Ignore the libertarians and reactionaries. The only necessary

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=bGF3cmVuY2VraW5nLm5ldHx3d3d8Z3g6N2I3NzViMWZiZTgxNDBkNQ

File: Main_Currents_of_Marxism,_volume_1.jpg (26KB, 331x500px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 331x500px

The only necessary refutation of Marxism is reality, but Kolakowski is good anyway. He actually read all that bullshit.

File: Herbert_Marcuse.jpg (31KB, 550x444px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 550x444px

>"The Marcusian union of Eros and Logos can only be realized in the form of a totalitarian state, established and governed by force; the freedom he advocates is non-freedom. If 'true' freedom does not mean freedom of choice but consists in choosing a particular object; if freedom of speech does not mean that people can say what they like, but that they must say the right thing; and if Marcuse and his followers have the sole right to decide what people must choose and what they must say, then 'freedom' has simply taken on the contrary of its normal Sense. In these terms a 'free' society is one that deprives people of freedom to choose either objects or ideas except at the behest of those who know better."

>"It should be noted that Marcuse's demands go much further than Soviet totalitarian Communism has ever done: either in theory or in practice. Even in the worst days of Stalinism, despite universal indoctrination and the enslavement of knowledge to ideology, it was recognized that some fields were neutral in themselves and subject only to logical and empirical laws: this was true of mathematics, physics, and also technology except for one or two brief periods. Marcuse, on the other hand, insists that normative essences must prevail in every domain, that there must be a new technology and a new qualitative science of which we know nothing whatever except that they are new; they must be freed from the prejudices of experience and 'mathematization'-i.e. attainable without any knowledge of mathematics, physics, or any other science and must absolutely transcend our present knowledge."

>"There could hardly be a clearer instance of the replacement of Marx's slogan 'either socialism or barbarism' by the version 'socialism equals barbarism'. And there is probably no other philosopher in our day who deserves as completely as Marcuse to be called the ideologist of obscurantism"

Can Cultural Marxism ever recover?

>>2648638

>Cultural Marxism

You're not helping. Marxism can be refuted without giving credence to fascist tropes.

File: 1463021855480.jpg (355KB, 1024x1365px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1024x1365px

>>2648644
sorry for triggering you, from now on i'll only use the phrases you let me use ok

>>2648667
I believe Kolakowski gives a good definition of Cultural Marxism in his writings about Labriola.

>Historicism of this type dispenses with the notion of transcendental truth and ascribes a functional character to all human knowledge. If this was Labriola's view, he was in agreement with the young Marx and not with Engels's positivism. For, if praxis signifies the whole of man's part in history, the value of intellectual production as an aspect of that whole is to be measured by the mind's ability to 'express' changing historical situations, and not by the correspondence between some 'objective' universe and the description of it, This line of reasoning was later followed by Gramsci, probably under Labriola's influence.

>In spite of the imprecision of his writings, Labriola played an important part in the history of Marxism. His was probably the first attempt to reconstruct Marxism as a philosophy of historical praxis, treating this as a concept in terms of which all aspects of human life should be interpreted, including intellectual activity and its product. He was thus opposed to the scientistic ideology that dominated Marxism in his day. The doctrine outlined in his works was revived in the twentieth century by Gramsci and Lukacs among others, inspired by the publication of Marx's early writings. This version gave new life to the idea of humanism as an epistemological standpoint, treating human history as the boundary of attainable knowledge and re-stressing the relativistic aspect of Marxist doctrine.

Just because the term was invented by conservatives (not fascists), it doesn't mean it shouldn't be used to describe an intellectual phenomenom that absolutely exists and doesn't have any other name that I know of.

>>2648620
Tell me how he refutes marxism.

File: Keynes fiction.jpg (226KB, 448x600px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 448x600px

>>2648620
>Keynesian Old Left social democracy

Why though?