Talk:Subversion

Definition

What this term means, should be clearly stated in the first sentence!!--P-Chan 10:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with defining the term is that "...it has no universally accepted definition" --Jbradley904 22:30, 21 June 2011(UTC)

References

The current definition suffers from an overwhelmingly literal interpretation of the term, ignoring its largely metaphorical usage. In English at least, it is most commonly used in 2021 to mean something closer to the cultural definition in the article than the one at the top of the page. For example the recently published "Music: A Subversive History" by Ted Gioia is not an attempt to overthrow anything literally, but is a reinterpretation that causes us to question norms in a way that could be considered progressive rather than revolutionary. OvertonWindowEdit (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite to avoid POV

It seems POV to me that "Modern Uses" of subversion consists exclusively of anti-corporate, anti-advertising subversion - though that's really a request for expansion, I guess. However, phrases like "the all-powerful corporation" are clearly POV, unless attributable, so that section needs to be re-written a bit. Eikimart 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term Subversion

While categorising pages I found myself working on Angkatan Gaya Baru, which is described as "a subversive movement". Now, I know nothing about this particular movement, but my instinctive thought was to wonder whether this was POV. Looking at this page (subversion, that is), perhaps it's not - but - well, I'm a bit worried. Can any subversion experts help me? Is it NPOV to describe a movement as subversive? It sounds a bit weaselly, somehow. --JennyRad 17:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to answer you, but you're asking about something closely related to what I wanted to raise here, which is the need to add a discussion of the use of "subversive" as a power word. In the 1970s and 1980s, for example, the governments of Argentina and El Salvador both used the term to disparage and demonize popular opposition movements. I think this ABSOLUTELY belongs in the article as fast as we can find sources to reference; I have taught college Spanish classes, for example, in which students who encountered the word "subversive" in different media tended to take it at face value and not recognize that it can be a label to undermine opposition. Explaining these kinds of things is part of Wikipedia's mission. Lawikitejana 06:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

POV

In the present definition "advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence" seems wrong : subversion is using other means that force and violence? A classic propaganda trick from governments is to picture any organization with alternative views as "violent and subversive" since it creates an amalgam between people that want to change a government and those willing to use violence to do so...the next step is to brand them as "terrorists". In my views this should be amended in wikipedia's text?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.8.234 (talk • contribs) There is a whole section on 'russian and french subversion' but nothing on US / UK ? Seems a little POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.220.148 (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

the incumbent govt could use subversion to entrench their own power by creating society unrest and manipulating outcomes through various means including corrupted media and govt institutions 64.79.133.107 (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move

See Talk:Subversion#Requested move; proposed move of this article to primary topic (subversion), and disambiguation page currently at that title to subversion (disambiguation) (currently a redirect of that page). TheFeds 18:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Random ragged list sequestered

I'm about to remove this sentence from the lead for a variety of issues:

When a comedy or comic is referred to as being subversive, it is as much of a compliment to their work as it could be an accusation, from comics like Charlie Chaplin, Lenny Bruce, Andy Kaufman and Stephen Colbert to writers like Paddy Chayefsky, Larry Charles and Mel Brooks, to activists like Abbie Hoffman, and Michael Moore, to artists like The Yes Men and monochrom. Satire is one of the most potent forms of subversion for artists and comics, and it can take shape in films, television, books, and even political protest.

References

We need to be clear that there's nothing especially subversive about poking fun at the hypocrisy of those in power; you might only be attempting to embarrass the powerful into doing the right thing in the first place.

I don't myself regard Mel Brooks or Michael Moore as subversive. What were they trying to subvert? Lingering Nazi sympathy in America? Unclean water?

I also don't like Colbert on this list. Trump was busy subverting pre-existing presidential norms, and Colbert was busy subverting Trump's subversion, as I saw it. I don't think meta-subversion really belongs in the lead here.

Additionally, the phrase "as it could be an accusation" suffers from problems of tone.

I have no particular concern about whether this sentence is restored or not, but I do think there needs to be several opinions that agree, either way. — MaxEnt 00:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Having given this another minute's thought, maybe the right thing is to create an article section "subversion in comedy". But let's be a lot more clear about the distinction between actual subversion against the established order, and merely making the established order squirm with annoyance over accurate portrayal. — MaxEnt 01:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove "Yuri Bezmenov" page from External Links.

For anyone unfamiliar, this "Yuri Bezmenov" / "Thomas Schuman" character in a series of mid-80s videos is highly dubious and possibly even ironically an example of "subversion" itself; these kinds of disinfo have been popular and widely (uncritically) shared by fascist extremists for at least a decade; I recall spotting routine reposts of this heinous propaganda while doing research of extremism on the old 4chan /pol/ board (Nazi cesspool) by users eager to EXPOSE the truth THEY don't want you to know, to like-minded reactionaries who find wild assertions palatable and useful. Claims like: regular Soviet citizens were sad to see Hitler defeated while their sinister "Judeo-Bolshevik" rulers weren't [itself an obvious Nazi term and precursor to today's "cultural Marxism" in function]

I sincerely doubt that most average people in Russia or leftists anywhere post-WWII shed a tear for the downfall of Hitler. Prior to the rise to power of the Bolsheviks, virulent racism and pogroms against Jews were all too frequent under the the Tsardom, often done by the Black Hundreds, and aided by the Tsarist Okrana (the Tsarist secret police who forged the infamous "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" with Tsar Nicky's support). It is also laughable when the video asserts also that the CIA ignored and enabled "Jewish-Marxist" subversion for...reasons. Make up your minds, tinfoil hat wearers!

As you can plainly see from the text below the player when clicking through to Internet Archive, the summary provided by the uploader I believe gives a taste of the content to expect and the target audience for this handful of videos: credulous and ideologically motivated anti-communists bordering on McCarthyism, with a heavy dose of far-right conspiracism and blatant anti-Semitism among other issues. The Yuri Bezmenov videos are (or were) sadly viral hits in previous years, but with no justification for their popularity beyond fans' poor media literacy and sticking to polarized echo chambers. I can't say for certain whether the man in the video is a crude grifter or something more puzzling and worrying, but it is clear that nothing of much genuine historical, political, or aesthetic value is contained in them.

The linked descriptions and lectures within this series of videos by "Yuri" provide zero concrete evidence of his claimed patchy USSR spy background (and in fact he uses the term ideological subversion, where Soviets usually referred to such tactics as "active measures").

No real evidence at all is given either to viewers of any elements of the purported exposé of rampant and dangerous Soviet Communist subversion of good ol' American values and cultural institutions. Only vague declarations that subversives use techniques to ruin or redirect different parts of U.S. / Western free society towards whatever nebulous evil (aka the "woke agenda" in 2025 lingo) these secret, omnipresent agents and Judeo-Communist cabals are supposed to be into. The discussion is framed in very obviously calculated vocabulary and topics to appeal to and inflame those who are predisposed to or already believe such accusations without proof. Viz., gullible partisans.

I have not looked into the precise source of the link's inclusion on Wikipedia, but I seldom edit or talk, and yet felt compelled to highlight/flag this as a clear example of low-quality agenda-driven content dragging down WP. Other more experienced crew, please feel free to further investigate and verify; imo the whole page is lackluster but my concern here is simply Wikipedia being vandalized with far-right slop that's been debunked over and over to little avail. Not a big fan of bigoted, fabricated slop personally.

Deplatforming and blocking such disinfo is the best approach; trying to engage civilly with the kind of people (e.g. the 4chan alt-right crowd) is a waste of time as bad faith is the rule, not the exception, in their style of public-facing talk. Dogwhistles, "just asking questions", the Schrödinger's Joke, motte-and-bailey arguments, "hiding your power level", all boilerplate fascist rhetorical strategy, a la Sartre's classic essay "On Anti-Semitism" about it. ~2025-40066-24 (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2025 (UTC)