/lit/ - Literature

The only church that illuminates , is the one that burns

"Oy vey"

>>8624299
it says >>>/his/

It actually says that identity politics were created by the bourgeoisie to turn the working class into obedient consumers.

Literally the exact opposite of what /pol/ thinks.

>>8624299
/pol/ should love Adorno

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaBpVzOohs

This shitty youtube video is the reason why the right thinks about cultural marxism is political correctness.

It claims cultural marxism was a new attempt by marxists to undermine western civilization. But instead of mass revolt, it would work through entryism.

I don't get how they ever reached that conclusion.

>>8624344
Because the Left uses entryism all the time?

>>8624349

So does the right. Look at how white supremacists claim they're "not racists but race realists xD" so as to fit in with the mainstream. Or how they "love diversity" and that's why we need apartheid, because no better system exists for the diversity we all love.

But that's not the point here. Nowhere did the supposed "cultural marxist Frankfurt Schule" claim you should destroy Western civilization through entryism.
Nor did they ever claim you should destroy Western civilization as such.

>>8624355
Can you name one organization that became and stayed Right-Wing as a result of entryism? Because there's a bunch of cases where that happened ith Leftism.

Also Western Civilization is a dumb meme. The whole reason we have the current degeneracy levels is because of "muh Western values". It all needs to fucking burn.

>>8624311
>Literally the exact opposite of what /pol/ thinks

There's a reason they call the Right backwards. Their beliefs are actually backwards. Everything they believe is the exact opposite of reality.

>>8624377

We're not addressing any of this here.
We're talking about the actual tennets of cultural marxism, not about how leftists are sly foxes or how people having fun is problematic.

Stop shifting the goalposts because you're angry about leftists wanting to tax your hard earned engineer bux.

>>8624311
Why is it then that modern day leftists, academia, and people who generally wouldn't be opposed to being affiliated with Marxism are utterly obsessed with identity politics?

I find it so unbelievably ironic.

These people never shut the fuck up about "evil white that, racist white this, scary male that, oppressive white male this, poor innocent black that, oppressed females this."

And I'm supposed to believe they're against identity politics? For fucks sake.

>>8624311
>identity politics were created by the bourgeoisie
Yeah, by using their Freudo-Marxism

>>8624428
Is it possible they aren't really Marxists...?

>>8624428
They're the people in panel 4 and 5 of the comic. They focus one thing - say, how the British Empire treated its colonies badly and had a slave trade - and don't realize Capitalism was the underlying cause.

>>8624438
Also this has some truth to it; in the west, especially America, "socialist" and "Marxist" are still dirty words to a lot of people

>>8624428

>some fuckwit on facebook calls herself a marxist
>you actually believe it
>some fuckwit on twitter quotes foucault
>you believe they've actually read him

and that, my friend, is why you're FUCKING RETARDED

>>8624469
>>8624469

>>8624469

When some fuckwit calls himself a nazi.
Do you believe him?

>>8624512

no, I never would. "Nazi" is actually a bavarian word used to make fun of National Socialists, so you would have to be a complete fucking retard to self-identify as one. the correct term would be nat-soc.

The equivalent would be a southern republican calling himself a redneck.

Even those that call themselves nat-soc are usually retarded, but not in spite of their ideology, rather because of it.

>>8624474

>not liking fooly cooly

ass

>>8624299
Where's that term from anyway? Of course the Frankfurt School people were cultured (Bildungsbürger) and they liked Marx more explicitly than it was usual in the academia of the second Reich (Of course Weber read him. He just tried very hard to not give any signs). But why "Cultural Marxists"? I've read one essay of Adorno and I will read another one. The one I've read attacks the GDR ideology as exculpating just the same as Austria's "Hitler's Erstes Opfer" narrative except that now the "Erstes Opfer" was the working class. Where is the Marxism here? Does Marxism deal with culpability of nazi criminals? Sure enough, it can tell the difference between the work-shy Slave Driver Citizens of Ancient Greece and the industrious Petite Bourgeoisie of Calvinist Switzerland. But that does not tell you how to deal with someone who murdered civilians by the thousands on the Eastern Front. In West Germany he was just following orders. In East Germany he had a false consciousness impressed onto him by a minority of major industrialists. Or that's what they said, because they didn't want to alienate the German population now that both Eastern and Western German were turned into a show-case for the two competing ideologies. In what I've read he is more of a Nietzschean or a Kantian. So: Why "cultural marxism"?

>>8624355
>"not racists but race realists xD"
You do realise there is a difference?

>>8624390
Not an argument faggot.

>>8624438
>>8624457
>>8624469
No True Scotsman....

>>8624428
Both racism and anti-racism ultimately serve to mask class divides. It's always about keeping the working class divided and easy to manage. White indentured servants fought alongside black slaves during the first slave revolts, and ever since then the people in power have worked to make sure poor whites and poor blacks hate each other more than rich whites. Even when they become aware of class differences, they see the rednecks/niggers as the immediate threat. Convinced that they will be able to ascend to the upper class as soon as the other is eliminated.

For the right the narrative is that blacks and other minorities are all welfare cheats and that rich democrats are exploiting their laziness for free votes. If the they were all gone we'd magically have our post war economy back and everyone would be able to become rich if they worked hard enough.

For the left, the narrative is that whites are all racist and that rich republicans are exploiting their ignorance for free votes. If they were gone we'd be able to enact all these magic policies which would give us a Utopian society where everyone would be able to become rich if they worked hard enough.


Both of these narratives are true and false at the same time. It's true that democrats and republicans are guilty of appealing to the laziness and ignorance of their voters. But it's also true that the people in power have the ability or intent to provide the utopia they promise, they simply want people to blame all the problems on the others. Building a wall won't make america great again, and neither will eliminating racism, but as long as people think about those solutions, they won't consider an actual revolution.

>>8624571
The quality of posts is extremely important to this community. Posters are encouraged to provide high-quality images and informative comments.

Basically Marx and Engels helped to create a way of looking at society that gives certain processes, and interests related to those processes, a big role in affecting the development of consciousness, ideology, preferences, behaviours, etc., in average people.

It's not necessary to fully adopt their dialectical philosophy of history, or to be an extreme "economist" Marxist, to benefit from this viewpoint. To use a common way of saying it, all it means is that the "base" of society has a lot of influence on how the "superstructure" of society looks and operates. The superstructure is culture, personal values and beliefs, ideology, the ways people organise and interact and communicate, whom people trust, politics and education, and so on. Certain basic relationships and interests that are very "basic" to society "echo" outward into this superstructure, influencing or determining the way it functions, in a combination of conscious and unconscious factors.

Early Marxism was very big on the economic side of this, because the crisis of the 19th century hadn't yet exploded into the red scares and popular socialism of the early 20th. The Second International came down hard in pushing an "economist" interpretation, and a lot of so-called "vulgar" Marxism resulted, where people were basically waiting for the contradictions in society to mount until the inevitable transition to socialism happened. It's not THAT far-fetched that something like this might have been predicted, given how crazy things were at the turn of the century, how novel large-scale worker organisation and real socialism seemed to the traditional classes. Everyone knew something big was about to happen but no one was really sure what. A bit later, the Bolsheviks hijacked the definition of Communism, for better or worse.

Cultural Marxists like the Frankfurt School, but also Gramsci and arguably many others, are working within this tradition but departing from economist Marxism and Bolshevism. They are also dealing with the fact that the "inevitable" revolution or evolution into real socialism never happened. Instead, reactionary ideologies happened, totalitarianism happened, Soviet communism went bananas, and the capitalist West kept right on having all its problems, even worsened them, but it has now became very smarmy about being the last ones standing in the battles of ideology, and thus considers itself the only "un-ideological" stance. Liberal capitalism, neoliberalism, whatever, sees itself as the default system, but as an anti-system, as unadorned humanity, humans just being human. It denies that it has an ideological nature, it denies that it can be just as totalitarian, it denies that it structures thought, structures culture, moulds classes to be obedient, in order to serve and further itself, both consciously and unconsciously.

>>8624602
Cultural Marxists focus broadly on this superstructure. They critique capitalism as an institution or "system," but also historically contingent ideological complexes, epistemological complexes, production processes, etc., that characterise modernity. These can be either causative of capitalism, or capitalism can be the outward manifestation of the processes themselves, or some combination.

It can be very theoretical, like talking about how the fundamental ways in which we interact with objects and perceive the world are historically contingent, and presumably limiting or destructive, or it can focus on the way that industry, media, culture, and even science are subtly absorbed and employed by capitalism to further itself.

Adorno talks about how capitalism systemically degrades culture to the level of prolefeed, more or less. This is not just to complain that culture has become shitty, but to show that your mind itself and its actual possibilities for thought, e.g., its possibilities for critiquing injustice and improving its situation, can be structured. Your capacity for dissent or imagining things otherwise can be neutered. You can be turned into a farm animal.

Gramsci talks about how the world-organising "systems," ways of seeing and ordering the world semi-systematically in order to govern it and operate in it, of which capitalism is one, tend naturally to establish cultural, institutional, and ideological apparatus that is self-sustaining, mutually reinforcing, and always expanding. A capitalist "culture" will tend to produce intellectuals capable of servicing it, from scholars to lawyers to bureaucrats and low-level functionaries, people who are not consciously choosing to service the capitalist way-of-doing-things but who cannot imagine anything different. This system will expand, come into conflict with other systems, and naturally tend to absorb them, muscle them out when it can't absorb them, etc. So you have conservative and classical liberal intellectuals, libertarians for example, who are tolerated by the neoliberal society because they intuitively aren't a threat -- they're more like a curiosity, something neutered and free-floating. But any kind of ideological capable of real dissent, of self-sustaining and building its own authentic culture, like a mass workers' solidarity movement, will provoke an almost immunological response from the system. It might be argued that when the government, which is composed of politicos responsible to wealthy lobbies and subtly shaping what the media, public education, and public discourse communicates to the average person, deliberately subverted and undermined radical movements in the 60s, it was proving Gramsci's point. Leaks from the intelligence agencies show they are relatively unreflective McCarthyist zealots, not cackling X Files-esque cynics. Any system creates the footsoldiers it needs, imbued with its own worldview, to fight for the minds of its serfs.

>>8624601
Feel free to take your own advice.

>>8624571

Go back to your YouTube channel.

>>8624428
Because the "long march through the institutions" was nothing but a trap for the marchers, and an opportunity for the institutions to absorb the left's social organising techniques and turn them into iPod apps for registered democrats.

Like it or not, postcolonialism and identity politics people are working from within a Marxian framework. It's just that they're really bad at it, they're all rich spoiled brats from the upper classes, they're all receiving paycheques from the institution they're supposedly critiquing, and they live their lives as upper middle class / upper class implicitly neoliberal functionaries. Capitalism has absorbed, churned up, and commodified even the concept of critiques of itself. Even the Soviets still had to ban counter-revolutionary thought. Capitalism just turns it into a simulation for manchildren to play with until they're dead, without ever affecting a thing.

The SJWs and identity politics morons you see on the street are just roleplayers, living in hyperreality. SJWs have zero authentic consciousness. They are entirely playing with signs that have no meaning, like children pretending to be cowboys because they see adults (previous generations) being cowboys. They'd be puritans or fascists or Christian Scientists if you massaged their minds a little bit.

>>8624618
Case in point: The most ardent SJWS I've ever met are all former evangelicals. Think about that.

The system is taking discontent, which might actually build into something if left alone and which results from certain personality types naturally occurring, and channeling it into a video game. It's a safety valve for people to release their desires to feel socially productive, without actually affecting anything.

>>8624602
>>8624603

great posts

>>8624299
It doesn't say anything because what /pol/ thinks of as "cultural marxism" is incredibly diverse ideologically, from Stalinist apologetics (Lukacs) to milquetoast social democracy (Habermas) to crypto alt-right (Zizek).

>>8624682
>crypto alt-right (Zizek).
Bait.

>>8624311
Wtf I love marxism now.

School of Resentment

>>8624311
>It actually says that identity politics were created by the bourgeoisie to turn the working class into obedient consumers.
>Literally the exact opposite of what /pol/ thinks.
hmm? no?

"Pure" Marxism, divorced from identity politics, is still ressentiment par excellence. Herein lies the problem.

>>8624700
/pol/ just identifies the wrong culprit and ignores the systemic nature of identity politics. That's why they end up with their wacko conspiracy theories.

>>8624311
Yeah. Kim Jong Un, Robert Mugabe and Fidel Castro are the closest living politicians with /pol/ views ironically.

>>8624561
The term is derived from "cultural bolshevism". It doesn't make sense because neo-nazi conspiracy theories never do. You give them far too much credit if you think they actually ever read Adorno.

>>8624407
>because you're angry about leftists wanting to tax your hard earned engineer bux.
But I earned those engineer bux senpai

>>8624727
>>8624733
>>8624738
A lot of logical fallacies in these posts.

>>8624760
A lot of long phalluses in my mouth.

>>8624760
The redditor leftists who are I'M LITERALLY SHAKING-ly e-mad about /pol/ and need to take every fucking opportunity to whine about it are cringe inducing

>>8624703
Marxism doesn't make any moral statements though. Marx doesn't claim moral highground for the proletariat, he just says that if capitalism is continuing the way it has been there's going to be class conflict with the proletariat eventually coming out on top.

The whole point of Marxism is to distance themselves of the idealist appeals to morality and reason of anarchism and utopian socialism.

>>8624783
That has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. But it's hard not to sympathize when them after everything /pol/'s done to 4chan.

>>8624783
it's not exactly out of the blue to bring up /pol/ in a discussion about cultural marxism on 4chan

if /pol/ would stay in /pol/ people wouldn't have so much of a problem with it

>>8624785

>Marxism is amoral

Hardly. The religious spirit soaked through every page of Marx's writing.

>>8624804
>But it's hard not to sympathize when them after everything /pol/'s done to 4chan.

There is nothing wrong with triggering special snowflake newfags.

>>8624806
If it's not /pol/ then it will be /leftypol/ and reddit, turning everything into discussions about muh class conflict. Just look at /his/

>>8624311

This comic is hilarious in so many ways. I wonder if whoever produced it realizes how puerile it is, or if they really think they had some sort of insight. It always amazes me how self-delusional some people can be.


>>8624806

>if /pol/ would stay in /pol/ people wouldn't have so much of a problem with it

>translation: waaaah I can't stand the thought of people being right-wing outside of a board I dislike, all right-wing people should just be forced to stay there so that I don't have to defend my arguments or suffer from cognitive dissonance

>>8624512
This

>>8624812
There is something very wrong when you have to deal with /pol/fags getting triggered every time something that conflicts with their sheltered worldview pops up.

>>8624828
>translation: waaaah I can't stand the thought of people being right-wing outside of a board I dislike, all right-wing people should just be forced to stay there so that I don't have to defend my arguments or suffer from cognitive dissonance

yes all that "we wuz kangz", "blacked", "trump god emperor" and "i hate women" posting have really been challenging my views. it would be a shame if other boards were robbed of this intellect.

>>8624831

>complaining about people with different on the same board
>"they're from /pol/ because /pol/ is right-wing, and they're right-wing"

>*they're* the ones with sheltered worldviews
>n-not me guys, n-not me!!

>>8624837

*different views, mb

>>8624836
>on a website given to polemical vitriol about every single fucking thing and on which the standard response to a different opinion about video games or japanese cartoons is "literally kill yourself," i'm upset that people are being misogynistic and crossposting memes from boards they like and i don't!!!

You're proving his point.

Go off to Reddit if you don't like a community expressing itself the way it wants to. You aren't the arbiter of which Special Select Things That Are Forbidden to be Discussed based on your personal feelings.

>>8624836

That's 4chan culture, not /pol/ specifically. It's posted because it's funny and because it triggers cockgobblers like you. Still, it's not very prevalent on /lit/ and you're a whiny faggot who likes to conflate things you dislike or disagree with with /pol/.

>>8624831
pic related

>>8624836
Are you that autistic that you can't differentiate between funposting, memes and blatant shitposting?

>>8624844
milhouse isn't culture

>>8624837
I'm neither left or right, I just notice that, on 4chan at least, the right wingers tend to be stupider, and more easily offended, despite being meaner. They hide behind the "4chan is supposed to be vitriolic" "why can't you handle different opinions" but they can't accept any of it directed at them.

>>8624842
This IS the community expressing itself the way it wants to.

>>8624848
The only one hear asking for a safe space is (you)

"The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion ,
religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-
consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won
through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no
abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of
man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion,
which is an inverted consciousness of the world , because they are an
inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its
encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual
point d’honneur , its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn
complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification.
It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human
essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against
religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world
whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of
real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the
sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and
the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is
the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up
their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a
condition that requires illusions . The criticism of religion is,
therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which
religion is the halo."

How is he wrong /lit/?

Adorno was pretty good. Many even consider him to be somewhat of an "elitist" for his views.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-njxKF8CkoU

>>8624853
I didn't read that because I'm not gay, but he's wrong because Communist Germany killed six million Jews

>>8624854

>pop music is bad because it's not modernist enough

Yeah, I'm gonna have to say I'm with whoever holds the completely opposite view.

>>8624852
This is the nonsensical defense that has become typical of newfags who are upset about /pol/.

I don't like anime reaction image posters, I don't like faggots with their ":3~ am i kawaii ugu" posting, and I don't like a dozen other things that are posted on multiple boards I browse, in threads where I'm trying to read/talk about stuff I do care about.

Except I don't feel compelled to post KEEP /a/ IN /a/ or KEEP /lgbt/ IN /lgbt/!!!!!!!!!!!!, wait until people start saying "lol deal with it, that's not how this site works," and then reply to them "WOW you guys just can't take criticism :/."

/pol/ is funposting because they enjoy it. They're not upset by you showing you're a newfag. They're just letting you know that you're a newfag, newfag. You look intuitively out of place when you get upset about /pol/, because no one else who dislikes /pol/ whines about it like a little bitch like you do. Go to a site better suited to you.

>>8624852
Again with the straw-manning, ad hominems and false equivalences.

>The only one hear asking for a safe space is (you)
You literally are whinging about /pol/ being a neo-nazi board full of conspiracies, and how they need to "keep on /pol/ in /pol/".

>>8624390
>le smug leftist face

get off your high horse

>>8624852

lol kys retard

>>8624853

The foundation of State criticism is: the State is comprised of individuals, individuals are not comprised of the State.

It's fun to turn Marx's methods on their head. He shat himself over Stirner and the anarchists for good reason.

Supposedly, economic equality will automatically result in social equality. Trying to force social equality without economic equality doesn't work.

>>8624886

Or alternatively:

Man makes the State, the State does not make Man.

>>8624900

>Implying Marx argued in favour of the state

>>8624852
>despite being meaner
I've noticed that every time a leftist (and I mean outside of threads where we discuss this shit like normal people, I'm fine with leftists generally) pops into a /pol/ thread they really put on this rude, dismissive demeanour (and not in a fun way, but like some stick up the ass misanthropic way) like they have something to prove. I find it really sickening, honestly.

>>8624946

>Implying he didn't

"Cultural Marxism" literally isn't a thing. It's just Marxism together with post-modernism, structuralism and post-structuralism.

The reason /pol/tards think it's real is because: 1. They cannot help but see the Jew in everything, because of paranoid delusion.
2. They cannot see the forest for the trees, namely the fact that the people they claim are on the Left politically, e.g people who support multiculturalism, freer immigration, and welfare capitalism are *NOT* leftists.

I mean, take a simple look at an interview with Bernie Sanders about immigration, and you will hear a true Social Democrat's view on immigration, namely that open borders and multiculturalism is a Rightist view, and a capitalist one, because they want cheap labor from 3rd world countries, and he obviously cannot support the idea of destroying the nation state.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0

>>8624979

>people who support multiculturalism, freer immigration, and welfare capitalism are *NOT* leftists.

Some of them are though.

That's the thing: the social left and the economic right are two sides of the same coin. Whereas when you combine the social right and the economic left, you get our National Socialist friends.

>>8624979
>open borders and multiculturalism is a Rightist view, and a capitalist one
you've fallen for a similar meme, labeling the right merely as people who are 'in league' with the force of capitalism

>>8624979
Cultural Marxism = Critical Theory

>They cannot help but see the Jew in everything, because of paranoid delusion.

Obviously not all Jews. However, they do have a substantial influence in finance, media and political circles.

>people who support multiculturalism, freer immigration, and welfare capitalism are *NOT* leftists.

Some are, some aren't. It's very hypocritical of you to go on and then catergorise all "right-wingers" as liberal capitalists.

>>8624981
>labeling the right merely as people who are 'in league' with the force of capitalism

"in league" implies some conspiracy. And I'm not talking about a conspiracy.

I'm talking about people thinking that immigration actually helps a country when it doesn't at all.

It puts massive strain on a welfare system, and it drives wages down for the native population, which obviously helps rich and well-off people, but it doesn't help most people at all.

>>8624986
>Some are, some aren't.

No. If you support mass-immigration, you're not a leftist.

>>8624995
don't worry, i was using 'in league' as a euphemism. as in, the idea that the "right" can be defined solely by it's 'counter-revolutionary' stance, which thus implies it is implicitly pro-capitalist, and thus that which helps the forces of capitalism is rightist. that's just how I think the thought process might go, and it's one I disagree with, since I think it's reductionist.

>>8625003
>which thus implies it is implicitly pro-capitalist

I don't think the Right is *implicitly pro-capitalist*, but I think the Right is implicitly hierarchical, and thinks hierarchies are a natural and normal part of society, which tends them to be pro-capitalist, because capitalism is hierarchical by definition.

Now, a person on the Right doesn't need to identify himself as pro-capitalist, but in almost every instance historically where they have had vocal scorn for capitalism, they have in secret simply tried to control capitalism, and didn't really try to come up with an alternative(National Socialists come to mind).

>>8625011
sound thoughts, but I do not think it justifies labeling mass immigration as a 'rightist' policy, instead of one that both egalitarians and capitalists see as advantageous to their interests

>>8624999
I'm glad to hear you are a leftist that opposes it, but not everyone on the left shares this view with you. I agree this is also the fault of liberal capitalists but there are components on the left that want this too.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263873/george-soross-open-border-foundations-joseph-klein

>>8625017
I don't consider Soros on the Left at all tbqh, and the fact that the article calls him that is misleading as hell.

I mean, it's only in America that a neo-liberal open-borders supporting billionaire capitalist could possibly be called a "leftist".

>>8625023
Truthfully he's a neo-Marxist and a Cultural Marxist. The word 'liberal' no longer has anything to do with classical liberalism.

>>8624863

This is the same guy who supposedly BTFO Spengler.
All he had to say was "sounds like hocus pocus to me and cyclical history is bad because reasons".

Adorno is absolute shit at arguing. All he can do is "I don't like it. No, I can't say why. I can colourfully say I don't like it though? Maybe that'll convince people."

Fucking worthless piece of shit. Only liked because professors plug him, but in and of himself/themselves, no one would read this crap.

>>8625089

This. Adorno's prose is absolutely impenetrable, and even native Germans read him in English because his obtuse vocabulary is a pain in the ass. It's not even aesthetic, it's just purposefully obtuse in order to make it hard to criticize him.

>>8624733
Israel is the closest thing irl to a /pol/ ethnostate.

>>8624355
Racism usually implies there is a hierarchy of races.
Race realism and others claim that we shouldn't ignore or manipulate the data and be open about genetic differences between human populations.

>to fit in with the mainstream
You mean not to loose their livelihood and, depending on the country, be thrown in jail?

>love other cultures, maintain their autenticity by avoiding "melting pots"
Don't see any contradiction. "White supremacists" never ask for diversity in their own neighbourhood, don't know what sort of "mainstream" are you tuned in that gives voice to "white supremacists".

>>8624684
You say bait but it'll be yet another in a long line of misreadings. That they think the Frankfurt school were mostly anything but sterile conservatives is another example.

>>8625386
>That they think the Frankfurt school were mostly anything but sterile conservatives is another example.
Was Marcuse, the founder of the New Left part of this mostly sterile conservatives?

>>8625201

>loose their livelihood

I don't know why it's called marxism when Marx's actual writings don't support the shit.