>Do you really believe that even a tenth of Marxists subscribe to Freud?
I really don't give a shit because most of them didn't study Freud in depth. You could just as easily say that "not even a tenth of every Marxist subscribe to a hydrogeophysicist journal" and it would hold just as much value in my eye as a supposed criticism of hydrogeophysics as a discipline. You could say that, "sure, but almost all Marxists accept the validity of hydrogeophysics," (while less then tenth of them even heard about it), but then we'd see that they rely on the authority of experts and not their own intelligence.
I love having to share this board with such intellectually lazy asses as yourself, who rely on third and second hand accounts (with such glaring misrepresentations as >>520556
and mere focus on biographical nothingburger drama >>521469
) and completely ruled out of even consulting second hand accounts (or unbiased intro books) on the subject, not to mention the original material. You must view this as a contest of taking sides between "cringe" and "based" people, like a good little sycophant.
"Lenin said Freud a shit, so I don't need to read him to critique him" is an attitude Lenin would despise, and one that actually hurt 20th century socialism.