Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Psychology Today article says this article can be interpreted as propaganda

[1]https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/rabble-rouser/202103/cultural-marxism-far-right-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theory

I think this needs to be incorporated as at the very least a significant minority view from a reputable neutral source. It captures everything that troubles me about this Wikipedia article, which it explicitly talks about and criticises. (Although it blames the article sources rather than Wikipedia editors.) As an incentive to check out the link, here are some conclusions.

Bottom Lines

1. Antisemitic conspiracy theories are a real thing.

2. Cultural Marxism is a term mostly used to describe an ideological movement, not a conspiracy theory. It did not appear to be associated with online antisemitic conspiracy theories in our recent analysis of online extremism and antisemitism.

3. Some antisemitic bad actors do use the term as a way to condemn Jews in general. However, many of the most prominent sources that have used the term are right-wing, but have not used it as an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

4. The Wikipedia article, and others like it, are plausibly interpreted as propaganda seeking to deflect criticism of an illiberal left-wing movement that some call Cultural Marxism by denigrating those criticisms as constituting an antisemitic conspiracy theory, when they are not. Chris King (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd describe that as an opinion piece rather than an article. An opinion piece from someone who seems, amongst other things, to have a very shallow understanding of diverse currents within left-wing politics. His description of the 'key elements of Marxism' could legitimately itself be described as 'propaganda'. Just not very good propaganda. He's of course entitled to his opinion, but I see no reason why we should present it as coming from a 'neutral source'. Or cite it at all unless it is the subject of secondary commentary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The article links to a report (not an opinion piece) in which "We found no evidence that “cultural Marxism” was associated with online antisemitic conspiracy theories." Chris King (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Assuming this is the report in question, [2], it seems to make no mention of Marxism, 'cultural' or otherwise, at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that's the point: CM doesn't show up in that article, hence this is evidence that CM is not a serious part of the antisemitic conspiracy milieu. I don't know what the point of that observation is, though; I mean, he agrees that CM can be used in an antisemitic conspiracy-mongering sort of way elsewhere in the article. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Given the predelictions of the authors, I don't think the non-mention of CM in that article is evidence of anything at all, really. Newimpartial (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"the authors" you mean the Rutgers Miller Center? Well, in any case I suspect we'd all agree we can't use that source in the way that this blog post is using it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The author, Lee Jussim holds very controverial views on social sciences and is not writing in a peer reviewed publication.

As with any opinion, whether or not to include it depends on WP:WEIGHT, which is the degree of acceptance his opinion of the topic has in reliable sources, which is nil.

You might add a link however to above section, "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations." TFD (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

That piece was written in March 2021. The article he is describing is not the same as the one we have now.[3] TFD is correct about this being an opinion piece and not one that we should give much, or any, weight to. A quick gander at Jussim's Twitter feed shows views about academia that are outside of the mainstream, and a strong sudden interest in Claudine Gay. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The bottom line is that Jussim's comments are WP:RSOPINION at best, and are not DUE for inclusion in this article until and unless they are picked up by actually reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Using something that has antisemitic origins in a non-antisemitic way doesn't negate or remove those origins. Conservatives (Lind and Weyrich) with the Free Congress Foundation launched the conspiracy theory at a 2002 Holocaust Denial conference put on by their friend Willis Carto for The Barnes Review. The duo later made a documentary about the theory that featured a literal Nazi collaborator (War Criminal, Laszlo Pasztor from the Arrow Cross Party)... these are not facts that the conservatives who launched and popularized the theory in this particular way, among these particular groups and people, can come back from, or can remove simply because some unrelated professional writes a blog post. 124.170.173.183 (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not a Psychology Today article but a Rabble Rouser article. Rabble Rouser https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/rabble-rouser/ is Lee Jussim's blog. Also this Rabble Rouser article has been previously mentionned in Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

• Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 16#Split proposal
• Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 25#2023-08 more sources

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

This is basically an argument against the redirect, not this article. item 2 from the "Bottom Lines" section specifically; i think that is correct. This article is about the "To be sure, some writers have used..." paragraph in this blog post, and ~nothing else. But probably not RS as noted above; it's a blog. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

2024-01 oppressors versus oppressed

WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You may already know that conspiracytheories are not grounded in reality so most of conspiracytheories have variants/flavors/flavours. During the last 6 month i have read in reddit many mentions of the «oppressors versus oppressed» variant of the Cultural Marxism narrative. It claim that Marxism is not about analyzing the 19th century economy and concluding that part of the workers work is stolen by factory owners (la plus value), but that Marxism is about viewing society as a fight between oppressors and oppressed persons, so «Cultural Marxism» is just an extension of this framework to other dichotomies such men-women, black-whites, heterosexual-homosexual. I was almost worried that this variant is very little mentioned in Wikipedia, in the wikipedia article about the Cultural Marxism narrative. How fool i was!!!! Today a conspiracytheoric (an adjective i coined this month) reddit user kindly opened my eyes by linking Oppressors–oppressed distinction, which at first look was created in 2011 endorse the aforementioned variant the Cultural Marxism narrative, a far-right conspiracytheory with roots in nazi Germany transgress Wikipedia:No original research If the last 2 points are correct, then maybe maybe the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppressors%E2%80%93oppressed_distinction should become a redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory By the ways, among the wikipedia articles linking Oppressors–oppressed distinction is Woke, which include a paragraph about the aforementioned variant (the woke narrative and the Cultural Marxism narrative are similar and related): French philosopher Pierre-Henri Tavoillot characterizes "wokeism" as a corpus of theories revolving around "identity, gender and race", with the core principle of "revealing and condemning concealed forms of domination", positing that all aspects of society can be reduced to a "dynamic of oppressor and oppressed", with those oblivious to this notion deemed "complicit", while the "awakened (woke)" advocate for the "abolition (cancel) of anything perceived to sustain such oppression", resulting in practical implementations such as adopting inclusive language, reconfiguring education or deconstructing gender norms. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC) I don't really follow most of what you're saying. I'd suggest that page is an unsourced neologism, or, perhaps an essay, and should be deleted. Certainly not redirected here? that would be strange. Why would we even need this redirect? (FWIW of course a lot of people talk about oppressors systematically oppressing the oppressed, the idea that people make this distinction is of course not a conspiracy.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Looks like there's a deletion discussion going on for that page right now. 194.223.27.216 (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC) Indeed. Thanks to @RecardedByzantian:. Thank you too for your comprehensive commennt in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oppressors–oppressed distinction. Also please take a look at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC) I don't see the contradiction. Marx said, "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." He primarily wrote about the struggel between captialist and worker. Conspiracy theorists claim that cultural Marxists view the class struggle today as between white heterosexual Christian middle class men and everyone else. TFD (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC) «I don't see the contradiction.» => Maybe because i did not go into details. First, this variant, like most of variants of the Cultural Marxism narrative, implicitly claim that the goal of Karl Marx and his followers was and is not to improve the life conditions of workers, but to take over the industrialised countries and become the new rulers. Second, this variant claim that the Marxists and the Cultural Marxists view the «oppressors versus oppressed» as a manichaean dichotomy where capitalist owners are always evildoer while workers are always welldoer. Class traitors do not exist. In the current era, men and whites and heterosexuals are always evildoer while women and black and homosexuals are always welldoer, which has the consequences that Taylor Swift is always evildoer because she is white and always welldoer because she is a woman antisemite Kanye West is always evildoer because he is a man and always welldoer because he is black And you do not need to be an expert in Intersectionality (an other bogeyman of the far-right which is ironically summoned by some proponents of this variant of the Cultural Marxism narrative as evidence) to see that this does not stand, that this ridiculously does not stand. Third, not everything in a conspiracytheory is false/wrong/incorrect/misleading. For example, somedy claiming that US president John F. Kennedy was killed in 1963 by the CIA is correct that John F. Kennedy was US president in (most of) 1963 is correct that John F. Kennedy was killed in 1963 Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

“Antisemitic”

not doing this again, increasingly off topic Dronebogus (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This has to be removed from the lead, as clearly one can have a non antisemitic version of this conspiracy theory. For example, the president of Argentina talks about cultural Marxism all the time, and he’s about to convert to Judaism and loves all things Jewish and Israel. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Inb4 someone argues that Jewish people can be antisemitic too. I don't think there's really a non-anti-semitic conspiracy theory about "cultural marxism". The conspiracy theory is basically International Jewish conspiracy or similar, I think. The term is, as our article says, often used just to refer to "critical theory" or adjacent activism, Milei might be using it that way. However, I think Milei is actually talking more about Marxism per se? (I don't know, I haven't read a lot of his work.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC) The conspiracy theory under the title Cultural Marxism (the claim that The Frankfurt School plotted to destroy Western Tradition by infiltrating Woke politics into society) was debuted by it's creator William S. Lind at a Holocaust Denial Conference in 2002 (put on by his friend Willis Carto for the Holocaust Denial magazine, The Barnes Review... Lind was paid to attend. His employer at the time, Paul Weyrich of The Free Congress Foundation (a conservative think tank) later went on to make a documentary on the topic that featured an actual Nazi collaborator and convicted war criminal Laszlo Pazstor (External link to a screen shot of the "documentary"). Here are some examples of the theory being used in antisemitic media (warning some links are to antisemitic websites and authors): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. You can also find many antisemitic memes about it on it's know your meme page. This is in part because it spread from the Holocaust Denial community, onto StormFront, then to neo-nazi 4chan threads, to the alt-right (who made most of those memes)... and then into usage among Trump fans and conservative media (which Milei panders to). On top of all this, there's all the news media and academic content describing it as an antisemitic conspiracy theory. It's also been a part of a myriad of political scandals which describe it as an antisemitic conspiracy theory (see the content about Suella Braverman's, and Ron Paul's scandals). In short, there's far far far more evidence that it is antisemitic, than that it isn't. 220.253.21.21 (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Converting to Judaism means taking "keep the Sabbath" literally, and I don't think that a president of a large country can actually do that. That would mean he is president only six days per week. No lamp, no telephone, no radio, no TV, no internet, no travel by car on Sabbaths. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)