[chjj]

Antonio Gramsci asserted that the reason Marx's predictions of late-stage capitalism never came to fruition was due to cultural institutions propping up capitalism. He states very clearly that the (new) objective of marxism should be to establish a counter-hegemony within the existing cultural hegemony, thereby subverting it.

This is all present in Gramsci's prison notebooks[1] and is common knowledge to anyone who has ever studied marxist intellectual literature at any length. I find it ridiculous that wikipedia would claim this is a "conspiracy theory". Marxists speak about this _very_ candidly in their writings.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_Notebooks

[cmeacham98]

This still does not provide any proof for the claim. Of course Marxists want to promote their ideology, even culturally. Nobody denies this. The claim made by people using the term "Cultural Marxism", and the reason it is a conspiracy theory, is that said Marxists do so for the purpose of destroying Western culture.

Again, to be clear: I am not asking for proof that Marxists promoted Marxism (obviously they did), but that they did so "to subvert Western culture".

[chjj]

Again, Gramsci and later followers of Gramsci advocated infiltrating cultural institutions and establishing a counter-hegemony to subvert the existing cultural hegemony. That should be enough to satisfy anyone's definition of cultural marxism. Read Gramsci or any other cultural marxist if you want proof.

edit: I'll also point out that Mao's cultural revolution in China was the first implementation of Gramsci's vision of cultural marxism. There's no way to know whether Mao had ever read Gramsci, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.

[edgyquant]

Proof of what claim dude? That actual Marxist have cultural theories and thus the term “cultural Marxism” is a description of things other than a conspiracy theory? I’m not sure what you’re arguing against at this point.

[magicalist]

> That actual Marxist have cultural theories and thus the term “cultural Marxism” is a description of things other than a conspiracy theory

I think you're just looking for the pretty different https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_cultural_analysis with that description.

[edgyquant]

Right, the point is that the main article links only to the conspiracy theory and not that article. If it linked to that article people hearing e.g. Jordan Peterson use the term and then googling might be given a history of Marxist theory being applied to culture. Instead they see only that it’s an anti-Semitic right wing conspiracy theory. It’s made worse by the fact that “Marxist cultural analysis” is mentioned in the second paragraph on the “main” conspiracy page but not as a link.

Regardless of belief, and I’m by no means a right winger, do you not see how this will sway the opinion of anyone who googled the term cultural Marxism?

[magicalist]

> If it linked to that article people hearing e.g. Jordan Peterson use the term and then googling might be given a history of Marxist theory being applied to culture. Instead they see only that it’s an anti-Semitic right wing conspiracy theory

Capital C, capital M "Cultural Marxism" and "Marxist theory being applied to culture" are two different things.

As a parallel, should https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_agenda actually link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_studies? There are gender studies academics who work to normalize gay and trans people within popular culture (sorry, "establish[ing] a counter-hegemony within the existing cultural hegemony, thereby subverting it"). Saying that any gender theory being applied to culture should be categorized under the gay agenda would still be a category error.

[edgyquant]

The real theory page, Marxist cultural analysis, is mentioned by name in the first paragraph of the conspiracy but not linked. I don’t know how wide spread this is on Wikipedia but there are a few of these examples that are very concerning and if our court system is utilizing it as suggested that is a worry.

Yet another issue that mass information has created that solutions haven’t yet come up with.

>As a parallel, should https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_agenda actually link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_studies?

This is not even close to a parallel scenario and borders on bad faith.

[chjj]

> (sorry, "establish[ing] a counter-hegemony within the existing cultural hegemony, thereby subverting it")

To be clear: you realize you're paraphrasing Gramsci, not quoting me, right?