There are left-wing equivalents of PragerU (ex: the Gravel Institute) that are just as far away from Wikipedia as PragerU is.
If you get into the political area's of wikipeda, I think the bias of Wikipedia is pretty clear polar to that of PragerU.
If you stick to the pure hard sciences (physics as an example) and non-controversial events (like an earthquake) then sure they are unbiased
For example:
> Mohammed Zakir (also known as Meyra) was an Ethiopian Oromo nationalist. Regarded as "legendary Oromo hero", he is noted for his high contribution to keep the lights of Oromo nationalism shining after the martyrdom of his two hero colleagues called Elemo Qiltu and Ahmad Taqi ... the Oromos would never forget this early exemplary hero. And above all, history will always remember Meyra and his heroism.
At least in the English speaking world, this person seems to be a nobody and nobody seems to care enough to fix this article. Honestly, someone that knows how the process works on Wikipedia more than me should probably submit it for deletion, as this (at least in my opinion) shouldn't even meet Wikipedia's notability standards.
> The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims that Western Marxism is the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture.
I feel like a lot of actual marxists would disagree with this statement. People like Antonio Gramsci, who basically laid the foundations for cultural marxism in the early 20th century.
Oddly, if you read about Antonio Gramsci on wikipedia, they all but call him a cultural marxist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci
> Gramsci is best known for his theory of cultural hegemony, which describes how the state and ruling capitalist class – the bourgeoisie – use cultural institutions to maintain power in capitalist societies.
Also, the last time I looked at the cultural marxism article, it simply said a "far-right conspiracy theory". Now they've somehow managed to roll up antisemitism in there too. Apparently it became antisemitic in just the past year or two!
It's been there as long as the article has (almost two years)[1] and was on the Frankfurt School subsection on the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory for the last 3.5 years[2], so you've off by a while there.
Even before that you can read about how "blacks, students, feminist women, and homosexuals" are the vanguard but its roots are in the anti-semitic criticism of the Frankfurt school, apparently peddled at, for instance, a Holocaust denial conference 20 years ago[3]. I'm not an expert on the subject but doesn't seem recent or much of a stretch to me.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frankfurt_School&...
[3] https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/...
Yes. This was already pointed out. I was mistaken about the antisemitic part not being there earlier.
> its roots are in the anti-semitic criticism of the Frankfurt school
I would have said its criticism is rooted in the fact that Mao rose to power through cultural subversion and is responsible for the deaths of tens of millions.
> apparently peddled at, for instance, a Holocaust denial conference 20 years ago
Interesting that is brought up. To deny the existence of cultural marxism, IMO, is akin to holocaust denial.
> I would have said its criticism is rooted in the fact that Mao rose to power through cultural subversion and is responsible for the deaths of tens of millions.
It seems like maybe you're just hung up on definitions and/or the inclusion of "cultural" here? It sounds a lot like you're just looking for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Marxism and its various offshoots.
The wikipedia article for a specific set of critiques of Marxism from a bunch of racists is not a good base article for a general/systematic critique of Marxism.
I don't think so, but I suppose I could call it "marxism which incorporates cultural subversion" if it makes you feel better. Bit of a mouth-full though.
> The wikipedia article for a specific set of critiques of Marxism from a bunch of racists is not a good base article for the general critique of Marxism.
Glad we agree. The article is definitely not a good base for anything, as it ignores the legitimate critiques of cultural marxism and instead makes it out to be a racist conspiracy theory. Seems biased in favor of marxism, wouldn't you say?
Or just go with the wikipedia convention of "criticism of X"?
> Glad we agree. The article is definitely not a good base for anything, as it ignores the legitimate critiques of cultural marxism and instead makes it out to be a racist conspiracy theory. Seems biased in favor of marxism, wouldn't you say?
"Cultural Marxism" is a racist conspiracy theory.
Your argument appears to just be that marxism and marxism activism is inherently cultural (sure), therefore an existing use of the words "cultural" and "marxism" should be banished to some other name so that an article that already exists and already has a different name can be called "cultural marxism" instead.
edgyquant has a stronger argument about people like Jordan Peterson inadvisably adopting that term so usage is shifting over time. I could see that continuing and the article changing to a disambiguation page some day, though from your mention of Mao, I don't think you'd be satisfied with edgyquant's preferred redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_cultural_analysis
> Also, the last time I looked at the cultural marxism article, it simply said a "far-right conspiracy theory". Now they've somehow managed to roll up antisemitism in there too. Apparently it became antisemitic in just the past year or two!
This is the first ever revision of the article that isn't simply a redirect, and it contains the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_...
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.
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".
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.
I think you're just looking for the pretty different https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_cultural_analysis with that description.
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?
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.
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.
I only see
> "Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For "cultural Marxism" in the context of social theory and cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis.
and "Marxist cultural analysis" is definitely linked.
>> 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.
Conflating a specific set of accusations of supposed degeneracy eating away at the base of western culture with a wider academic discipline that includes studying/discussing said "degeneracy" seems appropriate to me but maybe you can be more specific about why you think they aren't parallel?
To be clear: you realize you're paraphrasing Gramsci, not quoting me, right?
As if. This article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question is still up despite having almost zero pertinent sources.[1] Calling that "polar" is nothing short of a stretch.
At most, Wikipedia could be said to have a neo-liberal bias, an ideology upheld by both of the US' political parties, based on policies alone and not on each individual voter's personal and nuanced adherence. The parties are wrongly assumed to be polar opposites on the political spectrum by most US citizens, but they're not.