Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Globohomo

The article implies this word is a combination of homophobia and anti-globalization. But then in the same paragraph implies it is a combination of globalization and homogenization (which I had thought it was). Should the paragraph be written so it is more clear? Captchacatcher (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The first source cited in the section does suggest to me that "globohomo" is a homophobic theory, as well as antisemitic. Newimpartial (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought it meant "global homosexuality" with similar connotations to "international Jewry" but it is perfectly possible that different dingbats are using it in different ways. DanielRigal (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph is need of clarification. I am also of the understanding of "globohomo" as referring to unified "globalization" and "homogenization." I have never before heard of it used as referring to "globalization" + "homophobia," "homosexuality," or homophobic beliefs.

In present form, the section does favor the "homophobic/homosexual" version as the primary use and suggests that the "homogenization" use is secondary. "Globalization" + "homogenization" in tandem is a common point of discussion in scholarship in cultural anthropology, international studies, foreign affairs, regional studies, international development, etc. The pairing of "Globalization" and "homosexuality/homophobia" is definitely fringe in comparison.

-

Barnet, Richard and John Cavanaugh. 2001. "Homogenization of Global Culture," in The Case Against the Global Economy. Routledge Press.

Hassi, Abderrahman and Giovanna Storti. 2012. "Globalization and Culture: The Three H Scenarios," in Globalization - Approaches to Diversity. IntechOpen Press.

O'Hara, Sabine U and Adelheid Biesecker. 2003. "Globalization: Homogenization or Newfound Diversity?" Review of Social Economy 61 (3), p. 281-294.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20120522-one-world-order

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_homogenization#:~:text=Cultural%20homogenization%20is%20an%20aspect,David%20E.

Many more sources available. Amlans (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

What do these sources have to do with "globohomo", the trope of the conspiracy theory? Are they cited by conspiracy theorists? Newimpartial (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not following the relevance of your questions.

This discussion is about the issue of the "globohomo" section explaining the "globohomo" concept as primarily referencing "globalization" and "homosexual"/"homophobic" and secondarily referencing "globalization" and "homogenization" when the opposite is true. These sources support that.

"Globaliztion" + "homogenization" is standard. "Globalization" + "homosexual" or "homophobic" or "homophobia" is fringe. Amlans (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

To answer youe question, this article is about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, which uses the "globohomo" concept specifically. Uses of globalization + homogenization that don't use "globohomo" or aren't by Cultural Marxism conspiracy theorists aren't relevant here.

In other words, this article is about the fringe usage. Newimpartial (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

And that's totally fine! I'm not arguing against that. That's not what this discussion is about. Amlans (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The policy-relevant topic of this discussion is supposed to be, what do adherents of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory mean when they refer to "globohomo"? As far as I can tell, the unequivocal answer from reliable sources is, "a homophobic conspiracy theory/alt-right meme about globalization". Amlans has not produced any reliable sources suggesting that these figures mean anything else when they invoke the "globohomo" trope, so unless they can offer RS to the contrary, I don't see the point in further "substantive discussion" of this issue. Newimpartial (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

A central concern of this discussion is still not being addressed.

I fully agree that the core function of the paragraph should be explanation of conspiratorial use of globohomo. I am not trying to suggest otherwise. The point that myself, and I think OP, are trying to make is that this section needs to take more care in its attempt to connect+differentiate conspiratorial "globohomo" from legitimate, non-conspiratorial conversations on globalization/homogenization.

In other words, the section's present wording is unclear in such a way that it seemingly lumps any conversation on the subject of globalization/neoliberalism/homogenization/uniculture in with conspiratorial use of globohomo. Which is wrong because legitimate, non-conspiratorial conversations on globalization/neoliberalism/homogenization/uniculture have long been in existence before, and totally separate from, the 4chan globohomo concept.

Does that make sense? Amlans (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why Amlans thinks legitimate, non-conspiratorial conversations on globalization are a relevant topic for this article. I would observe the following:

• the current article text by no means denies that such discourse exists;
• "legitimate" discussion of cultural homogenization doesn't use the 4chan meme "globohomo"; and
• alt-right conspiracy theorists are invoking the meme, not the "legitimate" discourse.

Based on these three observations, I don't think the article paragraph needs to do anything different from what it is currently doing. If we have good RS that differentiate explicitly between "globohomo" and "legitimate" cultural homogenization discourse, then great, but I would point out that the opening paragraph of this section seemed determined to confound the two (and possibly bury the homophobic meme), which is contrary to the purpose of the article text. Newimpartial (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Globohomo is a 4chan "manosphere" idea that men are being feminized and turned gay. It's a combination of Globalism and the Gay agenda, designed to sound humorous and witty. It involves homogenization, but I don't think that's what the term means, the people who came up with the portmanteau just aren't that sophisticated, they're not academics, they're random young people on 4chan and 8chan 1, 2, 3. They've included "homo" because they know it's a slur, and think that's clever.

The concept comes from the "Manosphere" who are concerned with their testosterone levels, and the perceived "feminization" of men. The term is on par with "soy boys" and "cucks".... it's anti-feminist, anti-LGBT terminology, not well considered critique. It's nothing that advanced. Some (perhaps polite minded) people have later decided it must mean "Global Homogenization" but they simply haven't been exposed to it in context, as used in the wild. The Gay Rights website GLAAD discusses this here 4 claiming the origin of that conception is the popular blog "We Hunted The Mammoth" - but their site is currently down, so their research can't be viewed. Others have decided it's an art style that already existed under the name Corporate Memphis, which whilst it fits in with the homogenization idea, was already quite dated when the term came along, and already had a name.

In its broadest sense, "globohomo" is considered a Jewish plot, to make White American Men into gays and transgender people, as a way to diminutize American power. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Please see my above responses. The combined discussion of globalization and homogenization has a long, legitimate, well-documented history in many realms of scholarship. It is the dominant/mainstream combination.

4chan conversations on globalization and homosexuality are new and fringe. Amlans (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

"The combined discussion of globalization and homogenization has a long, legitimate, well-documented history in many realms of scholarship" No academic in that discourse uses the term "Globohomo". What you're saying makes as much sense as adding racial slurs to the page on homosexuality and pretending they're legitimate "because gay people already existed". We're discussing a term here, not a concept. If you want to discuss the concept of Globalization, the place to do that would be on the Globalization page. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a huge leap and not at all equivalent to the case I am making.

I'm suggesting that the decades on decades on decades of conversation on globalization and homogenization by well-regarded scholars, evidenced in the smallest form by the examples I provided, legitimizes the assertion that globohomo primarily refers to globalization and homogenization, as acknowledged in public platforms (see below) - regardless of whether or not the scholars themselves shorthanded it that way - and secondarily to the 2016 emergence of 4chan users saying globohomo and referring to homosexuality.

It's a conversation on mainstream versus fringe.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/globohomo

https://digitalcultures.net/slang/internet-culture/globohomo/#google_vignette

https://gnet-research.org/2023/09/22/from-british-imperialism-to-globohomo-analysing-the-irish-far-rights-engagement-with-irish-nationalism-on-telegram/

https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/paleoconservatives-and-american-identity Amlans (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Globohomo is a 4chan "manosphere" idea that men are being feminized and turned gay. Globohomo is also a long-standing, reputable academic debate on cultural homogenization by way of ever-increasing globalization.

It is both. Amlans (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Globohomo is also a long-standing, reputable academic debate on cultural homogenization by way of ever-increasing globalization. - no it's not. The sources you're citing are only about the right wing usage. None of them are academic discussions of globalization and homogenization, that use the term "globohomo" because it's not a term used that way by academics.

If academics don't use the term in their discussions of globalization and homogenization - then globohomo is a term limited to the fringe. So the page should describe it as such, rather than dragging academics by claiming they'd use such a stupid term in their "debate on cultural homogenization". They don't, so we're not about to describe them as doing so without any sources showing they do so (sources that aren't focused on investigating alt-right politics, and their terms).

So unless you have multiple longstanding sources where academics are discussing globalization and the homogenization of cultures using the term "globohomo" then we're not going to describe them as doing so. To do so would be WP:Original Research, and not permitted. The page is about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory - not all and any academic discussion that may come up everywhere. That's why we have a page for globalization - and it's not the page for Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. So we're not writing an article on globalization. Is that clearer? 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

No...the sources I am citing are not, as you state, only about right wing usage. Please do your due diligence and review the sources I provided again. Amlans (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

As per the current Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page we're on the talk page of; the conspiracy theory was created from and by Paleoconservatives. Some of the editors of Crisis Magazine for instance are believers in the conspiracy theory (eg. Paul Kengor) - so this is not a legitimate source. It's a non-academic source, edited by some adherents of the conspiracy theory. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay but you're once again glossing over the mere fact that there are two ways that globohomo is used. Homosexual and the homoginzation. Once again, that is all that I, and OP, are trying to express.

I am not trying to defend paleoconservativism or Crisis Magazine or Paul Kengor. All I am trying to show is that, once again, globohomo can refer to both homogenization and homosexual. That's it. Nothing more. Amlans (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I have a very strong impression that the most prominent purpose of using a word like Globohomo on this Wikipedia article is indeed to reduce Cultural Marxism to a conspiracy theory à la 4chan. If, however, an article about cultural Marxism needs to include that kind of trickery to 'prove' that cultural Marxism can be pushed aside as a conspiracy theory (which then obviously cannot be criticized for its underlying serious ideology as an extension upon Marxist theory) then I think we have clear evidence that Wikipedia should indeed not always be trusted as an at least objectivity-loving source. Notice I said "not always be trusted". I find most Wikipedia articles highly trustworthy, but this one looks like a clear exception to this observation. Bernard.Libbrecht (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The reason this article refers to "Cultural Marxism" proponents as promoting a conspiracy theory is that this represents the consensus of the reliable sources on the topic. The only form of objectivity available on wikipedia is to reflect the consensus of reliable sources.

There are many articles on wikipedia that discuss underlying serious ideology as an extension upon Marxist theory - just not "Cultural Marxism", because according to RS "Cultural Marxism" isn't such an extension. Instead, RS describe "Cultural Marxism" as an antisemitic trope and kudgel of culture wars in the USA. Newimpartial (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Not true ! The sources are recent ! Other left wing sources PREDATE the recent conspiracy theory. These use "Cultural Marxism" not as a conspiracy theory at all! and they were widespread in academia and in publication BEFORE the year 2000! Isaw (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I maybe agree with you about the state of the article, but maybe part of the problem is your approach here. "globohomo" is, I think undeniably, legitimately a part of the conspiratorial argument made by the conspiracists that promote the subject of this article. You seem to be making the argument that there's a thing called "cultural Marxism" that is not any kind of conspiracy. I agree. But that isn't the subject of this article – so: what do you want to see changed exactly? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The "We Hunted The Mammoth" article can be found archived here, and correctly states:

And so “globohomo” has come to mean something like “the global homosexual/Jewish conspiracy to degenerate our culture up real good with drag queens and anal sex and possibly Ben Shapiro.”

As well as pointing out that the term originated in the Pick Up Artist and Manosphere community. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding me and appear to be ignoring the point that I am trying to make.

I do not deny that "globohomo" is used to refer to a "globo homosexual" conspiracy. I see that and acknowledge that is true.

It is also true that "globohomo" refers to globalization homogenization which is a well-documented, long-standing, legitimate conversation/point of study point in academic disciplines with no connection to the above "globo homosexual" conspiracy.

As OP pointed out, this article presently posits the "homosexual" play on the words as the primary use/point of origin while OP understands the opposite to be true.

I am saying that based upon the longstanding history of legitimate globalization homogenization conversation, contrasted with the very recent emergence of this "homosexual" iteration that you point out, I believe it is more logical to assert that "homogenization" is mainstream and "homosexual" is fringe, and I therefore agree with OP's suggestions to edit. Amlans (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

"legitimate globalization homogenization conversation" no academic discussion of globalization uses the phrase "globohomo" as a term. If you have evidence showing otherwise, you should include it. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I provided you with four sources that very clearly use globohomo in the context of "global homogenization" (one of the sources you yourself attempted to use to suggest the phrase only refers to homosexuality while the source very clearly states otherwise...).

Use of the term, or not, by an academic is not the end-all-be-all standard of judgment here. And very clearly so as the standard use you are arguing for is one with origins on 4chan.

Again, please refer to:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/globohomo

https://digitalcultures.net/slang/internet-culture/globohomo/#google_vignette

https://gnet-research.org/2023/09/22/from-british-imperialism-to-globohomo-analysing-the-irish-far-rights-engagement-with-irish-nationalism-on-telegram/

https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/paleoconservatives-and-american-identity

Amlans (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

None of those sources are what was requested, which was multiple longstanding sources where academics are discussing globalization and the homogenization of cultures using the term "globohomo" and sources that aren't focused on investigating alt-right politics, and their terms. All the sources you listed are non-academic sources, which only discuss "globohomo" in the context of alt-right politics. None of them are discussions of globalization in general which use the term "globohomo". Because legitimate discussions of globalization that are from reliable sources DON'T USE the phrase "globohomo"... showing sources that are just people talking about the alt-right doesn't qualify as "legitimate discussions of globalization" from "reliable sources". 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

But "multiple longstanding sources where academics are discussing globalization and the homogenization of cultures using the term 'globohomo' and sources that aren't focused on investigating alt-right politics, and their terms" are not the standard by which whether or not globohomo is judged refer to globaliziation. That is an arbitrary standard that you are attempting to enforce here.

And I'm not sure why you keep coming back to "sources that are just people talking about the alt-right" as an issue...

In the context of this discussion, all that is needed to be shown is that globohomo is sometimes used to refer to globalization/homogenization. Not just 4chan globo/homosexual. And all four of the sources I provided do exactly that. Amlans (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no long standing history of the term "globohomo" being used in relation to legitimate discussions of globalization. None of your sources are longstanding. See WP:NOTDICT and WP:DICTIONARIES. I'm not even a strong believer that the term "globohomo" has much of anything to do with the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" and feel the page is WP:coatracking by including it here. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

And none of the sources using "globohomo" to refer to homosexuality are longstanding either! And that's fine!

It's a concept...that supposedly originated on 4chan...in the year 2016...like... Amlans (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems weird that we introduce the paragraph with the "A combination of homophobia..." – I feel like that suggests that that is the origin of the phrase, and I don't think we know that it is, and homogeneity is probably/maybe the original word there. The rest of the paragraph seems to clarify the main intent, but this opening seems wrong. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I find it weird that we're trying to jam random bits of 4chans lingo into the page as if they're meaningful or noteworthy, when they're not. 101.115.142.29 (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The current section on this is based on how the term is treated in long-form, peer-reviewed sources that discuss the term in relation to the "Cultural Marxism" trope. If anyone would like to see the topic treated differently, cite something other than personal interpetations of primary sources, please. Newimpartial (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The term Globohomo only appeared on Google Trends in 2018. It's an alt-right term people try to pass off as more than that. To quote the first line of WP:NEOLOGISM "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." - that appears to be all that's going on here. References to the term in the article should be removed. 2405:6E00:22EC:D9AE:2965:CCD0:883F:4655 (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This isn't an article on the neologism, though: it's an article on a conspiracy theory, and the article explains one of its tropes. There's nothing wrong with that. Newimpartial (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't really think it's a trope intrinsic to the conspiracy theory. It's more of an adjacent after thought. 101.115.132.15 (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether the trope is intrinsic to the conspiracy theory or not. Its relevance to the CT has to do with its origin and rhetorical logic, both of which belong to the CT. Newimpartial (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I accept this, but I think the language should match the academic sources better, describing it as a similar offshoot, rather than a necessary part of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. 101.115.132.15 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The present article text uses "variant", which reads to me much more like your proposed offshoot than it does to the necessary part that you recommend avoiding. I believe the article is already following the sources in this respect. Newimpartial (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The term also appears to be used to describe the "Memphis Corporate" 2D art style, which is based on the design work of the Memphis Group. You might have seen it, it's usually blue people with strange limbs made up of basic shapes. Image searching "Memphis Corporate" will show you the style.

However, 4chan refers to the style as Globohomo, and there's now a subreddit for it. Will this eventually also need to be mentioned? Are we going to WP:Coatrack the article with every non-notable 4chan term there is? 101.115.142.29 (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The current section on this is based on how the term is treated in long-form, peer-reviewed sources. If anyone would like to see the topic treated differently, please cite something other than personal interpretations of primary sources. Newimpartial (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

This isnt a personal interpretation of primary sources! It is a source from 1986 PREDATING the idea that the Term Cultural Marxism was a right wing conspiracy theory!

The Sociology of Sporta: Structural Marxist and Cultural Marxist Approaches

It discribes itself as " A Marxian theory of sport ". I dontr care whether or not you agree with it the point is it is a left wing academic's use of and reference to Cultural Marxism in 1986 PREDATING the conspiracy theory and this left wing academic is NOT using the term Culturalk Marxism as a right wing conspiracy! Isaw (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

That source appears to be discussing Marxist cultural analysis in relation to "Critical Criminology" and the profit driven aspects of sports culture, rather than anything to do with the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. It uses the lower case upper case form cultural Marxism - which generally indicates it's referencing Marxist cultural analysis as a broad abstract concept or area of thought, rather than any specific ideology or movement. Accordingly the source doesn't mention The Frankfurt School or Birmingham School.

This is the talk page for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, not the more general idea of Marxist cultural analysis. Given the book doesn't reference a specific movement or any attempt to take over academia, it has no place as a source on this page.

It mostly uses the lower case upper case form "cultural Marxism" (so it's not referencing a set concept/movement). No page on Wikipedia claims that the word "cultural" never appears next to the word "marxism"... so it's not some major revelation to find sources where two words are next to each other. There are other examples of this too.

Yes, Marxist academics have written about their ideas on culture. No that doesn't indicate that there's a unified or well defined meaning when they appear this way (even in titles). Just because there's a conspiracy theory that when this happens "it's a unified movement to take over society" doesn't make it so, and so finding an example of the two words next to each other doesn't suddenly confer relevance or meaning beyond what Wikipedia has already described (which in this case fits into "the profit driven aspects of culture" as per the Marxist cultural analysis page). Wikipedia is not a dictionary of all possible two word combos, there has to be a unified, well defined, notable, and widely agreed upon concept behind the words, in order for something to have a dedicated Wikipedia page. 101.115.144.72 (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy theory! It is an extension of the economic Theory of Marxism into social and Cultural domains! This has been know since after WWII and was widely published as "Cultural Marxism" by the 1990s

in works such as Dworkin, Dennis. Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies. 1 ed., Durham: Duke University Press, 1997.

Supported by academics such as Eric Hobsbawm, Christopher Hill, Rodney Hilton, Sheila Rowbotham, Catherine Hall, and E. P. Thompson , Perry Anderson, Barbara Taylor, Raymond Williams, Dick Hebdige, and Stuart Hall. NOT right wing academics!

and ironically from 1986 no less in the journal Sociological Perspectives

The Sociology of Sporta: Structural Marxist and Cultural Marxist Approaches

T. R. Young at thjat time referred to as " Professor of Sociology at Colorado State University and Director of The Red Feather Institute. His interests are in the knowledge process and the structural distortions of that process. This interest is located in a larger work in cultural Marxism: Alienation, mystification, false consciousness, and their effects on resistance and rebellion. He teaches social problems, mass society and mass sports, and Marxian social theory at CSU." Isaw (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Please read the archives of this Talk page. Up to now, consensus holds that none of the right-wing commentators and culture warriors are making reference to actual scholarship by Marxists about culture when they talk about a political project called "Cultural Marxism". The most likely reason for this consensus is the lack of reliable sources connecting the CT/culture war trope to actual Marxist cultural analysis. The two topics are not notably connected one to the other. Without sources to the contrary, I don't think there is any reason to reopen this discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Where is the Wikipedia Page on "Cultural Marxism" is you insist it is a DIFFERENT topic? It redirects to THIS PAGE on a Conspiracy theory! Isaw (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The topic that a small minority of sources call "Cultural Marxism" is addressed at Western Marxism, and Frankfurt School, and Marxist humanism, and Critical Theory, and Marxist cultural analysis. There is a disambiguation notice pointing to the last of these articles at the top of this (conspiracy theory) article. Newimpartial (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

To quote page 3 of Dworkin's Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain; "My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline" - it's about BRITISH cultural Marxism, rather than any broader movement, and doesn't contain any definitions that fall outside of what Wikipedia has already said about these topics.

This is a product of the 1980's change in understanding of critiques of Capitalism. In earlier eras all critiques of Capitalism were considered Marxist. Later, critiques of Capitalism came to be accepted as just part of what is appropriate Criticism. Ergo you have a so called "British Marxist" such as Richard Hoggart who is later revealed to have not particularly liked Marxism ("Hoggart’s political viewpoints were not outwardly expressed until much later in life, and make clear his aversion to Marxism" [1]) - yet he's still counted as a "British cultural Marxist" to early accounts such as Dworkin's.

Neo-marxism is not orthodox Marxism, Sociology is not Marxism, Critical studies are not necessarily Marxism. Most of the people in "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain" were critics of Capitalist culture, and the majority aren't seeking Marxist ends, or an orthodox Marxist system. 101.115.144.72 (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

To clarify this further, Sociology is not Marxism because it had 5 founders (early contributors), only one of which was Karl Marx's sociology. Likewise, the "Critical" studies, (eg. Critical Legal Studies, Critical Criminology, Critical Race Theory, Critical Pedagogy) - aren't Marxist, as they were all founded by a mix of academic strands and writers, liberals, progressives, niche academics, and yes, probably one or two who were influenced by Marx. If you want to understand this further, look into "the crits" who were the founders of Critical Legal Studies. They were all privileged academics, and the main founding texts they wrote focus on the history and development of law, and studying that development with a sociological understanding of modern ethical standards. So one area they were critiquing was how the law was bent to allow slavery and the legal subjugation of African Americans... which is worthy of Criticism. Hence Critical Legal Studies.

The point is, being Critical of something like the law being co-opted by racism to allow slavery, is not the same thing as being a Marxist, or having a desire to install a Marxist economic system... and just because American conspiracy theorists are willing to make that WP:OR assumption, doesn't mean Wikipedia is. 101.115.144.72 (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a good documentary on "The Crits" here. 101.115.144.72 (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

2024-09 new source

A reddit user kindly mentionned the article by

• Andrew Woods, The American Roots of a Right-Wing Conspiracy, Commune magazine, 2020, https://communemag.com/the-american-roots-of-a-right-wing-conspiracy/

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