Cultural Marxism

[edit]

'Cultural Marxism refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory'

Response:

The characterization of 'Cultural Marxism' as a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory serves as a means to discredit & cancel legitimate criticisms of Marxist ideology.

While Antonio Gramsci never explicitly coined the term 'Cultural Marxism,' it accurately represents principles within his neo-Marxist philosophy.

This characterization mirrors the approach often taken towards critiques of Critical Race Theory, whereby dissenting voices are categorized as racism. GaryI1965 (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I there any argument, evidence or source supporting those claims? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of the supporting citations from credible sources? You want to electric fence criticism of criticism based on criticism... and need us to critique your criticism of our criticism of your criticism?96.59.79.27 (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

«The characterization of 'Cultural Marxism' as a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory serves as a means to discredit & cancel legitimate criticisms of Marxist ideology.» => Because you say so? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are articles from The Atlantic, The Telegraph, BBC News, Huff Post, The Conversation, SPLC, the Tab, The Jewish Chronicles, VICE, Rewire News Group, the New York Times, the Guardian reliable academic sources? Proconsul74 (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should know how to figure that out by reading Wikipedia policies (eg. WP:RS), not by asking others. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:3DBC:CC54:C7EC:7FDE (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an answer to my question. You misplaced your comment or you try to move the discussion away from GaryI1965's «source: trust me bro» statement. As for your question: No, articles from The Atlantic, The Telegraph, BBC News, Huff Post, The Conversation, SPLC, the Tab, The Jewish Chronicles, VICE, Rewire News Group, the New York Times, the Guardian are not reliable academic sources because those are not academic sources. Here the academic sources about the Cultural Marxism narrative (in no specific order):
As far as i know, this list is complete until 2023. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that list.
Not one of those academic sources refer to it as an "antisemitic conspiracy theory". Not one of them even mentions antisemitism, at least in their abstracts. Even if we assume these 10 papers with only a few citations each are the only valid sources and represent a meaningful academic consensus, they contradict the opening paragraph.
Basically, it appears even the academic sources agree with the wall of text below when he says C. It cannot be stated with any definitive authority that the present-day controversy on “cultural marxism” is inherently anti-semtitic, as the subject of discussion is in no way inherently related to Judaism, is not hostile towards Jewish people, and is not hostile towards Jewish beliefs. The subject of controversy in "cultural marxism" debates is Marxism, not Judaism. See Sources 5, 7, and 10."
Even the two sources for the opening paragraph that mention antisemitism don't state it definitively. There's a Journal of Social Justice article which starts (emphasis mine): "This article argues that “Cultural Marxism” is an antisemitic conspiracy theory...", and the Jay Martin Salmagundi magazine column alleging dog-whistles in a 1999 documentary he interviewed for: "Although there is scarcely any direct reference to the ethnic origins of the School's members, subtle hints allow the listener to draw his own conclusions about the provenance of foreigners who tried to combine Marx and Freud, those giants of critical Jewish intelligence. .... One can even quite innocently mention that the Frankfurt Schoolers had to leave Germany in 1933 because "they were to a man, Jewish," as William S. Lind does." Perhaps these would be good in-text citations in the Antisemitism section.
But even in the academic sources, there is no justification for the "antisemitic conspiracy theory" characterization in the lede, nor this article's inclusion in Category:Antisemitism. Though I'm open to hear what I'm missing, I really think this is a nail on the coffin & we should make these changes immediately. ParanoidAltoid (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are making entirely unsubstantiated claims here, apparently without reading the sources in question. Each of these sources presents the "Cultural Marxism" trope as antisemitic and/or a conspiracy theory, and most of them depict it as both. Your suggestion that Braune and Jay somehow do not give evidence for the antisemitism they plainly attribute to the CMCT - well, that is a level of quibbling, or rather original research, that is discouraged by English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Each of these sources presents the "Cultural Marxism" trope as antisemitic and/or a conspiracy theory yes to conspiracy theory, no to antisemitic. I'm taking issue with the latter, sorry my wording made that unclear, please reread my comment with that clarified.
To state it clearly: The lede definitively states that it is antisemitic, despite none of the sources doing so. Those 10 articles above don't even present it as antisemitic, eg Busbridge starts with
"As a conspiracy promoted by the far-right, Cultural Marxism has gained ground...". It presents it as a conspiracy theory, it presents it as far-right, but like all 10 of those sources, antisemitism isn't even mentioned in the abstracts. The closest thing we have is an article that "argues" it is an antisemitic conspiracy theory, still stopping short of the opening sentence's wording, even if we pretend that a single <10 citation Journal of Social Justice article should dictate our presentation, in contradiction to every other source.
And, to offer some original research, this article should mention the antisemitic associations of proponents of the conspiracy theory. In its extreme forms, it alleges that a cabal of powerful subversive elites successfully conspired to change society in order to undermine Christian values. It dubs the culprits "Marxists" instead of just "Jews", yet this extreme form is structurally identical to Jewish conspiracy theories and would of course appeal to a similar crowd, as some academics have noted. Antisemites trying to launder their conspiracy theory would especially be drawn to this, as Jay Martin eloquently describes in his magazine article.
This is why there's an Antisemitism section. But it's just definitionally untrue to call it "an antisemitic conspiracy theory", even the most partisan academic sources don't call it "an antisemitic conspiracy theory". Neither should we. 2001:56A:F903:9100:A520:A7B3:78ED:E5D8 (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you using the content of the abstract as a criterion for the sources? What matters is the content of the source as a whole. And in the Jay and Braune sources, for example, it is abundantly clear that the CMCT is antisemitic.
Also note that the "far right" in the United States is generally antisemitic by definition, so it should be unsurprising that sources describing the theory as "far-right" in the abstract go on to identify antisemitic tropes in the article body text.
Further, your distinction between sources presenting the CMCT as antisemitic and arguing that it is antisemitic is, as I said before, a level of OR quibbling (or hair-splitting) that enwiki P&Gs just doesn't allow us to do, much less use to make article content decisions. It isn't really helpful to discuss such personal theories on article Talk pages. Newimpartial (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion that Braune and Jay somehow do not give evidence for the antisemitism they plainly attribute to the CMCT - well, that is a level of quibbling, or rather original research This just isn't what I claimed. They do give some evidence of antisemitic beliefs among some CMCT proponents, which can be included in the Antisemitism section. They don't dub it as "antisemitic." What you'd have to argue is that the articles didn't go far enough in straightforwardly dubbing it as an "antisemitic conspiracy theory", and Wikipedia should rectify that. This is OR.
Why are you using the content of the abstract as a criterion for the sources? The lede's verbiage is just not found in the sources, abstract or body.
Ty for taking the time to engage, this is obviously a sensitive issue & it should be hashed out. I focused on the 10 abstracts Visite fortuitement prolongée posted, because I found it pretty appalling: He argued we should throw out The Atlantic, The Telegraph, BBC News, Huff Post, The Conversation, SPLC, the Tab, The Jewish Chronicles, VICE, Rewire News Group, the New York Times, the Guardian, and instead trust his academic sources, *none of which even mentioned antisemtism*, and hoped no one would notice.
This behavior doesn't engender trust. If anyone can directly address my claims, please do so. If not, I'll submit the changes I've proposed. ParanoidAltoid (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not shown that these academic sources don't mention antisemitism, you have merely stated that they don't mention it in their abstracts - which is irrelevant.
You then concede that some of these sources do discuss antisemitism, but you state that they don't use the phrase "antisemitic conspiracy theory" - but this is also irrelevant.
The relevant question is, do these sources establish that the CMCT is antisemitic in its origin and meaning, which is what an "antisemitic conspiracy theory" is in this context. The consensus on this Talk page, from those who have read these sources (not only their abstracts) is that they do. If you wish to contest this consensus, the first thing you need to do is read the sources (not only their abstracts). Until and unless you do that, I'm not convinced this discussion can make any progress. Newimpartial (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second Newimpartial's advice. For better or worse there is currently only a dozen academic articles fully dedicated to the Cultural Marxism narrative, so it is not very long to read all of them in full. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not argue that we should throw out The Atlantic, The Telegraph, BBC News, Huff Post, The Conversation, SPLC, the Tab, The Jewish Chronicles, VICE, Rewire News Group, the New York Times, the Guardian, and instead trust academic sources. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except it isnt a recent far right Conspiracy from the 2000s because Sources PREDATING the sources quoted using a plethora of MARXIST historians ,academics and social scientists refer to "Cultural Marxism" including in the Title of a book which has chapters from many of them Dworkin, Dennis. Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies. 1 ed., Durham: Duke University Press, 1997
I tried to puit this AND a Dictiobnarty definition into the article
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/cultural-marxism_n?tab=meaning_and_use#1340965340
and it was reverted
"Cultuiral Marxism" was a widely used academic term ( including it being used by LEFT WING academics who were NOT fascists or anti semetic ) in the 1990s and this article is at pains to hide that history! This seems to be the only conspiracy theory at work here. Isaw (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the contributions of Eric Hobsbawm, Christopher Hill, Rodney Hilton, Sheila Rowbotham, Catherine Hall, and E. P. Thompson to those of Perry Anderson, Barbara Taylor, Raymond Williams, Dick Hebdige, and Stuart Hall, Dworkin examines the debates over issues of culture and society, structure and agency, experience and ideology, and theory and practice. The rise, demise, and reorganization of journals such as The Reasoner, The New Reasoner, Universities and Left Review, New Left Review, Past and Present, are also part of the history told in this volume.
Dworkin, Dennis. Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies. 1 ed., Durham: Duke University Press, 1997.
THey and more are cited in the opening pages of the introduction, after the preface. they are neitherRight Wing nor a conspiracy! Why are you blocking references to their published work on "Cultural Marxism" ? Isaw (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isaw, I'm not surely how carefully you read that definition, Used depreciatively, chiefly among right-wing commentators: a political agenda advocating radical social reform, said to be promoted within western cultural institutions by liberal or left-wing ideologues intent on eroding traditional social values and imposing a dogmatic form of progressivism on society. That is the conspiracy theory/alt-right trope; it is not some competing meaning of "Cultural Marxism".
As far as your comments on Dworkin are concerned, this source has been discussed extensively (see the archives of this Talk page). Dworkin's scholarship has not been observed to be connected to the trope of the conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the article is redirecting from "Cultural Marxism" and presenting £Cultutasl Marxism" as ONLY being the trope of the conspiracy theory and not as the academic field in marxist history which predates anyone claiming that the ONLY and unique decinition of "Cultural Marxism" is as that of a far right conspiracy theory! It isnt! It is and was a valid established academic field of study from a long time before any modern 21st century references to the conspiract theory trope existed! Isaw (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dworkins BOOK and the plethora of others reliable sources I provided is an accepted reliable source as to the existence of "Cultural Marxism" as a valid academic field PRIOR TO any of the later suggestions suggesting "Cultural Marxism" was a modern conspiracy theory! You can now have the Wikipedia Article having the entry "Cultural Marxism" seen as ONLY a 21st century right wing conspiracy when it was in fact a left wing academic field! Isaw (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only a small minority of sources - either before the conspiracy theory or since - refer to any actual trend in Marxist scholarship as "Cultural Marxism" (or as "cultural Marxism", which is perhaps more clear as not being a label for a movement, but which is the main way these words are juxtaposed before the conspiracy theory). Most sources refer to other things, like "Western Marxism" or "Critical Theory" or "Marxist humanism" - or to "the cultural turn in Marxism".
According to the highest quality, recent reliable sources on the topic, references to "Cultural Marxism" in the 21st century are to the conspiracy theory/alt-right trope; they are not referring to any actual trend in 20th century (or 21st century) Marxism. This article has to follow the best sources available on its topic, and not the beliefs of editors that are not based in recent, high quality sources. Newimpartial (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WRONG! A large number of sources over decades discussed Cultural Marxism. I have posted some of them from peer reviewed sources and academic publications covering at least a dozen widely known acvademics. Isaw (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "highest quality" how so? and the fact you say they are "recent" actually works against your point! If the sources are recent this proves the conspiracy theory is a recent development and the original "Cultural Marxism" as an established academic field populated among others by Marxist and left leaning academics pre existed the recent conspiracy theory which seeks to circumvent and reference to the true history of "Cultural Marxism" Isaw (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, the "highest-quality sources available" are usually academic sources, as they are in this case. And the general consensus of those sources (the mainstream view) is that "Cultural Marxism" refers to the conspiracy, not the 1980s/90s minority term for "Marxist cultural analysis". Wikipedia has to reflect and follow its sources. Newimpartial (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
«A large number of sources over decades discussed Cultural Marxism.» => Correct.
It is obvious but still worth to say: During the last 10 or 20 years the mentions of the term «Cultural Marxism» by human beings have been several orders of magnitude more often referring to the conspiracytheory than to the academic field of work. During this period, from time to time a mainstream newspaper (such The New York Times or or El Pais) will mention the conspiracytheory (because a mass murder in Norway, a book by Ronald DeSantis or Project 2025) but will never mention the academic field of work. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
«Except it isnt a recent far right Conspiracy from the 2000s» => Correct. The Cultural Marxism narrative was not coined in the 2000s but in the 1990s, as explained in Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory#Origins. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can search the talk page archives for the various reasons and sources as to why it's classified as an Antisemitic conspiracy theory. Searching for "Antisem" should come up with plenty for you, and the section titled "Better justification needed for why this is part of the "antisemitism" series" more specifically. RecardedByzantian (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
e cultural Marxist conspiracy theory is not a legitimate criticism of Marxism, which is why it is a conspiracy theory. Unlike rational criticisms, it relies on false claims. TFD (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a correct response to @GaryI1965, who definitely did not argue that cultural Marxism would be a criticism of Marxism. On the contrary, it is a prolongation of Marxism with other means - a softer, culturally oriented approach towards the kind of utopian equity that Marxism was projecting. Cultural Marxism is linked with Critical Theory in that it is a critical approach to liberalism (read: the West), which has in more recent decades delivered Critical Race Theory ('reverse racism' would be a good term for it too, as 'toxic Whiteness' is one of its many irrational component ideas - simply positing that the West can be entirely defined by its colonial past).
It does indeed show a strong anti-Semitic tendency, but that does not make it a conspiracy theory. Anti-Semitism was not originally as obvious within cultural Marxism as it is today, Israel being deliberately projected as an example of Western colonialism (with Jews now being 'White' too, by definition - a reversal of earlier anti-Semitic depictions of Jews).
To call cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory should therefore be suspect, as it obviously delegitimizes serious critique against it as a full-blown argumentative ideology rooted in an undeniable Marxist idealist sub-layer. It is indeed an anti-realist ideology, but anti-realist ideology is no conspiracy theory either, it is a position at the opposite end of empiricism and must be dealt with through proper argumentation. And this is being done: in fact all serious writers against 'wokism' (such as Caroline Fourest, Douglas Murray, Glenn Loury, Greg Lukianoff, Helen Joyce, Helen Puckrose, James A. Lindsay, Jonathan Haidt, Jordan B. Peterson, Susan Neiman, Thomas Sowell, and many others) are obviously serious critics of Critical Race Theory, Critical Social Justice, Intersectionality Theory, DEI, and all other related idioms - these authors are by no means dismantling a 'conspiracy theory'. Western institutions, academia, established media, cultural organisations, are largely imbued with woke ideology which has indeed some roots in Cultural Marxism (even while an anti-realist position does not need to rely on anything Marxist in order to push its political hyper-progressive agenda). Bernard.Libbrecht (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my response to Bernard's comments below. Concerning this Comment, it consists almost entirely of original research that, according to enwiki policy, should not be allowed to affect the content of any article.
Equating "Cultural Marxism" with reverse racism and toxic whiteness is simply not documented in any reliable sources I've seen on this topic. If "Cultural Marxism" were, as Bernard alleges, a full-blown argumentative ideology, presumably some reliable sources would describe it as such and explain how it is the underlying framework for "wokism" and Critical Race Theory, Critical Social Justice, Intersectionality Theory, DEI, and all other related idioms.
To the best of my knowledge to date, such sources simply do not exist, and Bernard's anti-realist ideology uniting progressives against something ("Western values"?) is simply an original rephrasing, intentional or otherwise, of the conspiracy theory described in this article.
(As an aside, I find the anti-realist label deeply ironic in this context since the main advocates of philosophical realism in the social sciences, over the last 30 years or so, have been Marxists and post-Marxists along with many varieties of feminists). Newimpartial (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Critical Race Theory doesn't come from Critical Theory exactly, it comes from Critical Legal Studies, which comes from American Legal Realism.
"It does indeed show a strong anti-Semitic tendency, but that does not make it a conspiracy theory." - no the fact it makes a bunch of false claims about The Frankfurt School and Identity Politics is what makes it a conspiracy theory. The fact allows a myriad of unrelated movements and groups to be labelled "Marxsts!" without them necessarily stating that's their belief is what makes it a conspiracy theory. There's a bunch of things about it that makes it a conspiracy theory.
"To call cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory should therefore be suspect, as it obviously delegitimizes serious critique against" creating a strawman to knock down is never legitimate. The conservatives should have argued againt progressive politics, third and fourth wave feminism, identity politics, and the black lives matters movement if that's who they wanted to critique... but you don't just get to say "all these are now one thing with a single history and all came from The Frankfurt School - when they didn't.... then pretend like that's a reasonable or legitimate approach to critique. It's not. You can go research those various movements if you want to find out where they came from. None of them have a direct origin from the Frankfurt School, and the Frankfurt School were the progenitors of none of those movements.
Ahh yes, James A. Lindsay the social critique whose areas of academic credential are massage, and mathematics? Neither of which have anything to do with Sociology, or the history of The Frankfurt School. All you names are like that unfortunately. Many are little more than political talking heads... and a lot of them plain and simply don't mention and have never referenced "Cultural Marxism".... but I can understand you might think they have if you're perfectly happy to smear ideas, groups, and people together without checking into the facts of the matter. But that approach isn't going to work on Wikipedia. We check sources here. 2405:6E00:22EE:E12C:4535:AFEF:5286:4223 (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI WP:SIGNUP. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
«This is not a correct response to GaryI1965, who definitely did not argue that cultural Marxism would be a criticism of Marxism. On the contrary, it is a prolongation of Marxism with other means - a softer, culturally oriented approach towards the kind of utopian equity that Marxism was projecting.» => This is not a correct response to TFD, who did not argue that Cultural Marxism is not a criticism of Marxism, but that «[the] cultural Marxist conspiracy theory is not a legitimate criticism of Marxism». Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
«It does indeed show a strong anti-Semitic tendency, but that does not make it a conspiracy theory. Anti-Semitism was not originally as obvious within cultural Marxism as it is today, Israel being deliberately projected as an example of Western colonialism» => Again you are conflating and confusing the Cultural Marxism movement (the alleged conspiracy to take over the West) and the Cultural Marxism narrative, what the Cultural Marxism narrative say and the Cultural Marxism narrative itself, the in-universe perspective and the out-of-universe perspective, the signified and signifier, the the map and the territory. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
«these authors are by no means dismantling a 'conspiracy theory'.» => Of course. They are not dismantling a conspiracytheory but building a conspiracytheory. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
«Western institutions, academia, established media, cultural organisations, are largely imbued with woke ideology which has indeed some roots in Cultural Marxism» => I there any argument, evidence or source supporting those claims? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Critical theory is not a "culturally oriented approach towards the kind of utopian equity that Marxism was projecting." Instead, it is an analysis of capitalist culture from a Marxist perspective. We rightly call Cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory because it makes false claims against practitioners of critical theory.
So while critical theory ascribes pornography to capitalist exploitation, the conspiracy theorists ascribe it to a plot by critical theorists to overthrow capitalism. Of course no such plot exists except in the mind of the Nazis who invented it and people today who continue to believe it. TFD (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok, if "cultural Marxism" doesn't usually mean any kind of conspiracy (I agree, FWIW), what do you want to change about this article? This article is about the meaning of the term, not the non-conspiratorial meaning of it. It says so right in the title. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not a conspiracy and it is not antisemitic, it should notbe labeled as such. Tparaiso601 (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A coordinated plan to overthrow Western civilization by corrupting its culture and replacing its citizens with foreigners is by definition a conspiracy. What else would you call it? TFD (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about it is antisemitic, Since you only want to answer half the question? Tparaiso601 (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References documenting the antisemitism of the CT are already cited in the article. Perhaps start with Martin Jay. Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ParanoidAltoid has legitimate arguements against the claim that the "conspiracy theory" is rooted in antisemitism. Tparaiso601 (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither ParanoidAltoid nor any other editor has produced evidence based in reliable sources that the conspiracy theory is not antisemitic. Only such evidence matters in deciding on article content on Wikipedia. Newimpartial (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling yourself impartial is, quite frankly, hysterical. Your labeling of this theory definitively a far-right, anti-semitic conspiracy theory is incredibly subjective. Tparaiso601 (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable academic sources have produced evidence that the culutural marxist theory is inherently anti-semitic? Tparaiso601 (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already answered this question, but - again - I would start with Martin Jay. Newimpartial (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who believes those whom they label as being "alt-right" should change their thoughts and behaviors is unable to be subjective about this topic.
Keep bludgeoning though, you're quite fond of it from what I understand. Tparaiso601 (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wopuld call it "an extension of the economic theory of Marxism into the social and cultural realm" AS I tried to usind Oxford dictionary and it and the definition was reverted
It was a term used by MARXIST academics and left wing academics back in the 1980s and 90s probably before the plethora of "conspiracy theory" publishers were even born! If it was used by left wing academics then one can not claim it is a creation of the far right!
works such as Dworkin, Dennis. Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies. 1 ed., Durham: Duke University Press, 1997.
Supported by academics such as Eric Hobsbawm, Christopher Hill, Rodney Hilton, Sheila Rowbotham, Catherine Hall, and E. P. Thompson , Perry Anderson, Barbara Taylor, Raymond Williams, Dick Hebdige, and Stuart Hall. NOT right wing academics!
and ironically from 1986 no less in the journal Sociological Perspectives
The Sociology of Sporta: Structural Marxist and Cultural Marxist Approaches
T. R. Young at that time referred to as " Professor of Sociology at Colorado State University and Director of The Red Feather Institute. His interests are in the knowledge process and the structural distortions of that process. This interest is located in a larger work in cultural Marxism:... Isaw (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When American conspiracy theorists started writing about cultural Marxism, they were unaware the term had been used before. Whether this is because you'd have to search very hard to find any use of the term in Marxist literature or because the they had little or no knowledge of Marxist theory, I don't know. It was only later they discovered these scattered references. In fact, they named their theory as a update of cultural Bolshevism, which is what their fellow Nazi predecessors called it. TFD (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish! I posted several sources . One from the 1980s predating your LATER claims of the conspiracy theory! Publiushed in an ACADEMIC JOURNAL Sociological Persepetioves which took less than 30 seconds to find in a search. There is apple other evidence of the existance of "Cultural Marxism" in widespread academic use worldwide prior to any claims about a conspiracy theory DECADES LATER!
I even posted a book on Cultural Marxism in 1997 which drrew on academics in Australis and the US. At least a dozen of them! and if you actually read the book you would be aware these are feminist history, marxist history, and sociology scholars of a marxist leaning from BEFORE 1997 ( and that isnt MY opinion it is how they are describle in the overview to their individual publications on "Cultural Marxism" Isaw (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You posted a collection of times that the word 'cultural' appeared next to 'marxism' in print. But those are not discussions of the subject of this article. MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish! I posted a book about Cultural Marxism the term is used in the title! It isnt about hpw many times it appearewd in print! It is about the ORIGIUN of the academic field of study! Both in the book itself ( you must not have read it) and in the review in The American Historical Review, Volume 105, Issue 5, December 2000, Pages 1695–1696, https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/105.5.1695
The Author of the Book Dworkin uses the term and refers to ALL the contributors under this term and both the reviewer Chris waters and Dworkin refer to "Cultural Marxism as a coherent intellectual tradition" p. 1695 . The book itself and the WIDESPREAD academic contributions from several continents attest to the PREEXISTANT recognition of an intellectual field of Cultural Marxism which is NOT a decades later far Right Conspiracy theory! Isaw (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 1823, Robert Woodhouse published A Treatise on Astronomy, Theoretical and Practical. In it, he used the term 'vector' to refer to a set of scalar distances used in the calculation of orbits. But Vector (mathematics and physics) is still considered to be coined by William Rowan Hamilton, which he used as part of his discovery of the algebra of quaternions in 1843. Sometimes people use the same words to refer to a different concept. You have confused the subjects of these older books (various topics of minimal importance) with the subject of this Wikipedia article - which is the right wing conspiracy theory. Your 'sources' are simply about the wrong topics. MrOllie (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dont be silly! If you search for the term "Cultural Marxism" in Wikipedia it redirects to THIS PAGE i.e. the ONLY reference to "Cultural Marxism" is to this Conspiracy Theory. Ironically I have worked in places where Hamilton Worked and know the Bridge on which he wrote his equations. Imagine removing Hamiltons references from history?
But we are not talking about the original use of a phrase here so much as the actual existance of an academic field! People are attempting to remove the field of "Cultural Marxism" from history and pretend it onl;y refers to a right wing conspiracy Theory. Go on then if you are so correct. Show me the Wikipedia reference pager to "Cultural Marxism as a coherent intellectual tradition"?
Where is it? Isaw (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That some other article does not exist does not mean _this_ article should be dragged off topic. You seem very focused on particular combinations of words, but perhaps you are really looking for Marxist cultural analysis. MrOllie (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When Dworkin talks about "Cultural Marxism as a coherent intellectual tradition" he is referring to Marxist analysis of culture, which is discussed at Marxist cultural analysis - which is disambiguated from this page. The primary designation for this field of study was never "Cultural Marxism", and there was never more than an trivial and accidental relationship between that field and the alt-right trope, "Cultural Marxism". Newimpartial (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But... there is an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. this article is about that thing, specifically. It says so right in the title. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are antisemites that prescribe to the theory. That does not make the theory inherently antisemitic. Tparaiso601 (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's anti-Semitic because the the conspiracy is either implicitly or explicitly ascribed to the Jews. Who else do you think is behind it? TFD (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Heritage Foundation's 45 page report "How Cultural Marxism Threatens the United States—and How Americans Can Fight It" does not once implicitly or explicitly ascribe cultural marxism to Jews.
https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/report/how-cultural-marxism-threatens-the-united-states-and-how-americans-can-fight Tparaiso601 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gonzales and Gorka write, "Universities today have almost completely succumbed to the ideology imposed by those who have followed the cultural Marxist pioneers of the 1980s." "The sexual revolution, of which critical theorist Herbert Marcuse was also a guru, has been clearly part of the strategy." "America’s wars over climate are also a part of a Marxist strategy." "It is important to take a look, albeit briefly, at what exactly the cultural Marxists are in the process of trying to destroy." I could go on.
All of this implies that some puppet-masters are behind this. While Nazis and neo-Nazis were explicit in who they were, modern proponents of the theory usually leave it blank. But it is obvious they are "the Jews." If not, who are they? TFD (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It is obvious that its is the Jews" is subjective. It's an opinion. Tparaiso601 (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Experts can identify implicit statements without it being subjective opinion. I mean, if not the Jews, then who are they accusing? TFD (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elitists? "New world order"? Tparaiso601 (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"New world order" itself refers to an antisemitic conspiracy theory. MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another subjective take. Why is this article not labeling the NWO as a "far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory" then? Go do your dirty work. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_conspiracy_theory Tparaiso601 (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the whole article, it does a good job of explaining it. I am satisfied with it as it stands now. MrOllie (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who are the elitists behind the New World Order? TFD (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
elitists Tparaiso601 (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who are they? TFD (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but This article is the ONLY Wikipedia article on "Cultural Marxism" which redirects to here and the talk page of "Cultural Marxism" redirects discussion of the subject to here! Isaw (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there are plenty of journal and academic book sources PREDATING the "Conspiracy theory" claim which is NOT RELIABLE!
Reliable measurements may also be wrong! A thermometer which is ALWAYS three degrees off is reliable but it is not giving VALID information.
Here are some left leaning sources on "Cultural Marxism from left leaning ( certainly NOT extreme right ) sources from decades before the more cecent "Conspiracy theory" sources used in the article
Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies
a Book published in 1997 and using the Term "Cultural Marxism " in the Title
Dennis Dworkin
1997
Published by: Duke University Press
And citing Eric Hobsbawm, Christopher Hill, Rodney Hilton, Sheila Rowbotham, Catherine Hall, and E. P. Thompson as well as Perry Anderson, Barbara Taylor, Raymond Williams, Dick Hebdige, and Stuart Hall' Hardly "far Right" sources?
Dworkin examines the debates over issues of culture and society, structure and agency, experience and ideology, and theory and practice with respect to CULTURAL MARXISM in journals such as The Reasoner, The New Reasoner, Universities and Left Review, New Left Review, Past and Present, are also part of the history told in this volume.
T. R. Young in an Earlier Journal REference a " cultural-Marxist dimension" and uses the term "Cultural Marxist Approaches " in the Title Vol.9 ISsue 1 of the Journal Sociological P{rerspectives published in Jan 1986 ...decades BEFORE "Extreme Right" conspiracy theory that "Cultural Marxism " was invented and promulgated by the Extreme Right and by a left leaning academic T R YOung Isaw (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of these sources to the topic of this article - the conspiracy theory and alt-right trope - has not been established. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is 100% directly relevant. The topic of the Article on "Cultural Marxism" claims ( and this claim ios from the 21st century) is it a Right wing Conspiracy theory created by extreme right in the post WWII second half of the 2oth Century. WROMG! The sources I provided clear;ly show that pre 21st century "Cultural Marxism" is referred to in PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS and peer reviewed books on the subject of "Cultural Marxism" written by left wing people! Lots of them ! Worldwide! The American Historical Review in The American Historical Review, Volume 105, Issue 5, December 2000, Pages 1695–1696, https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/105.5.1695
Refers to Dworkins "Cultural Marxism" on page 1695 as existing between the post WWII late 1940s to the late 1970! He was around then as was I! Most of the sources in this Wikipedia joke reference were not even born! Not alone that Dworkin states he was "Not the first to study this" field of cultural Marxism which he describes as an "academic work of the British left" and cites Harvey Kaye's work (1984) The British Marxist Historians and Patrick Brantlinger's (1990) US work Crusoe's Footprints: Cultural Studies in Britian and America .The irony of the metaphor of Crusoes Footprints may be lost on you? It points to someone EARLIER having trodden the same path!
In addition both Chriss Waters the reviewer and Dworkin does regard his book as" the first intellectual history to study British Cultural Marxism as an coherent intellectual tradition"! It is absolutely clear that
1. Cultural Marxism was an academic subject in Leftwing British Labour Industrial feminist and sociaolgical history which you copuld not argue against if you had read this book!
and 2. Point 1. was known WORLDWIDE before the start of the 21st Century! Isaw (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the conspiracy theorists are talking about, though. This article is about the conspiracy theory. MrOllie (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No the Article is about "Cultural Marxism" and any and ALL references or searches for "Cultural Marxism" ( Cultural Marxism as an coherent intellectual tradition) in Wikipedia directs to this page which asserts is is ONLY and ALWAYS WAS a conspiracy theory! Isaw (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism&redirect=no
There is NO OTHER Wikipedia entry on Cultural Marxism! Isaw (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell this article is about the 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory' because it says so right at the top of this page. Again, that some other article does not exist does not mean _this_ article should be dragged off topic. You seem very focused on particular combinations of words, but perhaps you are really looking for Marxist cultural analysis. MrOllie (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Care to Please show me where the Wikipedia Aeticle on "Cultural Marxism" is ? It redirects HERE! Any discussion of "Cultural Marxism" on the talk page of "Cultural Marxism" redirects HERE! This article has circumvented any possibility of having a Wikipedia article on "Cultural Marxism" and replaces any search about "Cultural Marxism" with and only with this Conspiracy theory page! How ironic. Isaw (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia community has repeatedly examined the sources and determined that there is not a notable topic under the name of "Cultural Marxism" apart from the conspiracy theory. The fact that a minority of sources, before and after the advent of the conspiracy theory, have used "cultural Marxism" as shorthand for Western Marxism, or Marxist humanism, or the Birmingham achool of cultural studies or Marxist cultural analysis as a field - or several of the above - has not convinced most editors that there is a "real Cultural Marxism" apart from the conspiracy theory. Periodically, new editors come to this page (or the redirect page) under the impression that there is a notable "Cultural Marxism", distinct from the above, that deserves all or half of an article, but so far the consensus has not changed. Newimpartial (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not looking for Marxist Cultural Analysis! I'm looking for the Wikipedia Article on "Cultural Marxism" Where is it? Isaw (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asked and answered. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT style behavior is not well regarded on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural Marxism is a term that a very small number of writers used to describe Marxist cultural analysis. The name of the conspiracy theory is not taken from these sources, but is an update of Cultural Bolshevism. They were unaware that the term had ever been used in Marxist cultural analysis. TFD (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TR Young's opinions on sport and how it fits into the culture industry can be found via the DOI number listed here [1]. Young's work is about the profit driven aspects of sports culture so fits into the definition found on the Marxist cultural analysis page.
Dennis Dworkin's Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies - is as the title suggests, about the origins of Cultural Studies, on page 3 it states "My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline" - so the source you've brought up reaffirms Wikipedia's finding that there is not enough of a defined group, movement, ideology, or discipline going under the title "Cultural Marxism" (or in this case "British cultural Marxism"). Dworkin's book is about "British cultural Marxism" and specifically The Birmingham School's role in the formation of Cultural Studies (as you can see, we already have pages for both those topics).
You'll have to be more specific on what you mean by Cultural Marxism, we have pages for Marxist cultural analysis, The Birmingham School, and Cultural Studies. This would seem to service all the sources you've raised, as those are the subjects those sources are about. RecardedByzantian (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the profit driven aspects of sports culture" I was not aware that there were aspects of sport culture that did not involve seeking profit. Dimadick (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Antonio Gramsci’s discussed the effect of traditional culture on a proletariat revolution. Steven1991 (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024-09 new source

[edit]

A reddit user kindly mentionned the article by

Also for the love of Jesus could the Little Boy from Manly create a Wikipedia account? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories