Rather than seize power first and impose cultural revolution from above, [Antonio] Gramsci argued, Marxists in the West must first change the culture; then power would fall into their laps like ripened fruit. But to change the culture would require a "long march through the institutions"-the arts, cinema, theater, schools, colleges, seminaries, newspapers, magazines, and the new electronic medium, radio. One by one, each had to be captured and converted and politicized into an agency of revolution. Then the people could be slowly educated to understand and even welcome the revolution.
Gramsci urged his fellow Marxists to form popular fronts with western intellectuals who shared their contempt for Christianity and bourgeois culture and who shaped the minds of the young.
Antonio Gramsci died in 1937, but his Cultural Marxism is alive and well today. The post-war decade of the 1950s was relatively stable, with the good feeling of recovery from the Great Depression and the triumph of good over evil as personified by National Socialism. Western people generally understood that even though Stalin was Roosevelt's ally, Communism was not very different from Nazism—indeed, International Socialism might well be far worse.
But then came the 1960s. Rightly or wrongly, Lyndon Johnson's escalation of the war in Vietnam failed to attract the patriotic support Americans had given to earlier military operations—perhaps for the first time since the 1930s Communism became somewhat fashionable again. Subjects that had been immemorial taboos in Christendom began to be discussed widely—contraception, abortion, adultery, sodomy, and every other damned thing. The media played upon the lusts of society to convince innocent people that it was their right to satisfy those lusts, and that it was wrong to prosecute anyone who violated the laws that reflected these taboos. Lust and desire for rapid self-gratification were played upon to destroy the family unit, and ultimately the society. Doctor Timothy Leary, the Professor of Psychology at Harvard University—arguably the most prestigious institution of learning in America—urged young Americans to “Tune in, turn on, and drop out.” Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, at the beginning and end of their latro-synod of Vatican II (quite correctly) declared that no one was obliged to accept the pronouncements of that Council as though they were matters of the faith. Nonetheless, nearly every aspect of the Catholic religion was subject to change “in the spirit of Vatican II.” Everything is “easier” and discipline has nearly disappeared. The family and society have come under attack with easy annulments, the tacit toleration of perversion and contraception, the de-emphasis of fasting, abstinence and sacramental Confession, and socialist economic theories.
Cultural Marxism has introduced the notion of “dialogue” to the public discourse. The healthy Catholic mind knows that truth and falsehood are, like oil and water, incapable of forming a permanent mixture. But the Marxist mind views the combination of thesis and antithesis as the synthesis of new truth—permanent until a new antithesis comes along. The Modernist mind, in highly similar fashion, envisions the “religious sentiments” of each acting person meeting to form a consensus that will be the group's “dogma” until new sentiments emerge, or new acting persons enter the conversation, a concept condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis.
Dialogue of good with evil, or dialogue of truth with falsehood, is neither possible nor desirable. We have God's divine word for it that certain things are simply evil. Trying to dialogue about them is on par with dialogue about the truth of the Immaculate Conception or the Real Presence.
In the Law of Moses, there are a number of capital crimes, including adultery, sodomy, bestiality, murder, sorcery, blasphemy, kidnapping, and worshiping false gods. It is a sign of the mercy of Christ and Christian civilization that the death penalty is not inflicted for most of these in our society—we have the example of our Lord not condemning the woman caught in adultery. But even though one may escape the death penalty, the crimes are no less evil today than when God dictated them to Moses. And, remember our Lord's words to the woman just mentioned: “Go, and now sin no more.” Capital crimes or not, all of them are damaging to the family and to society.
Evil people tend to be violent people, but dialogue with even the most civil proponent of evil can lead to only one of three ends: (1) The corruption of the good; (2) a disingenuous claim to respect the others' opinion while trying to talk him into submission; or (3) agreement to adjourn for drinks, dinner, and a night of seeing the host city. The third end is only for people with big expense accounts and strong livers. The first is, hopefully, unlikely. The second is the most likely, but there is really no point in making believe that both sides are listening to each other and considering each others opinions.
Maybe the proponent of evil will be turned toward the good? Not at all likely! Evil is far more visceral than rational. People do evil because it makes them feel good and fulfills deep emotional needs—not because it wins them the senior class prize in logic. Too many people do not think with their brains, but with their hearts, or their stomachs.
Catholics and others of good will have no choice but to oppose evil and support what is good. God commands it, and society cannot function without it. One cannot “dialogue” about what God has pronounced evil anymore than one can “dialogue” about God's revealed truth.
 Patrick J. Buchanan, The Death of the West (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2002) p. 77 Emphasis supplied.
 “Cultural Revolution: The Frankfurt School,” The Angelus, July 2006, pp.14-16, 25-32. http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=print_article&article_id=2514 Also see http://www.rosarychurch.net/answers/qa022007.html Also James Jaeger, Cultural Marxism-The Corruption of America (Devon, PA: Cornerstone Matrixx), DVD, 98 minutes.