Cultural Marxists Understand that the Revolution Requires a Cultural War More Than an Economic War; Orthodox Marxism's Rigidity Prevented Revolutionary Changes in Marriage, Sexuality, and Family

For the neo-Marxists, orthodox Marxism was too limiting; it was too narrow, too restrictive, too reactionary even, too controlled by the Comintern that strong-armed national communist parties from upon high in Moscow with its ironclad party discipline. This rigidity prevented these more freewheeling neo-Marxists from initiating the cultural transformation they craved, including revolutionary changes in marriage, sexuality, and family. These Frankfurt leaders were left-wing intellectuals who looked to the universities as the home base from which their ideas could be launched. They spurned the church and looked to Marx and Freud as the gods who they believed would not fail them. Rather than organize the workers and the factories, the peasants and the fields and the farms, they would organize the students and the academy, the artists and the media and the film industry.

One can look at the Frankfurt school’s “cultural Marxism” not as a replacement for classical Marxism, but as the accelerator pedal that was missing from the wheezing, stalling vehicle of classical Marxism. It offered a gear shift into warp-speed. The cultural Marxist agrees with the classical Marxist that history passes through a series of stages on the way to the final Marxist utopia, through slavery and capitalism and socialism and ultimately to the classless society. But the cultural Marxist recognizes that the communists will not get there by economics alone. In fact, the classical Marxists would utterly fail to take down the West with an economic revolution; capitalism would always blow away communism, and the masses would choose capitalism. Cultural Marxists understand that the revolution requires a cultural war more than an economic war. Whereas the West—certainly America—is not vulnerable to a revolt of the downtrodden trade-union masses, it is eminently vulnerable when it comes to, say, sex or porn. While a revolution for wealth redistribution would be unappealing to the citizens of the West, a sexual revolution would be irresistible. Put the bourgeoisie in front of a hypnotic movie screen, and they would be putty in your hands. Thus, what was needed was a cultural Marxism.

--Paul Kengor, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Communism (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2017), e-book.