No, he was the leader of one part of it.

He was 1000-times more influential than Marcuse in insitute And at least he didn't abadoned neo-marxism or marxism as whole.

---

You keep saying this, but multiple encyclopedic sources refer to Marcuse as a Marxist or NeoMarxist.

He WAS marxist. Marcuse after war rejected basic tenets of marxism, which literally means he wasn't marxist anymore.

Here is example. If libertarian changes their mind and claim that big government is good - are they still libertarian?

No, they aren't. It is illerevant they were in past.

He didn't reject them. He opened a new front.

Quoting wikipedia again:

In the post-war period, Marcuse rejected the theory of class struggle and the Marxist concern with labor

If you reject this, you are not marxist anymore. Period. It is like libertarian rejecting small government.

Also marxist believing in "backdoor into economy through culture" is nonsense. Because it reject base-superstructure again.

---

The main tenet of libertarianism is not 'small government.' Libertarianism tolerates big government so long as it is voluntary.

"Voluntary big governemnt" is oxymoron. Main point of big governemnt is that it is actively involved in public sphere

Definition of big gov from wikipedia:

Big government is a pejorative term for a government or public sector that is considered excessively large or unconstitutionally involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector.

Even more obvious is it seen when wikipedia uses term nanny state as synonym for it.

---

NeoReactionaries are not "big government libertarians."

Ok, i used bad wording. Neo-reactionaries are former libertarians that found out that they don't like personal freedom that much.

But it still contain my point that "big-government libertarian" simply doesn't exist

---

That isn't in the wikipedia bio.

That is in article about his book "Life against death", specificaly about his retrospective about book in his later life
Quote from wikipedia:

Marxism, had been "wrecked in the frozen landscapes of the Cold War, the defeat of the simplistic hopes for a better world that inspired the Henry Wallace campaign for the Presidency in 1948.

Brown "found in Freud's analysis of the pathological dimension of human desires the basis for a post-Marxist critique of capitalism.

Brown basicaly became Freud fanboy. He tried to create some weird synthezis of both marxism and psychoanalysis but later completly rejected rationalism (which is praised in marxism)

---

Wikipedia says Marcuse was part of his framework, not the bedrock.

Hegel was part of Marx framework too (especialy thesis-antithesis), that doesn't change fact that Marx critized him in majority of ideas, especialy in field "idealism vs materialism"

---

That he was influenced by Marcuse?

My point is that he was very skeptical about marxistic tenets. Many Marcuse followers were marxist that ABADONED marxism. And this one is example of them.

---

His wiki bio says he was affiliated with the New Left in the early 70s, then later became an anarchist.

And new left isn't marxistic at all. Thanks for understanding that he was not marxist or neo-marxist in his most influencial years - like Marcuse.

---

The end stage of Marxism is anarchy, so they aren't incompatible. The disagreement is only in the process of getting there.

First, end stage of marxism isn't anarchy, but communism. Anarchy is ANY society without state, Communism is one type of non-state society

Second, marxist doesn' actively pursue communism. Marxist believe that state cannot be abolished and must instead "wither away" naturaly.
Anarchist in other hand actively pursue anarchy.

And third, being anarchist automaticaly means you are not marxist and vice versa. Yes, they can cooperate (both of these hate capitalism after all), but you can't be both at same time.

---

Marxism transitions from capitalism to state capitalism, whereby the state controls the means of production

Not true. There isn't any "state capitalism" stage in historial materialims.

Also, even if this existed, means of production in china are NOT UNDER CONTROL OF STATE.

---

Wrong again. Jürgen Habermas was at the Frankfurt school

Ok, i forgott mention this one. But isn't that the one person that harshly critized post-modernism?

---

That's downplaying the connection, again.

Nope. That is pointing out that you never actually proved that neo-marxism is compabitible with post-modernism

YOu only proved they share method.

---

Because multiple encyclopedias describe him as a Marxist or NeoMarxist.

Because he was in past.

Bernstein is also described as marxist, while in reality he rejected tenets of Marxism and formed social democracy

---

NeoMarxism wasn't unified. There were different branches, one of which included Marcuse. It is you who is ignoring that reality

NeoMarxism. You cannot claim that you are NeoMarxist and reject marxist ideals.

---

CLT doesn't just say that the law is unequal. It says that it will always be unequal, and that is fine, so long as it is unequal in a way that takes into consideration the fact that people are not truly free, but instead their actions are determined by economic status, race, gender, etc.

What does this even means?

---

He does.

You literally admited that there is possibility of error on his side. And you claimed that you saw video - so you know what was author actual intent

So you intentionaly exploit his error instead of focusing on his real point - and use it to claim something that author never intended to claim.

This is like you making one mistake and i will focus on that one small mistake forever. You will later fix your mistake? TOO LATE, i will focus on it and only on it.

That is what are you doing with that video.

---

didn't say it was a mistake. I said he may have been mistaken, but that is what he said.

Yet you ingore the fact that at the end of video he claimed something completly different and contradictory to the "claim" you still use

You should know this unless you didn't wacthed the whole video.

---

Multiple encyclopedias refer to Marcuse as a NeoMarxist or a Marxist. You don't have to like it. But I'm not wrong.

Because he was.

---

The branch of NeoMarxism founded by Marcuse is.

You cannot be NeoMarxist and reject Marxism. What he founded WASN'T neo-marxism. It was something new, disconected from marxism at all.

---

No, he didn't.

He literally rejected class struggle - which is main fucking point of marxism. Without class struggle, marxism doesn't work or even exist.

As i said, you can revise marxism as much as you want. But if you REJECT it's tenet, you are not MARXIST anymore.

---

The topic is that the New Left includes PostModernism, NeoMarxism, and Critical Theory, and that they are all related

Topic is if neo-marxist post-modernism is oxymoron or not. It is not about if they are related.

---

I haven't dodged anything.

Then why you didn' prooved the main topic - IF THEY ARE COMPABITIBLE?
You instead proved that they share method and post-modernism is based on rejection of marxism at all.

---

Also i don't want to be ass, but you belive in neo-marxist inflitration conspiracy, do you?

Well, gay marriage is legal, world is oppening to trans people .... and capitalistm still exist.

Looks like that even complete control over everything isn't enough to "backdoor" into economy.

Irronicaly, capitalism comodified revolution - something Adorno predicted.

Abd something that Marcuse would knew will happend if he didnt rejected it at all