Kolakowski describes the New Left revolution of the 60s as an “explosion of academic youth” and “an aggressive movement born of frustration.” It “easily created a vocabulary for itself out of Marxist slogans, or some expressions from the Marxist story: liberation, revolution, alienation, etc.” Yet, in fact, “its ideology really has little in common with Marxism.” He enumerates: “It consists of ‘revolution’ without the working class; hatred of modern technology as such (Marx glorified technical progress and believed that one reason for the impending breakdown of capitalism was its inability to sustain such progress . . . ); the cult of primitive societies (in which Marx took scarcely any interest) as the source of progress; hatred of education and specialized knowledge; and the believe in the American lumpenproletariat as a great revolutionary force.” Marxism’s “apocalyptic side” came to the forefront among New Leftists, but the New Left exemplifies the ironic fact that at the time of his book (1978) “Marxism provides ideological pabulum for a wide variety of interests and aspirations, many of them unconnected with one another.”
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from History
Continue reading related articles

Realness of Things Past
Greg Anderson began thinking about the thesis of his Realness of Things Past while working on a book on the “state” in classical Greece. He discovered there was no such thing as an Athenian “state,” and that conclusion led him to question the way historians do history. Instead of running…

The Power of the Margins
David Martin (1929-2019) was a secularization skeptic. He acknowledged that modern societies typically undergo a process of "differentiation," in which various sectors of social and political life free themselves from the oversight of religious authority. He acknowledged that in many modern societies religious institutions and values are "marginalized." But he…

Zwinglian Symbolism
Nathan Mitchell (writing in the Oxford History of Christian Worship , 324) denies that Zwingli taught a "mere symbolist" according to which the Supper "simply served to remind believers of the great benefits bestowed on them through Christ's passion and death." Zwingli wasn't a symbolist "in any modern sense." Mitchell…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.