:::'Cultural Marxism' is a term that, yes, may be popular with parts of the cultural Right, but it is also used in neutral contexts.  Cultural Marxism contrasts with traditional Marxism as it reimagines class struggle from a socioeconomic one based around the forces of production to memberships in supposedly privileged and disprivileged (non-economic) social demographics.  If traditional Marxists were found at the old industrial trade unions, Cultural Marxists are mostly located in modern Western universities.  The concept obviously overlaps with the Frankfurt School but is not limited to it.  Thus, it deserves its own article.   

 The use of 'conspiracy theory' is obviously meant to insult and defame, and I note also the use of really dodgy citations like Chip Berlet - a "journalist" who gets paid to do hatchet jobs on people.  I also note RGloucester, who gets really antsy about this topic, is a Cultural Marxist himself - a self-proclaimed "Marxist" who trolls Wikipedia to edit opposition to hawkish foreign policy positions and EU expansion (so, he hardly follows traditional Marxist lines on imperialism).  The only 'conspiracy theory' I see from the Right in this regard is the accusation that Cultural Marxists deliberately planned a Gramscian "slow march through the institutions".  I find the claim that such a plan existed strange, but if one simply makes this claim in retrospect, as historical analysis (i.e., without claiming mass planning), it is valid.  And, of course, it is easy to document sponsorship for cultural Marxism by very wealthy and powerful sources, but this is a somewhat different line from standard Tea Party-style rhetoric.   

 All in all, it is a legitimate term, it is not the place of people whom it actually describes, like RGloucester, to denigrate it so they avoid labels they don't like, and even if there may be conspiratorial-like claims around it, that is not the main use of the term.  Actions like this make Wikipedia look like a nuthouse for small cults.