion of this image either. There is no indication that these German students are what the paleo-conservatives who created the conspiracy theory had in mind.

I see that the image was first added by you as part of a large series of edits last year (10–15 August), and I do not see any discussion in the archives indicating a positive consensus for inclusion. It should therefore remain out of the article pending consensus for inclusion, per WP:ONUS. Generalrelative (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The fact there are three statements does not mean anything is synthesized from the combination of the three. There is not.

I added this as part of my long-term effort to turn this, improbably, into a good article. German student occupations of classrooms were a very significant event for the Frankfurt School, and the Frankfurt School is the essential background to conspiracy theories about the Frankfurt School. It's more engaging than the picture of old men standing around that graces the Frankfurt School page. A photo of Adorno's own classroom would obviously be better, but we work with what we have. Sennalen (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The picture is implicit synthesis because it implies that the statements were inspired by Marcuse et al. In fact the students in Berlin were hostile to Adorno and Marcuse and Marcuse complained about their actions.[1] The fact that these slogans do not reflect what Marcuse taught is obvious.

In order to establish the relevancy of the picture to the article, you would have to show that the conspiracists make a link and explain it in the text of the article, providing a reliable secondary source.

TFD (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The students were hostile to Adorno because Adorno's reaction was along the lines of "sir, this is a Wendy's" rather than singing songs of the revolution. Students and Marcuse were mutually quite enthusiastic for each other, though. Marcuse was actually quite hard on Adorno about it as well. I relied on Stuart Jeffries as a one-stop source for a lot of this, but it can certainly be found in many places. I scanned the link you provided and didn't see anything that hinted of disapproval. The translations of the slogans were provided merely as a courtesy, so if "Study is Opium" is what gives people pause, there's no need to hold onto that. Sennalen (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This photograph removal was without consensus. If for nothing else, Sennalen's edits are undoubtably scrutinized by those who frequent this page. The fact that this photograph (and the caption) have remained on the page for so long is an indication that those who are scrutinizing it found it acceptable and relevant to the paragraph (which the photo is).

The removal of this photo was done without consensus and it seems that the issue you have with it is the fact Sennalen posted it, rather than the fact that it's WP:SYNTH, or as it's been called here "implicit synth."

If the acquiescence of those who frequently edit this page is worth anything, the photograph was valuable, relevant, and should be restored. I am a Leaf (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a bad faith accusation/assumption. Sennalen has made plenty of positive contributions to the topic area in general, even if we do at times disagree on some points of what can or can't be said and where. 60.241.181.126 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I only mention it because Sennalen's addition of the picture is mentioned explicitly by the Genrelative, I would not have mentioned another user had they not been mentioned. I do not want to engage in any ad hominem.

The picture is at least illustrative of the social and political conditions which would've been experienced by Frankfurt School scholars. To rebut the complaint of the issue with the 1968 Student Protests article containing no mention of the Frankfurt School, read further in the background section “ Through his writing on Repressive Tolerance and advising students such as Angela Davis and Rudi Dutschke, Marcuse played a dramatic role in the civil rights movement and West German student movement.”

It is easy to make the connection from (conventionally-leftist Students protest and use Marxian rhetoric) with (Marcuse, by this article’s text, played a dramatic role in the student protests) to conclude that (Frankfurt Scholars want to the West into gay communists). That is the logic of this conspiracy theory, it doesn’t need to be explicated by William Lind for that to be obvious.

The background section is not merely a background on the Frankfurt School, but a background on how the Frankfurt School was bastardized into a conspiracy theory. The photo and caption can be construed as illustrative of both and is therefore appropriate.

I also disagree that the caption or photo “implies that the statements were inspired by Marcuse et al.," the statements are clearly Marxian.

Sennalen has given compelling reason for inclusion, this thread contains reasons which are uncompelling for such a swift removal, especially of a photograph which has been in here for >1 year. If for nothing else, consensus was not reached before this change was made. I am a Leaf (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory not the international Communist conspiracy theory. It's not enough for the slogans to be related to some form of Marxism (probably Maoism), but they must relate to Marcuse et al. TFD (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it could be worthwhile to include that student radicals in fact protested The Frankfurt School. It's well known that Adorno called the police on Students performing a sit-in in his office, here's a source for that statement [2]. That source also includes some pictures from the "Planned Tenderness" protest, in which (a year before his death) several female students interrupted a lecture by exposing their breasts to Adorno and showering him with rose petals (which upset him greatly as he felt a strong faithfulness to his wife).

...this is also the event in which the phrase "If Adorno is left in peace, capitalism will never cease" originated. The information here [3] mentions that the students were demanding Adorno perform some sort of self-criticism for ruining their sit in (going as far as yelling "Down with the informer"). Adorno decided to leave the room and allow the students time to decide whether they wanted him to continue with his lecture.

I think it would be worthwhile to include this sort of thing (under such a picture) to show that The Frankfurt School weren't calling for a Marxist revolution as the conspiracy theory claims. In fact, there's a whole article here about how they were somewhat anti-communist and anti-revolutionary. [4]

A picture (such as those from the first link) could be used to mention some of this information. 60.241.181.126 (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

As if a testimony to Adorno's non-revolutionary tendencies, German Wikipedia [5] mentions that in the year of his death he was in the middle of campaigning to have a traffic light installed outside his campus. Truly a threat to Western Civilization. 60.241.181.126 (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The Rockhill source you linked is arguing (from the left) that Adorno and Horkheimer were working for the CIA to undermine communism. It may be important for the conspiracy theory article, but probably not in the way you meant.

A more qualified view would be from Douglas Kellner, who wrote The crucial theoretical and political question to be raised concerns the reception of the School's theory by a generation of radical students in the late 1960s. These students used earlier critical theory and Marcuse's later version of it as a legitimation of their own radical politics, which so shocked Adorno, Horkheimer and Habermas that they devoted much time and energy to criticizing it. Marcuse on the other hand defended and declared his solidarity with the student movement, both in Europe and the United States.^[1] Sennalen (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The image does not illustrate the topic of this article. Its inclusion is unjustified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It illustrates the topic of the section it is in, just like the picture of a nazi art gallery (also not the topic of the article) illustrates its section. Sennalen (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. If we're just trying to illustrate the Frankfurt school, an image of one or more of its prominent proponents would be better. We mention the student protests very briefly, saying that it was influenced by Marcuse but avoided by the majority of the school. The image is under-explained and there are better options. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Sennalen, although as you say students and Marcuse were mutually enthusiastic for each other, that did not extend to the Berlin students, viz., the one's in the picture. That's abundantly clear from the link I provided. Even without that it should be clear that the messages did not reflect his thinking.

While not shown in the picture, one of the messages was "Professoren sind Papiertiger" (All professors are paper tigers). The use of the term paper tiger comes from Mao, not Marcuse.

If you believe that Marcuse and the students in the picture were enthusiastic for each other, you need a reliable secondary source that says that.

Your assumption seems to be since anyone who protested in 1968 was part of a conspiracy, Marcuse and the Berlin students must have been co-conspirators. But that's synthesis which requires sourcing.

TFD (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

"Your assumption seems to be since anyone who protested in 1968 was part of a conspiracy, Marcuse and the Berlin students must have been co-conspirators. But that's synthesis which requires sourcing."

No, I think you assumed this, the photo and caption do not suggest such a thing. If this were true, you'd be right, it would be a synthesis which requires sourcing. But, this image makes sense in a background on both the Frankfurt School (necessary to understand the conspiracy theory's allegations) and the Conspiracy theory itself. The photo is relevant if you actually read the whole background section and see how the Frankfurt School/New Left was involved with and was influential to (and at least related to) student movements. I am a Leaf (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

That's like saying both Trump supporters and antifa protested the Democrats, so lets have a big picture of antifa in an article about Trump supporters implying that Trump works with antifa. TFD (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

That is a stretch.

Marcuse was dramatically involved with the Student movement according to the article, the student movement was unashamedly marxist according to every source mentioning them in the article, and the conspiracy theory misrepresents both marxism and the Frankfurt School's teachings.

There is an obviously greater connection between the ideology of the student movement and the ideology of members of the Frankfurt School (and thus the picture and the background section) then there is in this Trump-antifa analogy. That is by this article's own content. I am a Leaf (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Let me rephrase what I said above in case I did not make myself clear. Marcuse influenced the student movement and was involved with them. HOWEVER he had no influence on the students in Berlin at the Free University, who are shown in the picture. For anyone with a passing knowledge of Marcuse, that should be blatantly obvious.

Conspiracists of course usually conflate various movements of the Left, even including Clinton/Obama/Biden Democrats. However, there is no evidence for this and no support in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, many observers see antifa and Trump's more militant supporters as basically the same and some even see them as cooperating together as Russian assets set to destroy U.S. democracy. TFD (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the actual specific individuals in the photo of course. It is easy to find non-CC pictures of Marcuse surrounded by adoring students in Germany as well as many other countries. His contacts with Rudi Dutschke, effectively the avatar of the West german student movement, are well known. It should further be recalled that the occupation of Adorno's room was led by Hans-Jürgen Krahl, who was effectively also a member of the Frankfurt School. It was a complicated affair, and the complete texts of the letters between Adorno and Marcuse about it are worth a read[6] Sennalen (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Exploring the relation between the students movement and the Frankfurt school sounds like an interesting topic - for some other article. This photo isn't all that related to this topic of /this/ article. Sure, the students were influenced by the school, but so were many, many other events and fields of study. We might as well throw up stills from Cinéma vérité because they were influenced by Siegfried Kracauer and conspiracists think marxists run Hollywood. If we must have an image at all something directly related would be a better choice. MrOllie (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This image – and especially its caption – appears to have been selected to undermine the content of the article by suggesting that the Frankfurt School is responsible for riotous forms of social disruption, i.e., to promote the conspiracy theory. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Is that part of the conspiracy theory? Or is that true? That is the perennial question, and it is always better to answer it with sources rather than innuendo. That goes equally for innuendo towards an answer of yes or no. If anyone can identify where anything actually seems to be synthesized, then yes, let's source it explicitly or else delete it. "Responsible for" is loaded phrasing, but "inspired and encouraged" would be verifiable. Sennalen (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

What is and isn't part of this bonkers conspiracy theory is in no context a "perennial question."

If I seem to have been relying upon innuendo, my apologies. Let me here explicitly state that the image and its caption function to promote what the article extensively documents to be a conspiracy theory.

And also, yes, I'm a big fan of high-quality sources when cited in support of claims supported by their contents. Obviously.

Otherwise, the neutral thing to do is simply not include an image that multiple editors find misleading. It is bewildering to me that anyone would contest such a decision. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

You're begging the question — assuming something is promoting the conspiracy theory, when it remains to be proven that the statement is anything other than ordinary fact. Has anyone even forwarded the contrary claim that the Frankfurt School was not an influence on 1960s student protests? Sennalen (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

My post does not beg the question. And why on Earth would anyone write a piece with the thesis that some niche academic school of thought was not responsible for large-scale social protests? No one would publish that, even if submitted, for the obvious reason that it does not add up to a topic such as might merit attention in either the popular or academic literature.

Seriously, some (IMHO, lightweight) academic in California is somehow responsible for May 68? I mean, huh? Hence, once again: conspiracy theory.

Please see also burden of proof. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

What is your actual position on this, then? Do you actually want to see more sources establishing that Herbert Marcuse was a major influence on student protest movements? Or is something else the matter? Sennalen (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

My position is that Marcuse's lectures in California do not have a noteworthy connection to the events of May '68 in France. And that, moreover, even if they did, it is far from clear that a discussion of this would belong in this article, which is about a conspiracy theory that took hold in U.S. politics in the 1990s.

Hence the article should not suggest otherwise. For, as you plainly know, visuals matter (even setting aside text in the caption).

If you have good evidence to the contrary, by all means, please do share.

Also, directing your own question back to you, "what is your actual position on this"? And what can you openly say is "the matter" with this and other related articles that need the sort of corrective changes you have proposed or endorsed? Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Marcuse was in fact in Paris during the 1968 protests, attending, along with Lucien Goldmann and others, a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) conference on Marx. Students who had occupied the École des Beaux Arts recognized him as he walked back to his hotel from the conference and invited him to speak to the assembly. When he addressed them, he brought greetings from the developing movement in the United States and, according to Andrew Feenberg, who accompanied him, praised the students for their critiques of capitalist consumerism.^[2]

IN MAY 1968, the Paris students took to the streets under the slogan of "the three M's." The "threeM's" are Marx, Mao, and Marcuse. The seventy-year old professor, the author of subtle philosophical works and keen journalistic articles, until a short time ago known only to a narrow circle of specialists, suddenly became a symbolic figure, a sort of prophet of the movement. His views are of great importance for understanding the nature of the student movement in capitalist countries; that movement, it is true, has an abundance of young ideologues who have borrowed more or less consciously from Marcuse but try to maintain the appearance of complete originality.^[3] Sennalen (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Connection to the conspiracy theory being...what? Genuinely, I have no idea. So please answer directly?

The onus is on you to connect the dots here. Because it would appear to any neutral observer that you want to promote what the article abundantly documents to be once yet again, a conspiracy theory.

If you believe "conspiracy theory" to be an erroneous description, please take that up directly, rather than through an unabashedly bizarre contestation about pictures. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The connection to the conspiracy theory simply being that Marxists in Europe were both endorsed by the Frankfurt School and that the Frankfurt School was endorsed by Marxists. That is a documented history, the conspiracy theory does not completely misread history, it twists history and makes terribly incorrect inferences.

Flat earthers might argue that the earth is flat because the moon looks flat to the naked eye. They make an incorrect inference, but they are correct that the moon looks flat to the naked eye. You are doing the equivalent of denying that the moon looks flat to the naked eye by avoiding the very explicit connection made here between the Frankfurt School to the student movement.

To ignore any and every connection between the student movements and the Frankfurt School is intellectually dishonest. You can recognize that there are connections which would be relevant to a discussion of the conspiracy theory while still rejecting the conspiracy theory's premises.

I am a Leaf (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

In order to be relevant to the article you would need a reliable secondary source that says something like, "CM conspiracy theorists point to Marcuse's inspiration for and support of the 1968 student protests as an example of the conspiracy in operation."

It is not our role to provide evidence in support of (or against) the conspiracy theory, but to report the evidence that the conspiracy theorists have presented as reported in reliable sources.

If the connection between Marcuse and the students is ignored in reliable sources, that is the fault of either the conspiracy theorists or the experts who write about them. We are not here to correct their failings.

We had the same argument in the Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy article. Some editors wanted the article to show the connection between Jews and Communism. You can read the archived talk pages to see arguments why this violates NPOV and SYN. TFD (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for saying what should go without saying. (Also, pls. remember to sign your posts!) Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Break

I have been observing this discussion from the sidelines for two main reasons: A) to gauge its direction and B) because I believe other issues take precedence. However, we have reached an impasse, prompting me to articulate the following points:

· Firstly, if the student protest image has adorned this page for over a year, and considering the scrutiny of numerous editorial eyes, the assertion that the image was stealthily inserted without consensus is unequivocally false.

· Consequently, the responsibility lies with those advocating for the image's deletion to build a consensus before proceeding. I recommend that they bolster their argument by identifying a more relevant image as a replacement, rather than simply insisting on deletion.

· In the interim, the original image should be reinstated to its previous position in the Background section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XMcan (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is not an "impasse". At this point I count 8 editors arguing for removal (myself, TFD, the IP, Andy, FFF, Patrick J. Welsh, Sideswipe9th, and Mathglot). I count 3 arguing for retaining (you, I am a Leaf, Sennalen). Have I missed anyone? It's okay if we're not unanimous. The issue appears to be settled. Generalrelative (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is not an impasse, but there is not yet a consensus. Need I remind you that consensus is based on reasons, WP:NOTVOTE? Now, one of the key objections was that the image is not connected to the topic of the article. I think the discussion up to this point, and especially the greentext quotes I have provided so far, abundantly demonstrate that it actually is. That really ought to put the matter to rest. If it would make a difference to have more in-text sources connecting that period of Frankfurt School history with the conspiracy theory, that can be arranged. I know off the top of my head that Woods and Lütticken have done so. Sennalen (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Your quotes have not tied this photo directly to the conspiracy theory. So your argument is moot. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

If we're agreed that the conspiracy theory is about the Frankfurt School, and the Frankfurt School was deeply involved in the student movement, we can move forward.

There are two themes that are currently under-developed in the article, which should be addressed more thoroughly than just an image, but for the sake of discussion:

The conspiracy theory originated in the setting of an (imagined) competition between Lyndon LaRouche and Angela Davis for student recruits.^[4]
The intellecutal framework of more erudite forms of the conspiracy theory owes to ideas of Alain de Benoist, which he formulated in reaction to student protests in 1968.^[5]

Sennalen (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

We can't use the transitive property to establish relevance of the image. The Frankfurt School was also 'deeply involved' in cinematic realism. But I wouldn't expect us to put an image of The Wire on this article. It was an influence on Seduction of the Innocent as well. Can we throw up an image of Batman and Robin on the article? MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

MrOllie is right. You can't tie topics together like that and then claim a fact based on the connection, that's WP:SYNTH. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, as I pointed out above, the students in the picture were not influenced by Marcuse, rejected his views and were not supported by him, according to sources. Their slogans run counter to Marcuse's teachings.

Furthermore, you would have to show that conspiracists make a connection between Marcuse and the Berlin students. TFD (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Marcuse's late and tepid hedging about the Red Army Faction has to be put in context.

The ecstatic applause of the counter-culture in the wake of student riots delighted Marcuse. He obliged by promptly dropping his dark views on the march of history. An Essay on Liberation (1969) continued to number the tamed workers lost to capitalism; but it placed high hopes on students and blacks. Marcuse reverted to the libertarian biologism of Eros and Civilization: instinctual urge, once again, takes over from the pseudo-Hegelianism of 'negative thought'. But as soon as the counter-culture threatened to turn into a generalized anti-culture, the philosopher began to fear its wildest militant wings. His last book, The Aesthetic Dimension (1978), distances itself from their new vandalism - the strident violence of what Habermas dared to call ‘the fascism of the Left’.

Alas, Marcuse had him self sponsored much of their silly, dangerous contumely vis-à-vis institutional liberties and humane practices. Had he not, in ‘Repressive Tolerance’ (1965), pleaded for a replacement of liberal tolerance by a systematic bias in favour of ‘enlightened’ libertarianism? Had he not derided the respect for the rule of the law, likened the American police to the SS, and developed an exceedingly specious argument to the effect that while in the past many a social break-through was brought about by revolutionary violence, the conscientious application of democratic tolerance had allowed Hitler to assume power? He just forgot to add that the real issue was not to show that violence was beneficiail or even inevitable in pre-democratic contexts but rather that it remains necessary, and superior in effect, to democratic means, in today’s liberal-democratic systems. But then, authoritarianism as such never frightened Marcuse. ‘From Plato to Rousseau’, he wrote, ‘the only answer is the idea of an educational dictatorship’ - a sentence which surely made the author of the Social Contract spin in his grave. Maybe this was the secret reason why, in Soviet Marxism (1958), for all his criticisms of the Leninist order, he managed to deny that the communist power élite had class interests of its own: were not Lenin’s heirs just a bunch of temporarily strayed ‘educational’ despots? From the start, Marcuse was the most political of the Frankfurtians. That his was a Marxism without either history or a proletariat, and that his mood of revolution without a Daybreak lacked cogency, was of little concern to the new militant radicals. What they required was a rationale for ritual revolt, not a persuasive analysis of largely imaginary evils. The essential thing was to reconnect WM with the thrills of street protest and active establishment-hatred. This Marcuse provided twice over: by way of a cuphoric libidinal utopia (even as late as his Preface to Negations, he was still extolling the eschatological streak in Marx), and by way of a pessimistic Refusal. Both moods suited the revolutionism of affluent society, bound to be far more ‘cultural’ and symbolic than social and real. The myth of widespread psycho-cultural repression was highly convenient: it spared the embarrassment of having to explain the diminution of actual oppression within our liberal, permissive social milieu. Marcuse’s ‘negative thought’, his glorification of Refusal, became the favourite jargon of compulsive repression-bashing. Thus, the spent flame of Lukäcs’s fervour was rekindled, together with the false Hegelianism of the spirit of History and Class Consciousness and Lukäcs’s virulent anti-positivism. If ever there was a classic of vulgar Kulturkritik masquerading as neo-Marxism then it was Herbert Marcuse. José Guilherme Merquior Western Marxism (1986)

As for whether conspiracy theorists paid attention to that page in history, the conspiracy theory originated in that page of history:

In 1973, LaRouche sent his supporters on a violent campaign called “Operation Mop Up” to disrupt the meetings of rival left-wing organizations, such as the CPUSA, using nunchucks, chains, and baseball bats. LaRouche’s assertion that the Frankfurt School trained Davis to become a CIA agent was a kind of intellectual Operation Mop Up, in which he smeared his opponents and claimed that he was the authentic and rightful leader of the American left. Only LaRouche could be trusted to lead the revolution—everyone else was just a brainwashed CIA zombie out to get him.

The theme of the Frankfurt School as a secret brainwashing operation continues in one of LaRouche’s 1977 “Counter-Intelligence” reports, in which he declares that the New Left movement has degenerated into violent fascism. LaRouche alleges that British intelligence services established the Frankfurt School in the 1920s to assemble leading “British-agent intellectuals,” including Marcuse and Adorno. According to LaRouche, “Anglo-American” intelligence agencies wanted the Frankfurt School to develop an ideology that would inspire a “protofascist” New Left across Europe and the United States.

In recent years, fascists and white supremacists have accepted LaRouche’s mission of defending and restoring Western civilization. Breivik’s reference to Minnicino’s essay proves that his attack was motivated by a conspiracy theory that had festered within the LaRouche movement for decades. More recently, Brenton Tarrant—the eco-fascist who carried out a terrorist attack on a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand—took inspiration from Breivik, and rearticulated this theory in his manifesto to proclaim that the Western education system has “long since fallen to the long march through the institutions committed by the marxists (sic).” (In these conspiracy theories, Rudi Dutschke’s proposal for “the long march through the institutions” is wrongly attributed to Antonio Gramsci, who, in turn, is wrongly associated with the Frankfurt School.) Neither Breivik nor Tarrant obtained their irrational and erroneous opinions on Marxism from interwar Nazi propaganda.

Andrew Woods The American Roots of a Rightwing Conspiracy (2020) [7]

Hopefully that should put to rest any doubt that the student movement was related to the Frankfurt School or cultural Marxism. The image that was removed should be returned. Some picture depicting unrest in the late 60s or early 70s in some form is very pertinent. Additional or better images are welcome in addition, as well as pictures of particular philosophers, but every concrete objection to this particular picture has been answered. Sennalen (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, first, those copy/pastes are dangerously close to WP:COPYVIO length. Second, none of those are about the picture or its contents, so you're still applying WP:SYNTH to try and shoehorn it into the article.

This isn't good faith anymore, you're throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks, and I'm sick of it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The quotations are relatively small fractions of their works, appropriate under fair use and the purposes of a talk page. If anyone feels the need, they may redact them after the conversation is finished.

The picture itself as an artifact, or the people in it, do not need to be the subject of the article in order to be present on the page. The picture illustrates the concept of the West German student movement - no more, no less. It is part of the context in which the ideas discussed in the article developed.

It's strange how the contentions have gone from saying I have not provided enough sourcing to saying I have provided too much sourcing, without ever seriously engaging with what the sources say. If anything indicates bad faith, it is that. Sennalen (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh please. Your sources don't say anything about the people pictured, that's the point.

The picture itself as an artifact, or the people in it, do not need to be the subject of the article in order to be present on the page.

This is flatly wrong, and I cannot believe you're making that argument. You're arguing the picture can just be "illustrative" of the subject, which flies in the face of WP:V. This disingenuous bullshit is becoming WP:DISRUPTive, and I will not engage with you further on it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The picture which replaced the students is much more appropriate to the article. However,

if it is "flatly wrong" that the pictures "do not need to be the subject of the article in order to be present on the page", the picture of the degenerate art exhibition in the Antisemitism section is, by the same standard, totally unwarranted and should also be removed. I am a Leaf (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:IMGCONTENT The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. Sennalen (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Cute, citing policy at me while ignoring it. Nothing in that picture increase[s] reader's understanding of the article's subject matter, in even the slightest capacity, as it does not depict anything to do with the conspiracy theory. Put it in the article about the actual school. That's it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Y'know what, fuck this, I'm done going round in circles with you. The article is coming off my watchlist, someone else can deal with your bullshit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand the desire not to waste time on pointless discussion but I advise against good editors taking articles off their watchlists out of sheer exhaustion. If too many people do that then those articles are in real trouble. As always, if discussion can't break the deadlock, then let's have an RfC. That breaks the indefinite cycle of discussion and creates a structured and time-limited framework for reaching a documented solution. DanielRigal (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

As I said many times, you have to prove a connection with the protest shown in the picture, i.e., you need a soure that says who those that the people in the picture were influenced by, supportive of or supported by Marcuse. The only sources I have seen show that none of that was true.

Also, this article is about the CM conspiracy theory, not Marcuse. The purpose of the article is not to prove that the theory is true, but to document what the proponents claimed. AFAIK, none of them connected Marcuse to the people shown in the picture.

Furthermore, the student protests were in 1968, while the Red Army Faction was formed in 1970. The conflict between Larouche and Angela Davis you mentioned took place in 1973, a full five years after the protests. TFD (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

1968 was the origin point for the movement and Marcuse's celebrity status. Classroom occupations and Habermas/Adorno's charge of Linksfascismus came to a head in 1969. If editors would rather illustrate similar concepts with a photo from a few years later, that could be explored, but that has not been the tenor of the comments so far. Sennalen (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The relevance of the student movement of 1968 to the Cultural Marxiam conspiracy theory has not yet been demonstrated - secondary sources about this connection would be needed to establish WP:DUE, and such sources (if they exist) have not been presented in this discussion. This article is not Lyndon LaRouche. (Andrew Woods' comments about Angela Davis certainly do not establish the relevance of the 1968 student movement.) Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

In a move sure to satisfy no one, we could use a Communist Party poster of Angela Davis, which is in the time and context Woods discussed. Sennalen (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the ideal photo would be Hans-Jürgen Krahl occupying Adorno's classroom. I'm still not sold on the policy basis for objecting to the Berlin students in a classroom, but the idea of a picture of Angela Davis has grown on me. It too depicts an aspect the Vietnam-era portion of the timeline, so I would find it an acceptable compromise. Sennalen (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I am skeptical that the relationship between Herbert Marcuse and student movements is a legitimate part of this article, and even more skeptical that the supposed connection should be illustrated by a photo that has nothing to do either with Marcuse or with "Cultural Marxism" - especially since the source for the connection mentions, as far as I know, neither the picture nor "cultural Marxism". There is SYNTH, and then there is just ILIKEIT free association. Newimpartial (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

References

new Cruz book

Ted Cruz has recently published a book entitled Unwoke: How to Defeat Cultural Marxism in America. Since he is a sitting US Senator with public aspirations for the presidency, I think this should be mentioned down here at the end of the article. There are also lots of images we could use so that Suella Braverman is not uniquely singled out in this section, which otherwise seems inappropriately arbitrary.

I'm not sure whether to add this now, and then add material from reviews later, or to wait until we have reviews from reliable sources. (A quick search of the Internet did not turn up anything usable, but I did not look very hard.)

The table found at WP:RSP is a good resource for determining reliability and perceptions of bias in our sources on this—as I am sure assessments will diverge quite radically from one publication to the next.

You can find more information about the book, along with an extremely dramatic and alarmist video, on his website[8].

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Who he is and why he wrote the book are not all that important here. The decision to include or exclude should be based on sourcing. What WP:RS are reporting on it? Not just reviews, but other articles could be useful. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The answer to all three is actually no, we need more than even your most robust option. Reviews don't carry weight like that because they're opinion pieces, we will need non-opinion coverage of this book in the proper context (which we will likely get, but we can't jump the gun). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Opinions are part of the body of reliable sources that contribute to establishing due weight. I do not have a position on including this book or not, only about this general sourcing principle. Sennalen (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

That is almost always the case because almost tautologically a reviewer is a SME but it is not always the case (such as when it is the reviewers only review). Not seeing where we actually disagree, I am not saying that they don't contribute to establishing due weight but that on their own they can not. If just opinion pieces mention it then no it should not be on this page for lack of weight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we need reviews in order to give an assessment of the quality of the book as a book. This is obviously not the place for that. What we need is coverage from good sources on probably just what he means by the term. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I.e., neutral third-party sources on basic facts. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Look, its hard to speculate about what we need or don't need. Its easy to determine what's due when we non-hypothetical sources to review, lets all take a break until we have those. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I posted this here, not editing the article, because I thought is would be something that other editors might want to keep their eyes out for. Yikes! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

We shall have to wait and see if it has any impact on the overall topic. The fact it was written by a very notable U.S. conservative does not make the book significant. The little coverage it has received is more relevant to Cruz's article than to this one. I'm guessing it will be quickly forgotten. TFD (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The Texas Tribune has an article about Cruz's book [9] here is a quote from that article:

Cruz has worked to establish himself as a voice against what he calls “Cultural Marxism,” which he defines as the “radical left” implementing the teachings of Karl Marx through policy, education, journalism, technology, business and entertainment.

That does sound a lot like he's referring to the conspiracy theory usage. Business Insider has an article about whether his publisher digitally trimmed his Mullet on the cover picture of the book [10]. 203.219.38.81 (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

In that Texas Tribune article, Cruz goes on a bit of a rant about antisemitism to make it clear that he's not antisemitic because he supports Israel, and that instead, it's "The Squad" (one of whom is Palestinian) who are antisemitic, because they support Palestine... then in the second half of the article, he denounces white supremacist Nick Fuentes on account of the fact that a fracking related Republican PAC (members of whom also donate to Cruz), was linked to Fuentes. It's all a bit messy. 203.219.38.81 (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

A very brief (like, a sentence) might become worth including, in the context of the mainstreaming of the conspiracy theory. Going from Breitbartian fringe to usage by well-known politicians with presidential aspirations strikes me as notable. I'm thinking something like the reference to DeSantis' usage currently in the article. CAVincent (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I would think that the reference above would support something like the DeSantis reference. (I'm not familiar with the Texas Tribune, but they appear legit [11].) Unless it blows up into something larger, the mention could just be another sentence added to that single-sentence paragraph.

If others believe such addition requires further sources, however, I am not going to argue about it. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The Texas and the paper probably found the book significant enough to mention because it was written by a senator from Texas. That doesn't make it significant to the subject of this article, although it might be significant to the Ted Cruz article. TFD (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Compilation of Proposed Lead Changes

This is not a suggestion for any particular lede, but the lede is clearly a contentious topic, so I thought it'd be helpful to compile several of the suggested changes into a singular thread for convenience/discussion, as there are a variety of suggestions across several threads and it was getting rather unwieldy.

The organization is merely the order which I gathered the proposals. I hope for this to be referential and perhaps there is a way to converge the best of these suggestions into a lede that makes everyone happy while maintaining academic rigor and neutrality. The first bracketed name is the user who suggested the lede. If there is anything I missed, or any new suggestions for the lede, please add it.

Current lede:

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

Proposed ledes:

1. The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims that proponents of Marxist cultural analysis are the basis of a continuing academic and intellectual effort to subvert Western culture. [21 May 2023 edit by RecardedByzantin, reverted by Tewdar, mentioned by The Hand That Feeds You in the thread ‘Topic sentence is unencyclopedic and should be changed’]

2. The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which represents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. [I am a Leaf] [Rejected by a large majority of discussion participators]

3. The term "Cultural Marxism" is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory first advanced by William S. Lind. It misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. [The Hand That Feeds You]

4. The term "Cultural Marxism" is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory first advanced by William S. Lind. It misrepresents the Frankfurt School's influence on modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. [I am a Leaf] [rejected by The Hand That Feeds You and IP (60.241. . .)]

5. The term "Cultural Marxism" is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. [Mathglot]

6. Cultural Marxism conspiracy theories are unfounded claims about the Frankfurt School and Western Marxism, particularly among United States political conservatives since the 1990s. [Sennalen]

7. Proponents of a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory use the term "Cultural Marxism" to misrepresent the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. [Firefangledfeathers] [Seconded by Generalrelative] I am a Leaf (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm okay with any of them except #2 Whilst I understand your reasoning that "conspiracy theory" causes the word "misrepresents" to be redundant, I think having redundant mechanisms of explanation is a good thing for complicated topics.

I think #6 would be the biggest change, and cause the most need for further discussion/edits.

I like that #1 would link to Marxist cultural analysis, which I think could help further explain why the conspiracy theory is counted as such, and the rest are fairly consistent in their message (#3 and #4 include William S. Lind as the first to advance the theory, #5 does not, #7 is a somewhat cumbersome rewording from a functionalist POV). Small point, I believe Mathglot's suggestion (#5) had struck out the words "refers to" - indicating it was not part of their suggestion. Mathglot's version (#5) would thus be the closest to the current text of the article, removing only those two words (and replacing them with "is"). 14.200.163.250 (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, Mathglot did strike out the "refers to." I copy/pasted most of these at plaintext which is probably why that's missing.

I did fix it (I just removed the “refers to” from 5. outright), although i’ve heard you’re not supposed to delete text after someone replies. Hopefully this admission permits the deletion.

I am a Leaf (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fine when you're quoting someone (as per your list of options) - you're just not supposed to go back and edit what someone actually wrote themselves. 14.200.163.250 (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Nah you're also not supposed to edit your own comments once they've been replied to without indicating that you've done so. See WP:TALK#REPLIED for suggestions on how to do this properly. In this case, where there was an error transcribing someone else's text and the subsequent revision is discussed in the thread immediately following, it's probably no big deal. So this is just FYI for future discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to be a spirit-of-the-law, not the letter-of-the-law situation. Like, the purpose of the policy is to preserve any contentious intent (to preserve the arguments being made) - you can probably go back an correct spelling, or basic mistakes that aren't involved in any points of contention. 194.223.61.126 (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Copy editing notes:

We should, if possible, avoid "refers to". It's clunky. See MOS:REFERS
What is the utility of the quotation marks, and would this utility be better performed by italics? For the first mention, just boldface should suffice. See MOS:SCARE and MOS:WAW

Wracking ^talk! 17:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Have you noticed the attempts to remove or discredit any reliable sources that suggest CM is a synonym for anything other than CMCT, including sources indicating that CM can be synonymous with “Western Marxism”? For example, this recent deletion, which I have now reversed, involves removing Buchanan and labeling seven other sources, including Tuters, as “dubious.”

Some editors want to maintain that CM and CMCT are one-to-one equivalents (fully interchangeable terms) and that any deviation from this orthodoxy is subversive. This is also the reason why some editors are bending over backwards to argue against the applicability of MOS:FIRST. XMcan (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The citations don't actually support the content (as already outlined on the talk pages in question), so yes, using them that way is dubious. - MrOllie (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

There was a consensus that defining "cultural Marxism" and "Western Marxism" as exact synonyms is an oversimplification. That doesn't mean that "cultural Marxism" is unrelated to "Western Marxism". It especially can't be further stretched to claim that "cultural Marxism" is exactly equivalent to "cultural Marxism conspiracy theory". Sennalen (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

If that's your position, I'm not sure why you reverted, since the text in question does define them as synonyms. MrOllie (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The source entirely was removed with a spurious claim that the source itself was dubious. The source is reliable and respected. It remains the case that "cultural Marxism" is a phrase legitimately and widely used in connection with Western Marxism. Any imprecision in the language can be fixed without trying to delete and evade that. Contextualizing it on this page is less delicate than on Western Marxism, in light of WP:ONEWAY. Sennalen (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No, the sourceing was dubious, and it was, because the cited source did not support the content. This isn't a matter of 'imprecise language', the claim had been recently rejected as incorrect. MrOllie (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Some editors have claimed it was incorrect, but not with substantial reasoning so far. To keep everyone up to speed, the source is an entry on Western Marxism from Oxford Reference's A Dictionary of Critical Theory [12] It also started to focus more on cultural rather than economic problems and it is for this reason also known as cultural Marxism. Sennalen (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Given the source in question (Oxford Reference) - describes its self as "bringing together 2 million digitized entries across Oxford University Press’s Dictionaries, Companions and Encyclopedias." [emphasis added] - it looks a lot like trying to re-litigate a previously rejected source. Perhaps you'd be better off citing the source Oxford Reference is using? It lists a 1976 work by Perry Anderson. That work is available here - however I'm unable to locate the term "cultural Marxism" within that work. Thus we must conclude that Oxford Reference is speaking on behalf of the earlier Oxford Dictionary source which has already been rejected. A bad source citing a bad source, is still a bad source. 203.219.38.81 (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not OED. It is sourced from A Dictionary of Critical Theory [13] Perry Anderson is cited as "Further reading". Sennalen (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, my mistake, there it is page 489 of Ian Buchanan's A Dictionary of Critical Theory. Mentioned as part of the section on Western Marxism, and referring to Gramsci, Lukacs, and some members of The Frankfurt School... who are already all listed on the Marxist cultural analysis page, which also already mentions that the term is sometimes used. The Oxford Reference source should probably be employed there (or even better, the Buchanan source). I'll add it now. 203.219.38.81 (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

While you're there, check on why none of the three sources cited for the definition of "Marxist cultural analysis" use that phrase at all Sennalen (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not a contentious term or a fringe topic, and my understanding is that the page's title was created specifically to avoid the neologism cultural Marxism as per WP:NEO. Unless you're making the claim that it's debatable that any Marxists have ever analyzed culture? That said, I wasn't involved in the page's creation - so can't really attest to its intent.

As for the Ian Buchanan source, it seems it was updated in 2018, and it's thus no longer certain that it still contains the claim that Western Marxism is also known as cultural Marxism. I've created a topic to discuss this on the Marxist cultural analysis talk page. 203.219.38.81 (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you're wondering why there's caution around this topic - it's because the term was reportedly hijacked and made to mean something it doesn't. This is why there's more caution around the term cultural Marxism than there is for Marxist cultural analysis. [14]. 203.219.38.81 (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with editors identifying a topic scope at their own discretion, but it curious that these three words together don't attract the same isolated demands for rigor that a particular two words do. If you want to shore up those citations though, the phrase "Marxist cultural analysis" does appear in Douglas Kellner's Cultural Marxism, British cultural studies, and the reconstruction of education in the section "The origins and rise of cultural Marxism" in the paragraph on Western Marxism.[15] Sennalen (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I've added the source accordingly. I believe there's also a Raymond Williams source floating around on the page somewhere.

But yes, other than the term cultural Marxism having been hijacked by a far-right think-tank oriented conspiracy theory - I can't really think of why cultural Marxism gets such a grilling on Wikipedia. Perhaps that's cause enough though? 203.219.38.81 (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn't be adding sources that do not mention the conspiracy theory, even if they talk about critical theory. Per weight, the article should summarize what reliable sources say about the topic, i.e., the conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I want to reiterate my strenuous opposition to this edit or to any attempt to link the terms "Western Marxism" and "Cultural Marxism", in any form or context, in any article. As discussed here, in depth, the sources presented, overall, simply don't support the claim being made. This is WP:OR that tries to string together unrelated sources and a single passing mention to try and assert something that isn't backed by decent WP:RSes. And more generally, I don't think that anyone proposing changes to the lead has successfully made the case that there are any meaningful issues with the longstanding version. --Aquillion (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I would like to co-sign this statement by @Aquillion.

Also, please tag me if you want my input on anything. Although I will check in from time-to-time, I have unfollowed this completely toxic talk page.

Many thanks to all the folks who are not so easily exhausted and continue to put in the time to defend what has already been thoroughly litigated.

Regards, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing is ample that cultural Marxism and Western Marxism have something to do with each other. There have been a lot of good and cogent objections about how to describe that something. I would say that's dormant for now. There's no proposal on the table to describe the something. In the meantime though, editors should not be entertaining the idea that just because the wording hasn't been hammered out that there isn't a connection between the topics. Sennalen (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
For future reference, I would point out that what we have actually been talking about here (and elsewhere) is actually a triangle of relationships, not a dyad. In play are the relationships between "Cultural Marxism" (conventionally capitalized) - the object/trope of the conspiracy, "cultural Marxism" (until recently uncapitalized), the purported tendency in Marxist scholarship, and Western Marxism, the general tendency of Marxism in the West in the second half of the last century.

There are relationships between any pair of these: for example, recent treatments of "cultural Marxism" (as a tendency) have been impacted (almost to the point of retrojection) by "Cultural Marxism" (the conspiracy trope). Also, the fashionability of "cultural Marxism" as a synonym for (or tendency within) Western Marxism has fluctuated due to competing fashions and sympathies. And the relationship beteeen "Cultural Marxism" - the conspiracy trope - and actually existing Western Marxism has varied in its degree of fidelity from LaRouchite caricatures based on sectarian rivalries all the way to the nearly empty signifier of "Postmodern Neo-Marxism".

Therefore, any attept to "flatten" these relationships - e.g., to say that "Cultural Marxism" (trope) represents a tendentious reading of "cultiral Marxism" (tendency) which in turn is a synonym for Western Marxism (unambigious real thing) - well, such attempts must be doomed to failure (innit?) and should probably not be attempted. The amount of wackamole involved in cutting these attempts off close to ground might make for an amusing allegorical video game, but is scarcely contributory to building an encyclopaedia. Newimpartial (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
And the relationship beteeen "Cultural Marxism" - the conspiracy trope - and actually existing Western Marxism has varied in its degree of fidelity from LaRouchite caricatures based on sectarian rivalries all the way to the nearly empty signifier of "Postmodern Neo-Marxism". This is good. This is something that should be rendered into lede text. Sennalen (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps an etymology section would be useful. I am a Leaf (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

"I want to reiterate my strenuous opposition to this edit or to any attempt to link the terms "Western Marxism" and "Cultural Marxism", in any form or context, in any article." - you may have to review and revert the most recent edit to Marxist cultural analysis then, which uses the Buchanan source to say that some Western Marxists (specifically Benjamin, Adorno, and Horkhiemer) are associated with the term "cultural Marxism". 14.2.46.211 (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. These are separate topics and, whatever connections or parallels people might draw, there is no excuse to conflate them. I think the easy way to draw the line is to always keep the conspiracy theory aspect in mind when considering adding anything to this article. If it is not about the conspiracy theory then it is not about the topic of this article. DanielRigal (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree they must not be conflated. Maintaining the distinction requires WP:EVALFRINGE. Sennalen (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.jstor.org/stable/487822

[2] ttps://lithub.com/angela-davis-on-protest-1968-and-her-old-teacher-herbert-marcuse/

[3] ttps://www.jstor.org/stable/40401496

[4] ttps://communemag.com/the-american-roots-of-a-right-wing-conspiracy/

[5] ttps://academic.oup.com/sp/article/28/3/556/6426301

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]