This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
Frequently asked questions Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing how to improve this article. Frequently asked questions about
Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
Q1: Why is this topic called a "conspiracy theory" in the title?
A1: Because that's what the
reliable sources call it, and Wikipedia follows what
reliable,
independent,
secondary sources say. See the sources listed in the footnotes in the lead of the article, for example. Q2: Why is it labeled "far-right" and "antisemitic" in the first sentence? Doesn't that show a biased, leftist point of view?
A2: See answer
#1; because that's what the reliable sources call it; see the citations for the first sentence. Q3: Dworkin (1997) has the term in the title of his book, so the field clearly must exist.
A3: Not if he's the first one to talk about it. Dworkin said (on
page 3) that "My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline". If he's the first, then either it's not a preexisting field, or no one has discovered or named it before him. Either way, that would be a different
topic; this article is about the conspiracy theory dating to the 1990s. Q4: I came here to read (or edit) about scholars who apply Marxist theory to the study of culture.
A4: Much of this is covered at a different article,
Marxist cultural analysis. Q5: Why is this labeled "antisemitic"? Plenty of people involved with the Frankfurt school were Jewish!
A5: This article is about the
Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory dating to the 1990s, and the reliable sources consistently identify it as antisemitic. The
Frankfurt school is a different topic, and dates back to Germany in the 1920s. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
A warning about certain sources: There are two sources on the subject of "Cultural Marxism" that represent a citogenesis or circular reporting risk to Wikipedia as they plagiarize verbatim directly from an outdated draft that came from Wikipedia, which can be found here (2006 revision here). The sources are N.D. Arora's Political Science for Civil Services Main Examination (2013) and A.S. Kharbe's English Language And Literary Criticism (2009); both are from publishers located in New Delhi and should be avoided to prevent a citogenesis incident. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
'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)
Older versions of the Wikipedia article link Special:permalink/566221148#External links a blog article by Bruce Miller, November 21, 2011, A crackpot far-right theory on the Frankfurt School and "political correctness",
I can not find this blog article in The Wayback Machine. I can not find any part of the encompassing blog in The Wayback Machine. Help?
I found a comment by some «Bruce Miller» under a blog article by Ben Alpers, July 25, 2011, The Frankfurt School, Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories, and American Conservatism, https://s-usih.org/2011/07/frankfurt-school-right-wing-conspiracy/ Is this useful?
By the way last april a youtube channel published a video chapter about the Cultural Marxism narrative: Some More News (which is not just Cody Johnston, there is a whole team behind him), Elon Musk's Hitler Problem, 2024-04-04, chapter 9 Wokeness & the roots of Cultural Marxism, from 49:33 to 57:49, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDyPSKLy5E4#t=49m Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 08:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The article implies this word is a combination of homophobia and anti-globalization. But then in the same paragraph implies it is a combination of globalization and homogenization (which I had thought it was). Should the paragraph be written so it is more clear? Captchacatcher ( talk) 17:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
legitimate, non-conspiratorial conversations on globalizationare a relevant topic for this article. I would observe the following:
"The combined discussion of globalization and homogenization has a long, legitimate, well-documented history in many realms of scholarship"No academic in that discourse uses the term "Globohomo". What you're saying makes as much sense as adding racial slurs to the page on homosexuality and pretending they're legitimate "because gay people already existed". We're discussing a term here, not a concept. If you want to discuss the concept of Globalization, the place to do that would be on the Globalization page. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C ( talk) 04:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Globohomo is also a long-standing, reputable academic debate on cultural homogenization by way of ever-increasing globalization.- no it's not. The sources you're citing are only about the right wing usage. None of them are academic discussions of globalization and homogenization, that use the term "globohomo" because it's not a term used that way by academics.
"debate on cultural homogenization". They don't, so we're not about to describe them as doing so without any sources showing they do so (sources that aren't focused on investigating alt-right politics, and their terms).
And so “globohomo” has come to mean something like “the global homosexual/Jewish conspiracy to degenerate our culture up real good with drag queens and anal sex and possibly Ben Shapiro.”
"legitimate globalization homogenization conversation"no academic discussion of globalization uses the phrase "globohomo" as a term. If you have evidence showing otherwise, you should include it. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C ( talk) 07:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
multiple longstanding sources where academics are discussing globalization and the homogenization of cultures using the term "globohomo"and
sources that aren't focused on investigating alt-right politics, and their terms. All the sources you listed are non-academic sources, which only discuss "globohomo" in the context of alt-right politics. None of them are discussions of globalization in general which use the term "globohomo". Because legitimate discussions of globalization that are from reliable sources DON'T USE the phrase "globohomo"... showing sources that are just people talking about the alt-right doesn't qualify as "legitimate discussions of globalization" from "reliable sources". 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C ( talk) 08:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Asked and answered. Please refer to the FAQ if still in doubt. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] A. The Frankfurt School is well-documented as being a major driving force in social and political philosophical thought of the 20th and 21st century. See Sources 9, 10, 11, and 12 B. The Frankfurt School is well-documented as being noteworthy for its support of utilizing a “cultural” approach for popularizing Marxism. See Sources 8, 10, 11, and 12 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. D. Some of the most influential Marxist thinkers of all time have explicitly advocated for the popularization of Marxist through the overpowering of hegemonic thought through mainstream cultural avenues. This is undeniable fact. See Sources 4, 5, 6, and 10 E. Marxist thinking has indeed been growing in popularity. This is undeniable fact. If the Frankfurt Schools is understood as being the driving force of contemporary Marxian thinking (see point A) with a cultural twist (see points B and D), then it is only logical to connect this growth to Frankfurt School roots. See Sources 1, 2, 3, and 9 Amlans ( talk) 06:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC) References
Previous post with sources for consideration was disregarded and shut down without any substantive engagement with content. Please do not shut down my discussion before I have the chance to respond. I did not ask any questions, I did not miss the FAQ, I am not confusing this page with Marxist cultural analysis, and my work is not failing at the most fundamental level. I am providing legitimate, substantive information for consideration that very clearly undermines the present page's assertion of the controversial Cultural Marxism theory as factually being A) a conspiracy theory and B) wholesale antisemitic. Again, please, the sources I am putting forward, that I did indeed spend a lot of time gathering, in goof faith, in combination, clearly provide substantive evidence to support that the present page is in need of editing as present assertions are not objective, are not taking the full scope of information on the subject into consideration, and therefore appear to support a blatant bias - A. The Frankfurt School is well-documented as being a major driving force in social and political philosophical thought of the 20th and 21st century. See Sources 9, 10, 11, and 12 B. The Frankfurt School is well-documented as being noteworthy for its support of utilizing a “cultural” approach to popularize Marxism. See Sources 8, 10, 11, and 12 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" is Marxism, not Judaism. See Sources 5, 7, and 10. D. Some of the most influential Marxist thinkers of all time explicitly advocate for the popularization of Marxist thought through the overpowering of hegemonic thought via mainstream cultural avenues. This is undeniable fact. See Sources 4, 5, 6, and 10 E. Marxist thinking has indeed been growing in popularity. This is undeniable fact. If the Frankfurt Schools is understood as being the driving force of contemporary Marxian thinking (see point A) with a cultural twist (see points B and D), then it is only logical to connect this growth to Frankfurt School roots. See Sources 1, 2, 3, and 9 Amlans ( talk) 03:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
|
This article is presently employing unreliable sources that fail to meet a number of basic wiki conventions.
These sources are not being used in a way that acknowledges their unreliability and/or makes use of their unreliability a point of conversation. Rather, these unreliable sources are being used as foundational evidence/knowledge. This seems like an obvious problem in need of correction.
Source 4 - Jeffries, Stuart - This source does not meet basic guidelines for identifying independent sources WP:IIS Verso Books is an openly radical publishing group with a vested interest in the Frankfurt School.
Source 5 - Braune, Joan - This source does not meet basic standards for WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The “Journal of Social Justice” is published by a fringe, non-profit group and is not supported by an accredited scholarly institution or well-regarded academic press - it does not meet standards for “reliable scholarship.” The journal is not included in relevant, high-quality citation indexes (Elsevier Scopus, ScienceDirect) - it falls into the category of “predatory journals.” The journal mimics the name of established journals - it falls into the category of “hijacked journals.” Overall, the journal is clearly not respected or reviewed by the wider academic community and should therefore “not be considered reliable” according to “POV and peer review in journals” criteria. Additionally, a review of citation index data shows that the article has not entered mainstream academic discourse - it does not meet basic “citation count” standards.
Source 6 - Woods, Andrew - Authored by a pre-PHD university graduate student with no reputation for legitimacy, no history within the field/discipline, no credits...
Source 13 - Woods, Andrew - Same author as Source 6…See discussion above. Additionally, this is published by a magazine that so very obviously does not meet basic standards for independence or basic standards for scholarship. Aside from the obvious bias/partisan/POV issues that are not addressed when the source is used, at less than five years old, the magazine has little to no history of legitimacy. Not regarded in any way in the field, by legitimate scholars, by reputable institutions. No oversight. Furthermore, to make matters worse, leadership has been accused of disturbing predatory behavior. Overall, highly questionable.
Source 14 - Jay, Martin - Verso Books again. See Source 4 discussion.
Source 23 - Berkowitz, Bill - The reputation of the SPLC is well-documented as being questionable at best, wholesale corrupt at worst. An unrelibale source in many ways.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/us/splc-leadership-crisis/index.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/maajid-nawaz-v-splc/562646/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/southern-poverty-law-center-liberals-islam.html (yes, it’s an op-ed. I know.) Amlans ( talk) 04:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
"I have very clearly done my due diligence on this subject. Please assume as much."let's test that in some small way. You quoted a policy that tells us to "check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited university, and that it is included in the relevant high-quality citation index" let's test that for the Journal of Social Justice editorial board. The stuff about citation index scores isn't as relevant here because it's a humanities subject, so any citations that aren't by the author themself is a good sign. You can check this yourself by looking up academics you agree with on the topic and checking their citation scores. Having a citation score is better than having none, just as having some academic qualification in a relevant subject is better than having none.
Please assume as much... but when I checked that assumption, it turned out the "editorial board" of the journal was "based in a respected accredited university," (multiple of them in fact) "and that it is included in the relevant high-quality citation index.". Turns out the editorial board WAS from relevant areas of study, with relatively high quality citation indexes. So your suggestion for us to just assume you were right, was bad advice. We can just check! No biggie, nothing personal.
Verso Books is an openly radical publishing group with a vested interest in the Frankfurt School(emphasis added). I understand that you believe Verso publications have a conflict of interest with respect to the topic of this article, but your view appears to be original research on your part, so we can't take that view into account in deciding on article text. I would recommend the following, with respect to venue:
basic Wiki policyto cite publications from major academic presses within their area of specialization, but that is not the case. The correct venue for that discussion could be the Teahouse, or WP:VPP.
status quo stonewalling, that is a conduct issue and is not relevant on an article Talk page (in fact, you appear to be casting WP:ASPERSIONS). The place to raise such an issue is at a centralized forum like WP:AN or WP:ANI.
substantive discussionbecause your belief is not grounded in evidence or enwiki policy.
assuming bad faithwhen I point out that your evaluations of sources seem to be influenced primarily by whether or not you like what they have to say on this article's topic. Your evaluations certainly do not reflect the policies of Wikipedia about source quality outlined at WP:RS and elsewhere. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
to defend the Frankfurt School.In the context of this topic, the only interpretation I can come up with here is "to defend the Frankfurt School against claims made by proponents of the conspiracy theory". But this Wikipedia article can't be reasonably construed as a "defense" of Marxists against those claims - for one thing, that would give the "arguments" of the CT far more credence than they deserve. Also, the main use of Verso publications in this article is to analyze the CT and not to interpret Marxism or the Frankfurt School. So Amlans's argument says more about their perspective on the "debate", IMO, than it does about source considerations for this article.
to point out the existence of a diversity of viewpointsisn't very helpful when some of those "viewpoints" are based in reality and documented in reliable sources, and other "viewpoints" are not. Editors have frequently moved from, "X viewpoint exists! See (unreliable) source Y!" to "this article should reflect X viewpoint as well as ABC", where ABC is the range of perspectives offered by reliable sources. In such a situation, enwiki P&Gs don't actually allow us to relativize ABC by situating X as an "alternative viewpoint" to it.
"Frankfurt School publisher"just because they've published books on The Frankfurt School. Just like you wouldn't suddenly be an Oxford professor if you were to write a book about Oxford professors. If you can't distinguish between publishing writing about a topic, and professing a belief in line with that topic (or having a membership to an organization that is about believing in that topic) - then WIKIPEDIA is NOT the place for you. Now please stop using this page as a WP:FORUM to make your conspiracy theorist "mind virus" infection claims. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:6D02:FF03:7182:3E92 ( talk) 04:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)