Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 22

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Is this confirmation that DeSantis is using "Cultural Marxism" in reference to a conspiracy theory?

The Washington Post, independent.co.uk, and Yahoo News have all recently published the below quote given by Ron DeSantis [1], [2], [3].

"Look, we know what woke is, it's a form of cultural Marxism. It's about putting merit and achievement behind identity politics, and it's basically a war on the truth. And as that has infected institutions, it has corrupted institutions."

The original source is from NBC reporter Dasha Burns, who published (via Twitter) a video of the interaction with her in which the quote was given. [4]

I'm just wondering whether other editors believe this constitutes confirmation that DeSantis is using the term "Cultural Marxism" to refer to a conspiracy theory behind identity politics which aims to destroy western institutions/civilization? Due to the WP:BLP nature of suggestion such, it's important to be careful here. 220.235.255.87 (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Did he say anything about a conspiracy, or Jews? I don't think so. He explained what he means and he didn't say anything like what this biast article claims cultural marxism is. Zephyrae (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, the article is pretty clear that CM sometimes doesn't have anything to do with anti-semitic conspiracies, the bias is the way the redirect for Cultural Marxism weirdly sends you here, implying that the main use (primary topic) of the term has something to do with antisemitic conspiracy theories. It would be great if it didn't do that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is the primary use of the term, you will almost never see it used in other contexts outside of specific academic discourses. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Using a loose definition of "conspiracy", maybe? It's used quite a bit to talk about lefty id politics and the attendant critique of Liberalism. (By this I mean like "equal treatment under the law often isn't, so let's stop shooting for that"; DeSantis is getting at that with the thing about "merit", I think: it hearkens back to the old debates about affirmative action.) Now, like "critical race theory", "woke", "pro life", and "pro choice", it's also used as political rhetoric to color one's and one's opponent's side: here, Marx is (take my word for it for the sake of this discussion) on the out, so tying in your opponents to Marx is a cheap rhetorical trick to make them look bad, get it? I like Trump's take on phrases and words like this: it's ~meaningless now, so don't use the term. But "conspiracy" implies some kind of secret group effort. When you use the term (and the article?) are we just talking about the suggestion that people are working toward advancing this philosophy? DeSantis is just talking about his political and philosophical opponents. They don't operate in secret. There are plenty of notable Jews, just like any other group, on both sides of this debate. All out in the open. Kinda makes the redirect look silly. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

You need to establish that his comments are significant to the topic. Do articles about the conspiracy theory typically report his comments? Compare with an article about DeSantis that said he ordered pizza for his staff. Would that belong in the main Wikipedia article about pizza? TFD (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is, but that doesn't mean that including it is WP:DUE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Look at the background section; I think we can assume DeSantis was referring to that (i.e. "'Cultural Marxism' is sometimes treated as synonymous with the 'Critical Theory' that originated in the Frankfurt School; the name 'Critical Theory' was coined as a euphemism for Marxism.") I don't think there's usually any hint of a "conspiracy", nothing secret about it – it's an activist philosophy that's pretty out in the open. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

"it's an activist philosophy that's pretty out in the open" are you sure about that? Do you have some sources you would suggest? Because this conflicts heavily with the ones we currently have. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

conflicts heavily with the ones we currently have – Not really. Look at Lynn's article, for example: the "conspiracy" part of it comes from Trump-orbit people talking about it as if the people promoting this particular activist philosophy were a vast conspiracy. They like to talk about conspiracies that are out to get them – it's a rhetorical strategy (another Trump classic is the "deep state" conspiracy that he blames all his failures and headaches on.) So if they have an opponent, they talk about it as if it is a conspiracy. The term was used to talk about idpol long before that. Now, what if trump had used the term "Civil servants" instead of "deep state", and for a bit made some noise about "Civil servants" conspiring against him? Would we redirect Civil service to some article about the Civil service conspiracy theory? No, but that's pretty much what we're doing here! I'd argue these facts are pretty clear, and clear from the sources in the article even: a) "cultural marxism" is used by opponents of lefty idpol to talk about it (in a possibly sloppy way: Marx wasn't saying these things!) b) it's used by anti-semites for their agenda to blame all our problems on Jews (I guess this is supposedly a conspiracy?) and c) Trump used it to try to lump his enemies together as if they were a well-coordinated monolith. I think (paywall, though) a lot of the sources you're talking about are analyzing (c) – a lot of the article's sources around the 2018–2019 time frame were interested in Trump for obvious reasons. But most people who use the term (like DeSantis here) are just trying to take a jab at "lefty illiberal idpol". (I need a concise non-pejorative term for that? If there is one Rufo will steal it, though. Tough problem.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The implication is that the Dems are (secretly) following Marxist ideology which in itself is a conspiracy theory. In reality, Dems have always tried to create a coalition by appealing to minorities (it's called client politics), they are more likely to follow the interests of big business over the religious right and liberals are in general more tolerant than the Right, at least when it comes to people with immutable differences.

My only objections to mentioning DeSantis' comments are that they lack significance to the topic and we don't have secondary sources commenting on what he said. That could change if has any success in his campaign. TFD (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I never said that, of course; many Democrats reject this philosophy, and are some of its most eloquent detractors. I can't figure out what this little "trash on righties" rant has to do with whether this term implies conspiratorial thinking. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The "trash on righties" rant is merely an observation that liberals are more tolerant of minorities with immutable characteristics, such as ethnicity and sexuality, than the right. Hence liberals are more likely to be involved in civil rights movements or to support anti-discrimination legislation.

I would go beyond saying that many Dems reject Marxism to say that the vast majority are not Marxists or even socialists of any variety. Certainly no prominent Democrats call themselves Marxist. Hence the belief that there is a cabal of Marxists within the party is a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

rant is merely an observation But why make that observation here? It is irrelevant. Certainly no prominent Democrats call themselves Marxist. Hence the belief that there is a cabal of Marxists within the party is a conspiracy theory. – This also misses the point, in 2 ways: (1) "cultural Marxism" isn't Marxist. (It's like Grape Nuts?) Saying that a lot on the US left promote "cultural Marxism" (which is manifestly true given the definition I am arguing for) is not remotely the same as saying there's a cabal of Marxists. (2) "cabal" implies secrecy, and these ideas are certainly being promoted in the open. Yes: some (particularly Trump-related) try to promote a narrative of a secret super-organized enemy, but the term is used way beyond that particular aspect. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think that Cultural Marxism isn't Marxism? Why do you think they call it that if they aren't referring to Marxism? And name one Dem politician who self-identifies as a cultural Marxist. TFD (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Our sources, for example; Lynn says Marx himself took little or no interest in even the ideological precursors of those movements that exercise many contemporary conservatives—multiculturalism, feminism, identity politics—and would have discounted many of these concerns as “superstructural” diversions from the realities of class struggle. I don't think very many people self-identify as a "cultural marxist"? Why do you ask? As I explained here it is usually used as a political marketing term to smear someone holding the philosophy. See: Marx is bad, so "cultural marxist" must be bad... ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 03:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question why is it called cultural Marxism. It's because some of his followers decided to switch from class warfare to race warfare, according to your source. Having failed to destroy our civilization and replace it with communist dictatorship under the first method, they turned to the second.

That Joe Biden and co. are part of this conspiracy or that it even exists is fantasy, hence it is called a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

And you feel that it is just a coincidence that the Frankfurt School, which is blamed for this both by the conspiracy theorists and yourself, is primarily composed of individuals of Jewish descent? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

you feel that it is just a coincidence I have absolutely no idea what this question means. The question appears to suggest you don't even know what "coincidence" means – like, I'm that confused by it ;) . Horkheimer & Adorno (Frankfurt and not Jewish, which makes your question especially weird), IIUC, coined the term "critical theory", which is basically what people usually mean by "cultural Marxism", or at least ~adjacent to it. But of course some ideas predate that and many other people of all kinds of backgrounds over many decades have worked in the field, and many of those would be quite critical of a lot of what Horkheimer wrote. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno are both of Jewish descent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you feel like this observation is important to anything here? Can you spell that out for us? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

You felt that it was important enough to bring up. You have yet to describe how blaming this on the Frankfurt School is not simply a subtle way of blaming this on the Jews (this is of course what the available WP:RS say). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

You felt that it was important enough to bring up. – I did? I think it's you that is bringing it up? You have yet to describe how blaming this on the Frankfurt School is not simply a subtle way of blaming this on the Jews – why would I bother doing that? It clearly isn't necessary for or relevant to my argument about the redirect (which is my only agenda here in this thread). Also, I have no interest in arguing or working with anyone who thinks opposition to someone's argument or philosophy implies that one is blaming <something> on their entire ethnic or religious group. I hope we can all agree that is disgusting. FWIW I did note above that many Jews as well as non-Jews both support and oppose these ideas (the article even talks about this, which makes the lede ... odd, but not completely implausible). (I mean, of course that's true, your questions are just weird here. If you have a point that is somehow relevant to the article please spell it out.) this is of course what the available WP:RS say – I'm guessing you mean: available RS say that someone using the term "cultural marxism" almost always means to be implying this blaming thing. If so: I've explained above why that doesn't seem to be the case, maybe reply there. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

You appear to have neglected to link any sources in your explanation of your opinion above. What you don't seem to understand is that the political marketing term is invoking the conspiracy theory, they are one and the same. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

fair complaint; see below. What you don't seem to understand is that the political marketing term is invoking the conspiracy theory, they are one and the same. I wonder if that's ever useful in discussions: someone says, "hey I think you're wrong about X, actually Y, because Z" – you retort: "what you don't understand is actually X is true." Do you really feel like that moves things along? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It appears to have moved things along well, unless I'm mistaken you now accept that X is in fact true and what you were referring to as separate stream of discourse is just a dogwhistle referencing the conspiracy theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

X, to be clear, is the assertion "the anti-semitic conspiracy theory is the PT for the term 'cultural marxism'", i.e. that the redirect from Cultural Marxism is appropriate. What have I said that looks like I have backtracked on saying X isn't true? Where have I hinted that I agree that the other, mainstream, use of the term is a "dogwhistle"? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Below you seem to agree that "Cultural Marxism" is an "anti-Semitic dogwhistle" am I misunderstanding? The source you presented says is a dogwhistle... So what is it a dogwhistle for if not the anti-semitic conspiracy theory? Note that an anti-Semitic dogwhistle doesn't become non-anti-Semitic just because someone using the dogwhistle doesn't know what its a reference to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

No, that's really not what my sentence there says (you mean the 04:33, 14 June 2023 comment, I assume) And anyway I was summarizing the point of the article as part of a discussion about a different point; I don't agree with everything in that source! Especially not the ridiculous idea that you can't critique communism without being anti-semitic :) Note that an anti-Semitic dogwhistle doesn't become non-anti-Semitic just because someone using the dogwhistle doesn't know what its a reference to. I also think this line of reasoning is quite bogus, but rest assured I am aware that source is making that argument. (There are many reasons why this article is total garbage, but my opinion about that is not really germane to anything here except don't assume I agree with everything in it please.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The author you quoted is not saying that you can't critique communism without being anti-semitic, thats a straw man you've constructed. When you invoked the Frankfurt School above you were invoking the anti-semitic conspiracy theory, you were making the dogwhistle even if you couldn't;t hear it. So we're left with two options: either all of our sources are wrong and the random editor is right or the sources are right and the random editor is pushing an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. So which is it random editor? Are all the sources wrong or are you pushing an anti-semitic conspiracy theory? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I invoked it in response to your question. You seem angry here about something; I'll disengage with this subthread. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@ErikHaugen: I'm not angry, I"m just confused about why an admin is promoting the anti-semitic conspiracy theory that the Frankfurt School is out to destroy western civilization. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused why any editor would keep insisting someone else is "promoting" something they never said, something that is instead the opposite of what the person said. This is a really bizarre subthread; it's like you're so eager to catch me saying something nasty. Why is that so important to you? Maybe stop? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I wonder whether there are any reliable sources on "Cultural Marxism" that use the term to refer to lefty idpol (or anything that can be treated as equivalent to that, without resorting to original research). If such sources exist, they certainly have not been presented on this Talk page.

The reason that "Cultural Marxism" redirects here, and that this page describes an (antisemitic) conspiracy theory, is that this represents the consensus of the highest qualtiy sources available on the topic. The idea that woke moralists are using the cultural industry and centres of knowledge production to subvert traditional values and put down Trump and Trumpism, and that there is a common project connecting the Marxism of the last century to the various "isms" that Erik refers to as lefty idpol - and therefore that "Cultural Marxism" is appropriate shorthand for this supposed political/cultural project - well, I'm just not aware of any independent, reliable sources of any quality that present "reality" in this way.

Without reliable sources, the interpretations editors may have of contemporary political phenomena are really not relevant to article content - or redirects, for that matter. Newimpartial (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if that's quite how I'd describe it, but fair point overall. And to be clear: I agree this article has a fine name for the topic it is about, which is clearly a real thing. (Although some material in the article is not talking about usage in the conspiratorial or anti-semitic sense, of course, so doesn't belong here.) I'm only complaining about the redirects from Cultural Marxism etc; if nothing else that causes confusion since most people using the term aren't talking about something secretive nor something that Jews especially are driving for nefarious purposes.

A lot of sources we see about this term are part of a common trend (on all sides, I think) in political discourse to lump people together, taking this form: "the problematic fringe says X, you say X also, therefore you are like these problematic wingnuts." We see this with the term globalist, we saw this with some Republican candidate trying to liken AOC to the Khmer Rouge, etc, etc. Meanings are clouded.

So: it's tricky. There are tons of sources by people who use the term in the way I describe explaining what they mean. But I suspect people will retort that these aren't 3rd party, yes? Examples: Jewish Journal (talks about Kendi etc: obviously no conspiracy here, you can buy Kendi's book), American Spectator (basically also complaining about this redirect specifically), Jordan Peterson (talking about the idea that it's a secret is "preposterous", people write the ideas openly). Let's stipulate for now I can find a bajillion more items like this.

The sources in the article here are somewhat mixed, e.g. Berlatsky says Peterson isn't an ideological anti-Semite; there's every reason to believe that when he re-broadcasts fascist propaganda, he doesn't even hear the dog-whistles he's emitting. – this actually makes my point. The rest of the article I think doesn't really even make much of a case that the term is explicitly anti-semitic or conspiratorial other than linking to SPLC – and in this quote we can see that even Berlatsky understands Peterson's meaning quite well! The argument is instead that Peterson's analogy to Marxism is a bad tactic, because see this other guy who is a Holocaust denier used the same phrase, and other anti-Semites use similar ant-communist rhetoric therefore anti-communist rhetoric is an anti-Semitic dogwhistle. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

And note: article says In the late 2010s, Canadian clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson popularized "Cultural Marxism" as a term, moving it into mainstream discourse. – so here we have the article's own reliable source saying the person who popularized the mainstream use of the term didn't mean it as an anti-semitic thing.

Another source from the article: The Conversation is saying Peterson mainstreamed the term, and he's wrong, but not because there's a conspiracy or anything about anti-Semitism, just that he's wrong that the ideas are so prevalent. (This source supports me, again.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Look at the background section; I think we can assume DeSantis was referring to that, I agree. I don't think there's usually any hint of a "conspiracy", nothing secret about it – it's an activist philosophy that's pretty out in the open. here, I disagree. There is in fact no "active philosophy" going by the name "Cultural Marxism" and indeed, The Frankfurt School themselves never used the term, nor have any of the other commonly accused groups. There is also no single, unified or defined philosophy in play. The closest Wikipedia has concluded to it being a single unified theory is what's on the Marxist cultural analysis page, where it's clearly a type/subject of analysis, rather than unified philosophy or plan. The claim that "Cultural Marxism is real" without actually having any evidence for that claim, is part of why it's considered a conspiracy theory. No one just gets to make things up.

Now, what if trump had used the term "Civil servants" instead of "deep state" ... Would we redirect Civil service to some article about the Civil service conspiracy theory? if the circumstances matched those around the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory - yes, for instance, that the term "Civil service" was being used to refer to a conspiracy theory before Trump used it, that it was a major conspiracy theory that was more prominent as a conspiracy theory than any other usage from people who actually study the Civil service, and that most usages make false claims about the activities of the Civil service. These and more are just some of the reasons why cultural Marxism redirects here.

many Democrats reject this philosophy, and are some of its most eloquent detractors - agreed, just like how many proponents of Identity Politics make no references to the theories of The Frankfurt School, whom by all accounts, are at the center of the conspiracy theory.

It clearly isn't necessary for or relevant to my argument about the redirect (which is my only agenda here in this thread). - the redirect is not the topic of discussion. If that's your agenda here, you should start your own topic for it.

Although some material in the article is not talking about usage in the conspiratorial or anti-semitic sense, of course, so doesn't belong here. Do you care to point them out?

This source supports me, again. - the article, and the source, are in fact both incorrect. Jordan Peterson, doesn't actually use the term often, and has never brought it up of his own accord. It's impossible to find any video of him actually saying the term "Cultural Marxism". Take the source you've given there The Conversation, if you click its link, it's citing Jacobin who are citing, this link to a fan account in which the uploader has used the term "Cultural Marxism" in the title for the upload, however, does Jordan Peterson actually use the term in the video uploaded? No. So apparently he's responsible for mainstreaming a term he's never used. I don't know why that claim is on the page, and I have pointed it out before.

As this Wikipedia page is for a WP:FRINGE topic, we have to go a little further in exploring sources in order to verify their content, meaning, reliability, appropriateness, and notability, before using them on this page.

A lot of your goal here seems to be to justify that the accusation of cultural Marxism has been leveled at Identity Politics, citing highly conservative sources, such as Jewish Journal, or The American Spectator. But I believe the article already says that the accusation is commonly leveled at Identity Politics and Progressive politics in general. Perhaps to address your point more directly; that some people use "Cultural Marxism" to refer to Identity Politics, doesn't negate or mean it's not been used to refer to an antisemetic conspiracy theory before. It doesn't suddenly become NOT antisemetic simply by way of some users of the term avoiding that aspect of it. This topic was actually covered a couple of months ago here on the talk page, and again here. You're not the first to attempt this argument, however, the others at least started their own section before grinding their axes. To reiterate, this section was created to discuss Ron DeSantis' recent usage, not whether the term is antisemitic, or legitimate. 220.244.177.74 (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

There is in fact no "active philosophy" going by the name "Cultural Marxism" – yet again: as the article says, nobody self-identifies the term, the term as usually used is basically a smear to describe the sort of lefty liberal-critical idpol that a degree of popularity today, or something vaguely in that neighborhood. Another ~smear for roughly the same thing is SJW.
A bit of what you're saying here is that the "conspiracy theory" in this article is simply the attempt to tie those ideas, falsely, to Marx. I don't read the article or the sources that way, but agree with you that it is a sloppy and useless label for those ideas, for that very reason. However, if that was the "conspiracy", that's kind of silly to focus on that: we would just clarify that these ideas aren't really Marxist (we do have some nice sources that make that point) and move on. I suggest instead the conspiracy that the article and sources are talking about is instead something materially different, basically International Jewish conspiracy or maybe a subset of it.
the redirect is not the topic of discussion. If that's your agenda here, you should start your own topic for it. – I asserted the redirect was problematic as a parenthetical in my note about DeSantis (it's relevant to that point!), and was challenged on that. I've just been responding. Should I start an RFC or something? Doesn't look like I'm going to get past "consensus" here, does it.
Do you care to point them out? – e.g. the stuff about Peterson, for one. But if we're convinced by sources that using the term with no anti-semitic intent is absolutely an anti-semitic thing to do, then an argument for removing this material won't carry the day now will it.
A lot of your goal here seems to be to justify that the accusation of cultural Marxism has been leveled at Identity Politics No, not remotely. Instead, it's the things I said.
that some people use "Cultural Marxism" to refer to Identity Politics, doesn't negate or mean it's not been used to refer to an antisemetic conspiracy theory before – agreed, as I said very clearly in the group of comments you're replying directly to. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that anyone wishing to raise the question, "is the 'Cultural Marxism' trope necessarily antisemitic?", ought to search through the archives of this Talk page. To summarize those discussions, what the RS on the topic seem to say is that, while not everyone invoking "Cultural Marxism" is necessarily motivated by antisemitism, the trope still functions in the same way as other antisemitic tropes (that is, they objectively invoke antisemitism even when they are used by people who may not share antisemitic motives).

There has also been considerable discussion here about "whether or not Cultural Marxism is 'really' a conspiracy". Some editors have objected to the term "conspiracy theory" on the grounds that (1) the conspriacy theorists are describing something real, or (2) that since conspiracy theorists like Peterson are describing something they claim is happening in plain sight, it isn't really a conspiracy theory even if there isn't really a movement to undermine Western values/culture. Erik seems to be making the second of these arguments, though I also see certain elememts of the first.

However, the reliable sources on this article's topic typically do use the term "conspiracy theory", and universally agree that the popularizers of the term "Cultural Marxism" are assembing unrelated phenomena into a kind of bogeyman. The piece from The Conversation cited above, for example, distinguishes phenomena that Peterson et al. string together into some sort of straw man ideological punching bag. Since Wikipedia articles need to follow the sources, I haven't seen anything presented yet that would give a policy-based reason for consensus to change about how this topic is treated in article space. Newimpartial (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Just popping in to say that I agree with Newimpartial here. If you want to change how this article presents this conspiracy theory, you're going to need to provide high quality sources saying so. Loki (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

some discussion of sources just above. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This discussion largely duplicates what can be read in the archives. The sources you presented are fringe and cannot be used in the article.

I notice your first source (Larry Greenfield) begins by saying that Marxists have "substitut[ed] race for class as the basis for political revolution." He later embellishes by saying they are calling for race war. But that's all a fabrication.

He also says that one of the founders of Black Lives Matter was a "trained Marxist." But he doesn't explain how that relates to cultural Marxism.

Greenfield is basically rehashing the conspiracy theory that the Marxists are trying to undermine Western civilization by using minorities to attack traditional institutions and customs.

The reality is that African Americans and many whites became upset after the murder of George Floyd. While some of the leaders of the protests may have been Marxists and the Dems responded with support, that doesn't mean they have common motives or are working together.

TFD (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

"Marxists and the Dems responded with support, that doesn't mean they have common motives or are working together" Co-belligerence? "cooperation against a common enemy with or without a formal treaty of military alliance." Dimadick (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

TFD there is a communist «Black Lives Matter» organization. The US «conservatives» often mix it with the Black Lives Matter political movement. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation doesn't say anything about them being a communist organization. 220.235.142.99 (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence currently say that the organization is «far-left» and «anti-capitalist» which i shortened in «communist». If this was a mistake then i have no issue/problem apologizing. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you aware that there are far-left anti-capitalist theories besides communism? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Anarchism, The Black Block, Anarcho Syndicalism, some areas of Primitivism and Anarcho Primitivism, some areas of Libertarianism, some areas of progressivism.... and that's just off the top of my head, there's a bunch of far-left anti-capitalist theories besides communism. Even lots of socialist and Marxist thought doesn't expressly advocate for communism, but remains far-left and anti-capitalist.

Anti-capitalism doesn't automatically equal communist. That's a very coarse and poorly informed idea, which lacks a lot of nuance. 220.235.142.99 (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Acording to https://web.archive.org/web/20150724223101/http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14319 2 founders of Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation are «trained Marxists» (whatever this means). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in the text of that link says anything about it being a communist organization, and the video was "unavailable". I believe TheRealNews.com is an "independent" news source, sometimes seen as "alternative media".

According to WP:NEWSORG "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact." - so I don't believe you can call the whole organization communist just because that's how one low level news site described them that way in a video. You'd have to corroborate the claim with a more reliable source as per WP:RS and WP:NEWSORG. 220.235.142.99 (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, "Marxist" and "Communist" are not interchangeable. 220.235.142.99 (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll rephrase my comments. Communists, and others on the Left, have played leading roles in civil rights and progressive campaigns. The Right frequently claim that all these campaigns must therefore be part of an international conspiracy. They also place mainstream politicians who provide any support to them as conspirators.

For example, in the 1950s, some Civil Rights leaders were Communists. The John Birch Society then claimed that the reason African Americans wanted equal rights was that they were being duped by the International Communist Conspiracy. Eisenhower, who ordered troops to enable integration in Little Rock, must be a Communist agent, intent on destroying American society and capitalism.

In fact, there were no connections between Eisenhower and the Communists or any ideological similarity. Nor was the Left the cause of the Civil Rights movement. Jordan Peterson et al. have merely updated the narrative to take account of current issues, such as trans rights. TFD (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes this narrative was already present earlier, for example «Race mixing is communism». Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence currently say that the organization is far-left and anti-capitalist which i shortened in communist. If this was a mistake then i have no issue/problem apologizing.

Yes, that was a mistake, what you're describing would be WP:Original Research unless you have a source which explicitly states that the organization is explicitly communist. 220.235.142.99 (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

«what you're describing would be WP:Original Research» if i were writing this in an article (of the encyclopedic namespace of Wikipedia), which i do not. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, TFD, I pretty much agree with everything you just said (except maybe e.g. describing what Greenfield is talking about as a "conspiracy"), but still think my points remain :) Well anyway my effort to fix this redirect isn't going anywhere for now, let's talk about something else. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

When people work together secretly to achieve a common objective, it is a conspiracy. It's considered a conspiracy theory because it is false. There is no evidence that Marxists support civil rights in capitalist countries because they think it will undermine capitalism. Liberals in fact believe that the expansion of civil rights is pro-captialist. Do you think: the Marxists and liberals are secretly conspiring? TFD (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Did Greenfield say something about anyone being secret or sneaky about it? pardon if I missed it, that's entirely possible. (I mean, it was possible for writers to argue that liberal ideals had outlived their usefulness without being secret about arguing that, of course, so Greenfield's argument that someone is saying that is not necessarily any statement about any kind of conspiracy.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Have you ever heard Joe Biden call himself a cultural Marxist or cite Marxist literature as the basis of policy decisions? Of course not, which means he must be keeping it secret. Compare this with actual Marxists who ran the Soviet Union. TFD (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how the conclusion that he is keeping something a secret follows from anything that anyone said? Does Greenfield talk about Biden? He's trying to point out how e.g. Kendi's anti-racism, CRT, BLM, etc have similarities to Marxism: anti-capitalist sentiment, collectivism, some BLM-adjacent people even claim the label, etc. Then a weird segue into antisemitism. I don't know, it might be garbage analysis – as we discussed and have sources for, Marx probably would object to calling that stuff Marxist – but I think saying "hey this stuff you're promoting is like marxism so it is bad" doesn't seem to imply anything conspiratorial? I think it's just rhetoric; we see a lot of this kind of political rhetoric, of course, like calling Republicans fascists. Do they use the label? No, so it's a secret? I don't know, I don't think that's the implication there, it's just criticizing your opponent by lumping them together with something that has a "bad reputation". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, all that to say: if someone isn't explicitly arguing for a secret/conspiracy/cabal, let's not appoint ourselves mind-readers without RS backing us up. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

People can also implicitly argue for something, but Greenfield makes the connection explicitly: "This Marxist anti-racism phenomenon has rapidly infiltrated our public institutions—government agencies, public school systems, teacher training programs and corporate human resources departments."

Furthermore, after saying anti-Semitism is an "important tenet[] of many radical leftists," he writes, "Key elements of the liberal establishment are now leveraging historical antisemitism on the left."

In case we had any doubt, Greenfield ends by saying, there is a Marxist revolution to destroy the U.S. waged by "tech-titans, corporate leaders, media voices, professors and teachers, radical politicians and racial provocateurs."

Whether or not Marx would have supported them is irrelevant. Christ might not have supported the views of his modern followers, but we still call them Christians. TFD (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Right, a wide variety of activists try to influence institutions like education and corporations. I don't see anything in your quotes here about it being secret, right? This is what activists of any flavor usually try to do, nothing particularly "conspiratorial" about it. "deconstruction", as we can see from context, is about "American liberal traditions" etc earlier in the article. Whether or not Marx would have supported them is irrelevant. – uh, I was answering your earlier question about Biden calling himself a marxist, hopefully that clarifies? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

What's secret is that they - and the people in charge of education, corporations and government - are Marxists intent on overthrowing the American way of life through these changes. TFD (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

2023-06 Jordan Peterson

«Jordan Peterson, doesn't actually use the term often, and has never brought it up of his own accord.» => This is also what i found:

«Take the source you've given there The Conversation, if you click its link, it's citing Jacobin who are citing, this link to a fan account in which the uploader has used the term "Cultural Marxism" in the title for the upload, however, does Jordan Peterson actually use the term in the video uploaded? No.» => Indeed.

«So apparently he's responsible for mainstreaming a term he's never used. I don't know why that claim is on the page, and I have pointed it out before.» => The english-language is not my mother tongue, so maybe i do not fully grasp the meaning of «term» in english, but i suggest to remove «as a term» from the sentence «In the late 2010s, Canadian clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson popularized "Cultural Marxism" as a term, moving it into mainstream discourse.» which is currently in the Wikipedia article. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a great example of an issue where we need to follow the independent, secondary RS. What do they say about it? Newimpartial (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the ABC source there sums things up nicely with respect to Peterson.

He rarely/never uses the term "Cultural Marxism". I think he usually uses the term "postmodernism" instead (IIUC incorrectly? not relevant here) to refer to <lefty idpol/CRT/CT/etc>. (Many use "Cultural Marxism" for this idea, as the ABC article clarifies. but bear in mind that is not what this WP article is about.)
In the ABC article he's not even quoted using the phrase at all.
He probably very occasionally uses the term "CM": Like in a response to a question that uses it or something (but not in any conspiratorial or anti-semitic way, see the Berlatsky source that triggered this – again, though "cultural marxism" here means something different than what this WP article is describing.)
Conspiracies: ABC quotes him explaining the idea that "proper marxism failed so let's try this other idpol thing", which I guess is being called a "conspiracy" in this talk page? (really??) But ABC doesn't describe it as one, it just says it's incorrect. It certainly isn't the anti-semitic conspiracy one would normally think of; CM is used to describe that by others, possibly. (ABC doesn't say anything about antisemitism.)

So I think 220.244.177.74 might have a point: it's kind of weird that this article makes him look like some kind of main instigator in an article about this phrase. But, an article about pushback against lefty idpol/CT would I think have to feature him prominently, he's undeniably a significant force there. (Do we have such an article? I suspect many stumble on this one in search of it.) So I think it depends on what this article is meant to be about. Per the last section on this talk page, I think the article is quite confused about that, maybe this is an opportunity to nail that down. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The only ABC piece I see in that list is an WP:RSOPINION source, so we aren't allowed to use it as a reference for statements of fact, I'm afraid.

On the other hand, we do have higher-quality sources that discuss Peterson's seemingly interchangeable use of "Cultural Marxism" and "postmodern neo-Marxism". Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we use the article, sorry that was unclear. interchangeable use – yeah that was kind of my point: he'd mean the same thing by those terms; I'm just noting he hardly ever uses the phrase "Cultural Marxism". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean liberal idpol or maybe just idpol in general? The pushback against identity politics primarily comes from the lefties, note that in contemporary US politics both major political parties have embraced identity politics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I referred several times to left-idpol, that's what I was talking about when I said "lefty idpol" – is that what you're asking me? (I hesitate to call it "liberal idpol", since using "liberal" has these two different meanings: lefty idpol is arguably liberal in that sense and illiberal in that sense? Whatever.) If it matters wrt. Peterson, he has spoken at length against all flavors of idpol, of course. (The article calling him "alt-right" is another related problem here.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure that "idpol" isn't a reliably sourced or NPOV term for anything at all. It might be easier to carry on this Talk page discussion of we use the same terms found in high-quality, reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Beg pardon, I know it's a bad label for it; all the other labels I know of are worse, either hijacked by political marketers or even more POV for other reasons. I tried to ask earlier on this page for a better term? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

If you can't come up with a descriptive term for something outside of the conspiratorial or the spin doctored perhaps its because it doesn't actually exist? For example there is no academic term for the Gay Agenda because it doesn't actually exist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

That is not a great example for your point, if there is one: gay agenda explains this nicely, describing it as a pejorative term for the subject of the article LGBT movements: advocacy for "equal rights for LGBT people" etc. I mean, sure: some elements probably associated with the term "gay agenda" are basically pure fantasy, like "recruitment" or whatever, but point remains: it's pretty common to make up pejorative names for real things, to the point where the most well-known labels are quite baggage-laden. Activist movements are especially susceptible to this, I think. It's tough, but I think we can handle this state of affairs. something outside of the conspiratorial – I don't think "idpol" suggests anything conspiratorial? Maybe "Critical Theory" is a good name that adherents use? It seems at least a smidge imprecise, though. This WP article says 'Cultural Marxism' is sometimes treated as synonymous with the 'Critical Theory'. See Critical legal studies or critical race theory (please note this line and similar, which get at my characterization of it being "illiberal": "the liberal notion of U.S. law as "neutral" plays a significant role in maintaining a racially unjust social order") – those kinds of things are adjacent to what I'm talking about, which is sort of the activism/political side of those subjects. (The articles talk about the associated activism.) But even these terms take on a lot of baggage because of political rhetoric, so I was reluctant to use them. (e.g. as Kendi argues here "CRT" is popularized by detractors as a part of a sort of straw-man attack on it). Also "CT" or "CRT" is IIUC more properly about the scholarly works, and not the activism?

Anyway though what is the point of these questions in this context? Is the suggestion that Peterson's targets don't even exist? Even if that's true, what does it have to do with the question about whether the article should present him as popularizing this term that he rarely uses? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Calling it "lefty" rather than "liberal" idpol is confusing when you are referring to the policies of mainstream Democrats as opposed to socialists or communists, who reject identity politics as liberal. Even if you accept the premise that liberals and communists have the same ideology and are conspiring together for the same objectives, you need to distinguish between them in the discussion. (Incidentally, the correct terms are left, leftist or left-wing, rather than lefty, which is pejorative and colloquial and likely to offend any editors to the left of Attila the Hun.) TFD (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I explained just above why I'm not using "liberal"; what you write here doesn't seem to address that. And earlier I think we all agreed these isn't "mainstream Democrats"; do you remember that? Did anyone here in this new section say it was? I missed it if so. "leftist idpol" still seems pejorative, but ok if it can put this subthread to rest. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

. . . Newimpartial i forgot to search in academic articles, my bad. From Mirrlees 2018 «The most high- profile anti-cultural Marxist in Canada is Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist at the University of Toronto who has not published peer-reviewed research on Marxism. Peterson became an alt-right idol when publicly challenging Bill C-16, a change to the Canadian Human Rights Act that aims to prohibit discrimination based on gender expression (Cumming 2016). Appearing in videos such as “Identity Politics & the Marxist Lie ofWhite Privilege” (Peterson 2018) and “Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism” (Peterson 2017), Peterson has tapped into the alt-right’s discourse of cultural Marxism and cashed in on the anxiety and anger of a large and growing alt-right fan base (Southey 2017). Peterson is not a fascist and he often says he hates Nazis, but Peterson’s deployment of “cultural Marxism” as a term of opprobrium when ranting against “political correctness” and “social justice” in Canada appeals to reactionaries worldwide. Every usage of “cultural Marxism” is not essentially fascist, but this phrase is used by contemporary fascists as an ideological weapon. When Peterson berates “cultural Marxism,” he may be helping the alt-right bring its conspiracy theory of hate into the mainstream (Berlatsky 2018).» This higher-quality source is already used to source the sentence i am talking about. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The reference to Berlatsky there is the source we were discussing when IP wrote your opening quote. FWIW that Berlatsky source links to this pre-Peterson splc article talking about the term catching on, being popularized by different people who aren't Peterson, like Pat Buchanan. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the current argument (despite the abundance of text) has gone "The sources claiming Jordan Peterson mainstreamed the use of Cultural Marxism don't check out"... "Oh, we're using secondary sources for that information because sources from Peterson himself are too close to the subject matter". So basically my understanding at this point is we're reporting secondary source's interpretations of what terms Peterson has used, even though we know those sources don't check out. Doing so to avoid WP:OR. However, I believe the correct policy to apply in this particular situation would be Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. 220.235.142.99 (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

One doesn't have to use a term frequently in order to popularize it. In this case therefore we should accept what rs say.

In 2016, Peterson reposted on Facebook the Daily Caller article "Cultural Marxism Is Destroying America." Considering that he today has 2.4 million Facebook followers (and probably a similar number in 2016), that alone could have popularized the term. TFD (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair point, he doesn't necessarily have to use the term himself to be popularizing the term. Spreading and agreeing with, media and links, that use the term would also count as popularizing it. 220.235.142.99 (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)