Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

'With roots in the Nazi propaganda term “Cultural Bolshevism”'

What evidence have we that the term 'Cultural Marxism' has its roots in the term 'Kulturbolshewismus', rather than merely being reminiscent of it, as the given source itself states? Tewdar (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I love this tool! Tewdar (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

A good tool indeed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

this probably makes the link more explicitly. I shall add it. Tewdar (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That is another source for the claim. However, since there is overwhelming evidence that the term originated in Marxist circles before 1950, claims to the contrary should be framed according to WP:Inaccuracy and WP:Conflicting sources. Sennalen (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That what term originated in Marxist circles before 1950? Cultural Marxism? That is an EXTRAORDINARY claim, Sennalen. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I do b'lieve Sennalen is referring to the term '[C/c]ultural Marxism'... Tewdar (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

If so, she should provide sources (or know better than to make the claim) - I don't think even any of the published conspiracy theorists go that far. Dialectics of Enlightenment was translated into English in 1947, for example, and none of the contemporary reviews refer to "cultural Marxism", as far as I can discern. Even for the 1950s and 1960s, the term seems anachronistic. Newimpartial (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Gilbert, James. “Literature and Revolution in the United States: The Partisan Review.” Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 2, no. 2, Sage Publications, Ltd., 1967, pp. 161–76, http://www.jstor.org/stable/259957. Tewdar (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"Cultural Marxism was most pervasive during the I930S in New York literary circles, particularly among the generation of critics which came of age during the early years of the depression." Tewdar (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That's the late 1960s, and whatever Gilbert is saying, he isn't saying that the New York intelligentsia of the 1930s were referring to each other as "cultural Marxists". Newimpartial (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I am unable to do an exhaustive full-text search for "cultural Marxism" on my vast digital library at the present time as I do not have access to it. But I'm sure there's earlier examples. Tewdar (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I am confident that if there were attested pre-1950 examples, they would have even presented by highly motivated persons well before now. Also, putting the word "cultural" before the word "Marxism" doesn't mean that the author is invoking some particular meaning of "cultural Marxism", obviously. I don't see any clear examples of anyone doing *that* before the 1980s, and certainly not in the 1940s or before. Newimpartial (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you want, exactly? Sources saying "cultural Marxism ===Frankfurt school", or... something else? Tewdar (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Anyhow, if that is what you want (1970s): https://doi.org/10.2307/1957920 Tewdar (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking really of any usage of "cultural Marxism" as an intellectual tendency distinct from other tendencies. The usage of "cultural Marxism" as "people doing cultural things with Marxism" - typical of the 1970s and 1980s - does not mean that thing specifically, and it is therefore a retcon to look at 1990s writers who really did see "Cultural Marxists" as a tendency, and look back at what is essentially Marxist interest in culture to find precursors. It just isn't the same thing at all.

And of course I've read Schroyer. What do you think I am: some kind of philistine? Newimpartial (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

We certainly are not justified in making wild claims in Wikivoice such as the "etymology of the term Cultural Marxism derived from the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism)" in any case... Tewdar (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"Etymology" may be the wrong word, given the sources, but I'd like to deal with Sennalen's FRINGE "prior to 1950" claim first. Let's not run after any moving goalposts. Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• I have given examples of "cultural Marxism" being used to refer to e.g. Frankfurt school &c. before the term "cultural Marxism" came to be used as a pejorative by conspiracy theorists. What is it you want me to do, again? Tewdar (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • If you want to back up Sennalen's claim, then find sources using the term, showing authors from Marxist circles before 1950 actually using the phrase "cultural Marxism" to mean something in particular. That is what is currently at issue. Newimpartial (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like you're the one moving the goalposts. My point, as the section creator, was that we are not justified in stating that the term 'Cultural Marxism' 'originates' in some way from the Nazi propaganda term. You will probably have to wait a while for me to check pre-1950 sources that support Sennalen's claim (if there are any). Tewdar (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You may have created the section but do not OWN it. I was responding to Sennanen's comment of 16:17 2 January, stating that because the term was used in Marxist circles before 1950 (which is entirely unsubstantiated), that therefore the actual reliable sources (Martin Jay, Matthew Feldman, et al.) should he set aside. This argument needs to be resolved one way or another, I think, before moving on to other topics.

Also, since you are a new editor in this subject area, you should be aware that the WP editing community has repeatedly and emphatically found that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is not based on there already having been some pre-existing intellectual or political movement called "Cultural Marxism" that then conservatives seized on in the 1990s as the basis for their conspiracy theory.

Rather, the consensus of editors - in line with the consensus of scholarship - is that while there were various schools of Marxism interested in culture, there was never a coherent intellectual movement of "cultural Marxists" and that the phrase was generally used to denote an area of interest (and was much less frequently used as a label among scholars than "Western Marxism", "Critical Theory" or "Marxist Humanism" even within this domain). CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, of course, but so far consensus and scholarship actually agree about this. Newimpartial (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The various schools of Marxism interested in culture were conveniently labelled 'cultural Marxism' a long time before the conspiracy theory came along. It would surprise me if there is consensus to the contrary. BTW I am not new to this topic, just new to editing this topic. 😁 Tewdar (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Obvs the conspiracy theory errs in describing this as a coherent monolithic group of conspirators, but... Tewdar (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget to leave the relevant DS sanctions message on my talk page, now. 👍 Tewdar (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"the etymology of the term Cultural Marxism derived from the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism" according to Matthew Feldman - what does Feldman actually say, verbatim please? Tewdar (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have access to that at the moment.

Concerning whether "Cultural Marxism" is a distinct encyclopaedic topic outside of the conspiracy theory, please see this discussion above, which includes links to some of the main turning points on WP (notably the 2014 AfD for Cultural Marxism). Newimpartial (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Found it. Statement in wikivoice has no resemblence to what he actually writes, as I suspected. Tewdar (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. Tewdar (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

For me, in the UK, the terms "Marxist cultural analysis" and "cultural Marxism", meant the same things, and the same people, and the same scholarly discourse. Only recently, has the Americentric "Cultural Marxism = Mad Hatter's tea party" stuff become widely known. Tewdar (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

And I strongly suspect that said field of discourse maps closely onto what I referred to above as an area of interest and people doing cultural things with Marxism - but you can check previous discussions here and at Talk:Marxist cultural analysis if you want an even more precise idea of what that field of discourse typically included, selon moi. Newimpartial (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

people doing cultural things with Marxism is a quite adequate description of what I would call "cultural Marxism", loosely defined. As for Cultural Marxism" being a distinct encyclopaedic topic outside of the conspiracy theory - it is. It's just that on the Americentric Wikipedia, it's called "Marxist cultural analysis"... Tewdar (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Surely you can FIXIT on Cornish Wikipedia, in any case. Newimpartial (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I was not introducing any candidate article text earlier, so don't get to hung up on that. If you like, I withdraw whatever it was I said. However, the article is too absolute its pronouncement that "cultural Marxism" comes from "cultural Bolshevism" by way of nazis. "Cultural Marxism" is a term used by and about Western Marxists, especially in reference to the Frankfurt School. It's not the WP:COMMONNAME of anything, which is why a page called "Cultural Marxism" shouldn't be on Wikipedia. That is what the 2014 RfC affirmed. "Cultural Marxism" is still a name of something that exists, used by people who are not conpsiracy theorists. I introduced some sources for that on Marxist cultural analysis and Tewdar has found some that are even better. Dissenting opinions are noteworthy but they should be in-text attributed. Sennalen (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

feel free to open another RFC. It won't change anything tho. Mvbaron (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You cannot say that "the term Cultural Marxism originates from Nazi propaganda" in wikivoice without grotesquely distorting reality. Tewdar (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not talking about that. This section should really be cleaned up. Mvbaron (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about, then. Or, what you mean by "this section". Not WP:SOMEHORRIBLETHINGing; genuinely asking. Tewdar (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a subtle form of WP:OR to treat "cultural" + "Marxism" as automatically meaning the same thing as the term "cultural Marxism". If you look for two words that have been placed next to each other, you may find examples, but as always, we have to evaluate sources in context. We have to summarize what sources are actually saying about the topic. That's the entire point of Wikipedia. We cannot presume that just because they used these words together the source must be talking about this specific topic, nor that this isn't just a passing mention. If you find a older sources which uses the phrase to refer to something more specific than the individual words, we would still need secondary sources to explain why that usage matters to this topic. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

For me, "cultural Marxism" === Frankfurt School, Thompson, Habermas, & c. I am genuinely finding it a little weird that people think this is weird. I'll find some primary, secondary, and probably tertiary sources for you tomorrow if I have time. In UK sociology classes until quite recently, Adorno et al was the only meaning of the term 'Cultural Marxism'. Tewdar (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen any source, conspiracy-oriented or not, where "cultural Marxism" doesn't mean something involving the Frankfurt school. There may be some question about whether a particular mention applies to Lukacs or applies to Thompson, and so on, but there's a pretty consistent core there. Sennalen (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Denise Dworkin uses it to refer to the Birmingham School, as does Douglas Kellner. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

"Something involving" is too vague, and as I said, it's a subtle form of OR anyway. Since the Frankfurt School involves both Marxism and "culture", you could, as an editor, make a connection, but we need sources to make that connection for us. The consistency of the core maybe clear to you, but we need sources. Like I said, we cannot assume that it's relevant or encyclopedically significant. We have to look at what that something actually is according to sources. If it's about the Frankfurt School, maybe it belongs at that article, or maybe not. If it's about this conspiracy theory, what is it saying about the conspiracy theory that would help readers understand the topic? Grayfell (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Not convinced that recent editors or participants in RfCs have firm grasp of topic at current time. Tewdar (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Your comment is too vague, and therefor inappropriate. See Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. Grayfell (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

People who believe that "Cultural Marxism" has not been linked to, and loosely equated to, "Frankfurt School &c." by numerous primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, are not fully familiar with this topic, or have an extremely "localised" understanding. No WP:aspersions or WP:ANYTHING_ELSE intended. Tewdar (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

FFS, Tewdar, please give the sloppy argumentation a rest. The word cultural followed by the word Marxism exists back to the late 60s (as you have noted), and we have an early 1980s source ret-conning Schroyer into conceiving of "cultural Marxism" as a field of discourse. However, this is not at all the same as reliable sources identifying "cultural Marxism" as a specific topic equated with the "Frankfurt School, etc.", whether loosely or otherwise. The number of non-conspiracy theory 20th century sources that use "cultural Marxism" as a term for a movement or tendency, rather than a subject-matter domain, can probably be counted on one hand and it doesn't matter that some of the same people who wrote on that domain get labelled later by conspiracy theorists as "Cultural Marxists".

Hell's bells, Tewdar: you can disagree with me if you like, but implying they I am not fully familiar with this topic, or have an extremely "localised" understanding when I have been reading these sources, including the UK-based ones, in real time since 1985 is a bit more WP:ANYHING_ELSE then I can take at the moment. I may not always be the best example of this, but I do believe it is possible to disagree with others on WP without chanelling one's inner asshole. I commend this exercise to you in particular. Newimpartial (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps people can point out where they disagree with me without chanelling their inner asshole.

(1) Beginning in the 1920s, some people (Lukács, Frankfurt School, Habermas, etc.) started doing cultural things with Marxism, thus partially differentiating themselves from other forms of Marxism.

(2) From (at the latest) the late sixties, sociologists solved the partial differential equation "cultural + Marxism = cultural Marxism", specifically to refer to these theorists, probably because they were bored with writing "Lukács, Frankfurt School, etc. etc." all the time.

(3) The term 'cultural Marxism' continued to be fairly widely used in this sense, and this sense only, until the early nineties or so, at which time "Cultural Marxism" started to be used by some "very fine people" in the US to refer to an imaginary conspiracy, in which the Frankfurt School take over the Matrix.

(4) This novel usage becomes dominant rapidly in the US, but takes a little longer to catch on in the UK, where sociology textbooks and teachers continue to use "cultural Marxism" with its original meaning, until the Breivik incident, meaning that now, as in the US, one cannot use the term "cultural Marxism" without being thought an antisemite. Tewdar (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

(ad 1) - agreed, this is a trivial point.

(ad 2) - probably because they were bored with writing "Lukács, Frankfurt School, etc. etc." all the time. No idea what you mean. Usually if people want to refer to Lukacs, Adorno et al, they use the term "Frankfurt School" or "Critical Theory", and not "cultural Marxism" - as has been repeatedly pointed out here, that's just not a school of thought and there are no dictionary entries on "the school of Critical Marxism" or something like that.

(ad 3) - The term 'cultural Marxism' continued to be fairly widely used in this sense. No, that's incorrect. Hardly anyone uses that term, and certainly not to refer to a school of thought. The rest about the conspiracy is accurate.

(ad 4) - where sociology textbooks and teachers continue to use "cultural Marxism" with its original meaning. Examples please!

I would also like to echo new's comment that your comment about people on this talk who do not share your beliefes are not fully familiar with this topic is highly inappropriate. --Mvbaron (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

(@3) "hardly anyone?" This is not correct... give me a while to collect examples

(@4) one (US!) example is Encyclopedia of Sociology Second Edition ( 2000, Borgatta & Montgomery) (heavily edited to avoid copyvio)

"A third tendency has been loosely referred to as ‘‘cultural Marxism.’’ Such critics of the functionalist tendencies of structuralist Marxism put particular stress upon the contested and uneven character of cultural reproduction in capitalist societies... Raymond Williams, Richard Johnson, Stuart Hall...A related tendency has been the cultural Marxist historiography of E. P. Thompson...A distinctive aspect of the cultural Marxist tradition, an aspect that has led it away from Marxist sociology... Much of the recent work carried out in the name of cultural Marxism thus increasingly blends with poststructuralist and critical theories of culture..." - I'm sure ai can find quite a few textbooks using" cultural Marxism" in a similar sense. Tewdar (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

They talk about contemporary tendencies, not the Frankfurt school: The complex outcome of the crisis of Marxist sociology in advanced capitalism is suggestively anticipated in the response of three contemporary countertendencies. "analytical marxism", "poststructuralist marxism" and "cultural marxism". This is exactly what Grayfell talked above and this is also covered in our article Marxist_cultural_analysis. This thread here is completely superfluous, all these arguments have been repeated ad nauseam on this talk page already. Until a specific proposal is made here how to change this article, I rather not waste any more time repeating what has been said. Mvbaron (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Since you have managed to make a couple of comments without including any obvious insults, Tewdar, I will therefore point out in good faith that your (2) is simply incorrect when it comes to all pre-1980 and most pre-1990 literature. The "cultural Marxism" of Gilbert and of Schroyer is an activity or a field of inquiry, not a term of art used specifically to refer to these theorists. The mass of sources after 1990 that do, in fact, use Cultural Marxism as a label for a group or tendency (following Weiner's misreading of Schroyer in the early '80s) give rise to the understandable but mistaken tendency to assume that those two words taken together meant the same thing as a phrase in 1967 or '73 that they came to mean in the 21st century, which sad to say is not the case. Newimpartial (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

doi:10.1007/bf01701854 (May, 1978) It is at this point that the "cultural Marxists" and particularly Marcuse, Habermas and Offe make their significant contributions. - not really sure what your point is any more. Is it "cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory, and any other usage is WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH"? Tewdar (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism is primarily the trope of a conspiracy theory, yes. And people struggling to read Schroyer were not particularly influential in scholarship on Critical Theory or Cultural Studies in the 1970s, 1980s and even in the 1990s. Those are my (fairly obvious) points. (Also, anyone citing Offe as a "cultural Marxist" is obviously employing a rather vague sense of the phrase.) Newimpartial (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"Cultural Marxism" is a vague term, hence nobody sensible is calling it a "school of thought", some usages don't even include the Frankfurt School. But I think calling it primarily the trope of a conspiracy theory is a recent development, and quite inaccurate. Do you have access to the Christian Fuchs book, linked below? He quite unashamedly uses "cultural Marxism" throughout, in exactly the same way that I (would have) used it (until recently). Tewdar (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but that 2016 Fuchs book, like most of Jamin's work, incorporates the retcon assumption that "cultural Marxism", rather than say "Western Marxism" or "Critical Theory" or "Marxist Humanism", was a standard 20th-century term used to mean something in particular. In our timeline, however, the trope of a conspiracy theory usage is set down firmly in the early 1990s while the Fuchs-Jamin usage develops somewhat organically (probably mostly based on Dworkin) in parallel to, but somewhat after, the CT usage. And unlike the CT usage, the Dworkin-Fuchs-Jamin terminology never comes to predominate among Marxologists - it always remains a minority, alternative label (even in the UK, though perhaps not in Cornwall). Newimpartial (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm reasonably convinced that Schroyer and Fuchs are, by and large, referring to the same people, and the same thing, when they use the term "cultural Marxism", with or without the hyphen. Tewdar (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

What convinces you of that? That is the sticking point, after all. Given that we have high-quality source in the article stating that Frankfurt School scholars are referred to as "Critical Theorists", not "Cultural Marxists", alleging that there is noteworthy usage elsewhere is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim and would require a strong secondary source stating such - searching it and finding one or two people talking about the cultural dimensions of Marxism in various unrelated ways isn't sufficient (it's effectively WP:OR if used to try and disprove or disagree with the statement I highlighted.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Specific proposal : Change the sentence In Fascism and Culture (2003), professor Matthew Feldman argues that the etymology of the term Cultural Marxism derived from the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism) to something that accurately reflects what Feldman writes. Since "hardly anyone" uses the term "cultural Marxism" in its original academic sense in these parts, I think we're done here. Tewdar (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the specific proposal. This is what Feldman writes: Some fascists even pointed to the influence of Marxism, or 'cultural Bolshevism'. According to a BUF writer, it was the task of 'cultural Marxism' to plant the seed of cultural disintegration ... Thus when vice is pandered to and 'unhealthy tastes and tendencies are excited by suggestion', it was certain that the 'hidden hand' of Bolshevik cultural subversion was actively at work. Do you think this is no accurately reflected in the article? Mvbaron (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  As far as I can make out, Feldman is claiming here that British fascists, as early as 1938(?), were using the terms 'Cultural Marxism' and 'Cultural Bolshevism' interchangably, as an explanation for what they saw as contemporary social decay and sexual promiscuity. I am unable to access the source that Feldman gives for this claim, however. Tewdar (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, looks as though the Fascists got there first...

  Marxism, the Doctrine of Decay by Francis Mcevoy - "Needless to say, the utopian equalitarianism of the denationalised intellectual has never existed anywhere, but it is not political so-called communism which threatens immediate danger to this country. That would be the final consummation, but before the oriental commissars can come into their own, the minds of the prospective victims must be prepared for the event, that is to say, perverted and poisoned to the necessary degree of receptivity. Herein lies the task of cultural Marxism, the preliminary bolshevisation of the mind, facilitated by the indiscriminate toleration-psychosis of liberalism, inherent in Social-Democracy, and leading to its final inevitable collapse." [my emphasis] Tewdar (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a link to this book. It's not listed on

• This book by this person seems to be another one of those 'hardly anyones': "The book is intended as a reader on aspects of cultural Marxism in the digital age". It's rather good. ("Cultural Marxism" appears 8 times on page 4, mentioning Frankfurt School, Lukács, Adorno, etc...) Tewdar (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• That the Frankfurt School existed, and can be discussed as having had a take on culture (namely that industrialist mass produced culture was taking over from more traditionalist or individualistic/idiosyncratic/human forms) is their Marxist take on culture. That doesn't entail the term being used in the 1930s-50s, but yes, some Frankfurt School writing is that old. The earliest I can find a usage of 'cultural Marxism' was some 1970s books.

As for Cultural_Bolshevism - I believe there was some discussion of the connections and sources here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Bolshevism#Quoting_WP:MERGE --124.170.170.79 (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The conspiracy theorists, who were veterans of the far right, took the term cultural Bolshevism and renamed it cultural Marxism. They then scoured Marxist literature for evidence that the Marxists had ever used the term. If it were a standard term in left-wing thought, there would have been a definition of it somewhere. TFD (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like they (the recent conspiracy theorists) didn't even have to rename it; see above. I'm not so sure there would need to be a "definition": like I say, the term "cultural Marxism" has been used, very loosely, to refer to "Frankfurt School++", without implying "cultural Marxism" is a school of thought or a coherent doctrine, for decades, by several perfectly normal sociologists. Fuchs uses the term like everyone's familiar with it in his relatively recent book, despite the fact that the most popular use of the term now apparently relates to the conspiracy theory. Why's he doing that, if this usage is supposedly so fringe? Tewdar (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

My reading, after glancing over the text, is that he is simply using it to mean "marxism through a cultural lens", not as a term with any more specific meaning than that. Note that (except when it's the start of a sentence) he never capitalizes the 'c' for "cultural" the way he does for eg. "Cultural Materialism" (a term with actual academic meaning.) I feel like you've confused yourself by doing a search for "cultural marxism" with a specific meaning in mind and then reading that meaning into whatever random results you found - but "cultural X" is a common enough construct for discussing a broad field that it's inevitable that you'll find some results. For example, we can find plenty of papers discussing cultural Capitalism, cultural Democracy, cultural Fascism, cultural Anarchism, cultural Socialism, etc; but they're not specific established topics and the usages are therefore not particularly connected into a single topic, nor do uses like that have any real connection to the conspiracy theory. Basically, it's not a useful source here. --Aquillion (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aquillion: - No, I have not 'done a search' for "cultural Marxism". "Cultural Marxism", for me, means Adorno, Frankfurt School, Habermas, etc., and has done for the last 25+ years. This is what I was taught. Tewdar (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, let it be noted that I tried to remain on topic, and was dragged kicking and screaming to discuss this here. Tewdar (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

In order for a topic to be noteable, and hence deserving of its own article, we would need a definition in a reliable source. I assume he means an analysis of capitalist culture by the Frankfurt School and related groups. To the conspiracy theorists, it means a method by which the international Communist movement undermines Western civilization by promoting whatever U.S. conservatives happen to oppose, such as abortion. Thanks for the link, I was able to download the book. TFD (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what he means by the term. It's a good book. Tewdar (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, we already have several "cultural Marxism" articles... Tewdar (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Not really, the page for Critical Theory relates to the other topics, The Frankfurt School was a group of academics with a historical presence and biographies, and western marxism is a wider umbrella term. What you've said is essentially like saying we already have a page on neo-conservatism, because there's a page on The Bush Administration, and a page on Irving Kristol, and there's a page on conservatism its self as well. They are similar, relate and overlap, but they are not the same things. Not the same pages. Maybe we could reduce Wikipedia down to a single page about knowledge? :) --07:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.170.79 (talk)

Minnicinno 1992, which is described as the first article to outline the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory does not use the term. Lind 2000, which is the second text, uses the term cultural Marxism, but does not identify it with the Frankfurt School or mention that they ever used the term. To Lind, cultural Marxism dated back to WWI and he refers to the updated Frankfurt School plot ass "Critical Theory." It was only later that the conspiracy theorists found that Schroyer 1973 had used the expression.

The reasonable conclusion is that Minnicinno copied and updated the Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory, while Lind gave it the name "Cultural Marxism." Later writers found that the expression had been used in writings about Critical Theory. They then refocused the conspiracy theory on the Frankfurt School and other critical theorists.

TFD (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Interesting. So what we actually seem to have is this:

  (1) Kulturbolschewismus 'Cultural Bolshevism', Nazi propaganda term

  (2) 'Cultural Marxism', found in a BUF journal as early as 1938, quite probably a calque on the Nazi slogan

  (3) 'cultural Marxism', a (lesser used) scholarly (and often also pejorative) term used to describe the actual work of Lukács, the Frankfurt "school", Thompson, etc. in various permutations, probably originating from Schroyer 1973

  (4) 'Cultural Marxism', as used (but not originally named this) by conspiracy theorists Minnicinno, Lind et al., apparently originally based on the Nazi conspiracy theory, but later taking advantage of previous academic usage of 'cultural Marxism' to refer to the Frankfurt school, et al, and integrating this with the conspiracy theory

  (5) Various other fringe uses of "cultural Marxism", eg. Gilbert 1967, "someone talking about Marxism to sound hip"

  Tewdar (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's any sources for point 3). Have never seen a source use it pejoratively with the lower case 'cultural'. Never mind, I see your reference to Marxism, the Doctrine of Decay by Francis Mcevoy --124.170.170.79 (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Cultural Bolshevism cites primary examples of Dada and Bauhaus which I don't recall appearing in anything pertaining to cultural Marxism. Going to a primary source turned out to be helpful in this case. The Minnicino text that's given as the origin of the conspiracy theory titles the first section, "The Frankfurt School: Bolshevik Intelligentsia". The word "Bolshevism" appears several times, although the exact phrase "cultural Bolshevism" does not, nor does "cultural Marxism" for that matter, I'm no longer skeptical that the phrases are connected. I am still skeptical this means that Minnicino was cribbing from Mein Kampf to describe Lukács as a Bolshevik instead of Lukács' own writing on Bolshevism.

Meanwhile, everybody who says cultural Marxism or Bolshevism means at least Lukács and the Frankfurt school. All this finger wagging about "what if it's just two words next to each other" is totally unconvincing. Normal reading comprehension is WP:NOTOR.

If the load-bearing argument is that "cultural Marxism" is not a common term in the literature, not common is being conflated with not valid as a form of special pleading. If Lind had latched on to the phrase "cultural Bolshevism" or kept a small c in "cultural Marxism" or used a phrase like "Western Marxism", "Marxism applied to culture", "a cultural turn in Marxism", etc and so on, that would have changed absolutely nothing about where the conspiracy theory comports with facts and where it doesn't.

Sennalen (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you think where the conspiracy theory comports with facts and where it doesn't is somehow relevant here, but it isn't. This was previously discussed rather thoroughly with Swood100 in this "extended content" section. Determining "how much of the conspiracy theory is true", or is in accord with actual scholarship, just isn't especially helpful in making editorial decisions on this article. Newimpartial (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Minnicino dates what he calls the "conpiracy" to before the Frankfurt School. The "New Age", which was a 20 year period following the 1890s, replaced Western culture with ugliness. Dada and Bauhaus were both founded in this era, so would be included. Obviously he's not going to go into detail about art movements of the 1920s, but he expresses the same views on them as Hitler: They were part of a plot by the Bolsheviks to undermine Western civilization.

OR incidentally is allowed on talk pages, just not in articles. In this case, it's OR to say that the conspiracy theorists were writing about cultural Marxism as understood by the Frankfurt and related schools. We have no evidence they had even heard of that use of the term before they chose to use it.

So it seems that Minnicino and Lind saw the conspiracy as having originated circa 1900. Minnicino sees the failure of Communist revolutions in Western Europe to cause the Kremlin to appoint Georg Lukacs to head the plot. But later writers leave out the prehistory and instead say that the Frankfurt School launched the plot, which they only brought to America after WWII.

TFD (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The plot is much more interesting with the art criticism; I am with Henri Lefebvre on that one. Newimpartial (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Is "Swood100" some sort of code for "you will be topic banned for talking about this"? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

No; that editor's page ban has long since expired, though apparently they have found something more interesting to do with their time. Newimpartial (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The Gilbert 1967 example, while not "two words next to each other", really does differ in meaning from the other examples. Tewdar (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

By cultural Marxism, Gilbert was referring to the involvement of the CPUSA in literature. First, these artists had no connection with the Frankfurt School. Second, the people in this case are artists, while the Frankfurt School people were critics. Third, the type of literature Gilbert's cultural Marxists produced was overtly left-wing. John Dos Passos' opus, U.S.A., which was originally published in the USSR, shows the exploitation of the working class in America. The conspiracy theorists OTOH see pornography and sitcoms as the vehicle through which the cultural Marxists undermine America.

So this indeed is an example of someone putting two words together. And AFAIK, no other writer had yet to put these two words together in reference to the Frankfurt School et al.

TFD (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree Gilbert is not talking about cultural Marxism in the same sense as everyone else. I believe some people have tried to extend the "two words together" theory to Trent Schroyer and John Brenkman, and that doesn't hold water. Sennalen (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Even if eg Schroyer's cultural Marxism and eg Fuchs's cultural Marxism were not the same thing, I think that this article needs to clearly explain that, look, this term has a legit (though perhaps less common than other terms) scholarly usage, generally referring to Marxist analysis of 'Western' culture, in order to clearly distinguish it from the conspiracy theory. Now, anyone who Googles 'cultural Marxism' is informed, without nuance or qualification that this is a conspiracy theory, and nothing more. There is quite a lot of potential for confusion here. Tewdar (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Except for the handy one-way disambiguation link, that might be the case.

Also, I think the line is to be drawn between Schroyer's actual "two words together" usage and those citing him, 5-10 years later, who interpreted his work differently. But that is off-topic for this article. Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Google searches now provide users with Wikipedia disambiguation links? Good to know. Tewdar (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Except I get Marxist cultural analysis, Cultural Bolshevism, and Western Marxism as links too from Google. What can this mean? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You are talking about improving this article for people who Google the term and don't click on the link to this article? Those are not the target market for "maybe they're looking up the work of actual Marxist intellectuals", IMO. Know your audience... Newimpartial (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Aaaaaanyway... I disagree that the article itself does enough to make it clear that cultural Marxism might mean something else, despite the disambiguation link. I have no interest in your often bizarre tangential and oft-times provocative "repartee" this evening. Tewdar (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

There is almost no chance that someone will come across the conjoined words "cultural Marxism" and google search it. First, there are very few reliable soures that use the term even in the literature about the subject. Second, the place where the vast majority of people will hear the expression is from conspiracy theorists. This then is the article they want. If they want to know who these supposed conspiracists were, they can follow the article's links. TFD (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Having trouble finding "Marxism, the Doctrine of Decay by Francis Mcevoy" - it's not on google books or book finder:

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Marxism%2C+the+Doctrine+of+Decay+by+Francis+Mcevoy

https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=Francis+Mcevoy&title=&lang=en&isbn=&submitBtn=Search&new_used=*&destination=au&currency=AUD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr

Anyone have any links to the source Tewdar is claiming? --124.170.170.79 (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It is probably from an article in the BUF periodical Action, rather than a book. TFD (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

There are rather more than "very few" sources that use the term "cultural Marxism" in a scholarly context. The source you're looking for, cited by Feldman in his book Fascism: Fascism and Culture is "Marxism, the Doctrine of Decay" by Francis McEvoy. Indeed it is from a BUF quarterly, July-September 1938 I think. Tewdar (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Uh huh, and then later in history the Conspiracy Theory "Cultural Marxism" became popular, starting within "silent majority" conservatism of the late 90s, and it was really mainstreamed (out of white supremacist circles) sometime between 2014 and today. So what are you trying to prove here? That more legitimate usages tend to be older and more obscure? Is that why we're looking at 1938 propaganda and going "Yep, it WAS used back then"... We have two pages BECAUSE of what you're talking about, not in spite of it. What change are you trying to make here anyways? Trying to inform editors of what they already know? --124.170.170.79 (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

My very mundane contribution here, is that the term "Cultural Marxism", in English, actually dates from 1938 at the latest, and in all likelihood is ​derived from the Nazi term, and this usage is much older than any academic usage relating to the Frankfurt School I can find. As far as I can tell, nobody had actually pointed out the actual source Feldman uses before. You seem to be making some sort of fun game out of wilfully misinterpreting what I am saying. You asked what the source was. I told you. What's the problem? Tewdar (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I suppose the problem now is working that into the text if that's your aim. But you're right, it's nice information to have. Sometimes editors to this page are an unknown quantity, and it has to be determined whether they're a WP:FRINGE supporter of the conspiracy theory. Conspiracy Theory pages just come under attack now and then. Hazard of editing on this topic sometimes. I hope you've not taken any offence. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I've taken a great deal of offence. Particularly as your interpretation of my motives is pretty much the exact opposite of reality. But I'm sure I'll get over it. Tewdar (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Non-English language sources that may inform this debate:

[1]

Yet, especially in the United States, this expression is also used wisely and well-founded. In this context, it is a school of thought inspired by the work of Karl Marx who bases his critique of society not only on an analysis of inequalities caused by the economic system, but also on the alienation that this system produces in culture in the broadest sense of the word: arts, publicity, political life, institutions, etc. This formulation of "cultural Marxism" springs from the bosom of the American left in the 1970s, let us know the Australian philosopher Russell Blackford. According to him, the university-trained anti-neoliberalist activist Trent Schroyer was the first to use this term.

In his book The Origins and Development of Critical Theory (1973) he analyzes the crisis in American society, drawing on concepts developed by the Frankfurt School.

[2]

The exact formula of “cultural Marxism” was born in the 1970s, within the American left, as shown by the Australian philosopher Russell Blackford. For him, the academic and anti-neoliberalism activist Trent Schroyer is the first to use it. In his book Critique of Domination: Origins and Development of Critical Theory (Payot, 1980, original publication in English in 1973), he analyzes the crisis of American society based on the conceptual tools developed by the school of Frankfurt. Born in Germany in the 1920s, this current of thought profoundly renewed Marxism by carrying out a radical critique of bourgeois society and its social, cultural and political manifestations. Trent Shroyer, who is one of their disciples, welcomes the rise of the black and women's liberation movements.' 87.208.148.99 (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Content of Template:Redirect on top of the article.

@Newimpartial:

1. Would you mind indicating, where was the long term concensus being said to exists being made?
2. The description of "Marxist cultural analysis" in the article now is ""cultural Marxism" in the context of cultural studies", while my version is "Marxist analysis and criticism against modern culture and cultural industry", and I find my version much more closely match the target article's short description, which state the article represent "Anti-capitalist cultural critique" and the article's introduction of "Marxist cultural analysis is a form of cultural analysis and anti-capitalist cultural critique, which assumes the theory of cultural hegemony and from this specifically targets those aspects of culture which are profit driven and mass-produced under capitalism.". The original description also doesn't make sense that the wording of "in the context of cultural studies" implied it's studying Marxism culture while in fact it is not, and the subject of the target article is to talk about Marxism analysis of culture.

Thanks for your attention. C933103 (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, there. The relevant policy here is WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, the DAB text having been referred to in passing by multiple editors in the course over discussions during a couple of years since it was added. If the text were controversial, it would have been discussed before now - so (going into this discussion) it has consensus.

As far as the merits are concerned, the point of "in the context of cultural studies" is that it specifies the domain within which the term "cultural Marxism" is occasionally used as a synonym (by a minority of scholars) to denote "Marxist cultural analysis". Your impression that the DAB refers somehow to Marxism culture doesn't seem to me to reflect the plain English meaning of the notice. On the other hand, your proposed phrase, against modern culture and cultural industry isn't good English (it is pretty good Soviet English, but that isn't a recognized WP:ENGVAR). More importantly, it foregrounds a conflict ("against") that is characteristic only of some Marxist cultural analysis and that, in my view, concedes too much to the tropes of the conspiracy theory (which sees all Marxist cultural analysis - and feminism and liberalism besides - as a project to undermine modern/"Western" culture). Newimpartial (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

1. quick search indicated that other than this description it have only been brought up twice in the past, with one of such mention by an IP user incorrectly used it to justify "Cultural Marxism" being a neologism, which have been rejected by the current version of the article lead, but no one responded to the message at the time, and another mention only used this line as an introduction to their further points about POV issues, and didn't explore on whether the line itself is POV or not or whether it have any other issue. And the description was also not "a couple of years since it was added" as revision in late 2020 didn't have such text so it is at most 1 year or so old.
2. My edit was also not based on the ground of whether the pre-existing version is controversial or not, but that I see the current version failed to properly convey the content of the linked article, and thus tried to come up with a better summary.
3. I have considered using other words than "criticism against", but then the article Marxist cultural analysis directly say it is a form of "cultural critique", so I have forgone other candidates and picked this word.
4. Do you have any source to prove that the use of "Cultural Marxism" to represent Marxism's critical view against capitalistic cultural industry is something used only in the field of cultural studies, as you claim the current explanation imply? That is not in line with my personal understanding in my conversation with Marxists.
5. Edit: What does "(it is pretty good Soviet English, but that isn't a recognized WP:ENGVAR)" mean? Since Soviet is one of the main Marxist country, and WP:ENGVAR mentioned "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation.", I don't think using Soviet term to describe Marxist cultural analysis which have strong ties with the country, is something not being recognized by the guideline. The guideline didn't mention only English variants of modern countries are accepted. Although using too much their terms might violate Wikipedia:Jargon. C933103 (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

To start at the end, Marxist cultural analysis emerges from Western Marxism, and has essentially nothing to do with Soviet Marxism or the former Soviet Union. What I meant by (it is pretty good Soviet English, but that isn't a recognized WP:ENGVAR) is that "Marxist analysis and criticism against modern culture and cultural industry" might be good English for Natasha in Rocky and Bullwinkle, but isn't appropriate for an English-language encyclopaedia. We don't write articles in a "variety of English" that doesn't reflect a significant population actively speaking and writing in English, which is also directly relevant to the article in question. "Soviet English" doesn't meet either criterion. Newimpartial (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I am not aware of the American reference. C933103 (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, I am not going to respond to your whole WP:WALLOFTEXT, but the answers to the questions raised in your points 2. and 4. are to be found in the sources of the Marxist cultural analysis article. As to point 3., there are nuances in the use of the terms "criticism" and "critique" in English, terms that are not necessarily synonyms. In particular, "cultural critique" cannot be replaced by your phrase "criticism of culture and cultural industry" without a significant loss of meaning (quite apart from the hilarious accent it implies). Newimpartial (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Then I will simply take the lead of the article as new summary of it. C933103 (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

No; I believe that the context of use of the term is more helpful for the reader than the definition from the other article. Please stop edit-warring, observe WP:BRD, and allow at least one other editor to weigh in before you continue. Newimpartial (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a redirect reminder. What readers need to and want to know is whether they might have entered the wrong article, and information on which article is the proper one they should read. Thus I believe definition is more useful. I also question the characterization of my edits as edit warring as my edits are being made in accordance to the progressing result of this discussion, hence also follow the BPD cycle. I find it more counterconstructive to revert all edits despite attempts of improvement. C933103 (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

So far, you have removed the stable (since 2020) text of the redirect three times, I believe. That is two reverts - it doesn't matter that you have inserted two versions of your replacement text, if you remove the stable text again that will be another revert. That's what edit-warring is, and the BRD cycle means that the issue should be discussed and consensus reached here on Talk before you revert again. Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

At most you can count reverting to a previous version as an exception to the revert rule, according to the rule page, I cannot read it in a way that would make it mean improving an article in ways according to discussion flow is something that can be considered edit war. C933103 (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

"Do you have any source to prove that the use of "Cultural Marxism" to represent Marxism's critical view against capitalistic cultural industry is something used only in the field of cultural studies" wouldn't that require proving a negative? "I also question the characterization of my edits as edit warring as my edits are being made in accordance to the progressing result of this discussion" No they're not. You're clearly edit warring. Please stop all edit warring and respect the current consensus, rather than trying to claim a consensus of one. --14.203.170.37 (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I mean, because I don't believe the use of term in places like [3] can be characterized as cultural studies, hence I see the current description as cannot lead people looking for the term in this context to locate what they want to find. C933103 (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Your link is an English Language article from an Indian website, described as "a weekly peer-reviewed academic journal covering all social sciences"... and yet you're complaining that we're using and defining the term as having come from... the social sciences. So your link confirms the term is used in cultural studies, and the social sciences. Which is how the Marxist Cultural Analysis page categorizes the term. Wikipedia is currently behaving in a way that is consistent to the facts. The article briefly mentions E.P Thompson... our Marxist Cultural Analysis article also mentions E.P Thompson. Your evidence supports what we're already doing. I do not see your complaint as valid. People want to find out what cultural Marxism means, they can search Wikipedia for the term. See the header, and find the correct information. I'm open to the idea of having a disambiguation page, which makes the distinction more obvious... but I don't think there's anything wrong with either article (Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, or Marxist Cultural Analysis). I understand that the header is small, a disambiguation page would make the difference more noticeable. Maybe that would be a solution? --14.203.170.37 (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken.... Cultural studies is just a very small subset of social science. If I wasn't clear enough, I am not having any problem with the content of either articles. What I am trying to address is how the header of this article describe the other article, which might not seems conclusive or clear enough to people want to read about content in that article. I am not advocating any major changes to content of either involved pages nor disambiguation pages. C933103 (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Would "Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For "cultural Marxism" in the context of Sociology, see Marxist cultural analysis." meet your requirements? --14.203.170.37 (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of what the OP feels, "Sociology" seems a good deal less relevant than "Cultural studies". If we have to add anything, I would propose "social theory and cultural studies", which has at least the small merit of being inclusive but not over-inclusive. Newimpartial (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

You know, it's a tough call, because The Frankfurt School (as I understand it) was made up of Sociologists, but their theories went into the development of Cultural Studies, which I suppose is why places like the offered link EPW.in (Economic and Political Weekly) are described as "covering all social sciences"... Which does seem to be the largest umbrella. I don't really think it matters personally. So I'm happy with your version. Well see if a consensus is formed. --14.203.170.37 (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I think Newimpartial's proposed version is indeed better. C933103 (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

While I am not strongly wedded to the change, I have modified the DAB as discussed. Newimpartial (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)