There's a lot of sense in that. Based upon what David Horowitz wrote about his own parents, I'm sure the red-diaper babies were worried that they'd wind up as puppets of the Kremlin like their parents.

It also explains why Cultural Marxism gained strength after the Soviet Union fell. With the U.S.S.R. gone, so did the worry that the Kremlin would step in and hijack the movement.

But in a way, it put the New-Left terrorists in a bind. The fall of the Soviet Union meant the fall of socialism, except as a relic. There's a geopolitical explanation as to why Cultural Marxists are talented at destroying but hapless at building.

I know that C.M. is the big bugaboo now, but the West did dodge a bullet when Communism collapsed. There was a time in the 1970s when it looked like the Soviet Union would make inroads into Western Europe: France and Italy were going down that road to Hell.

He was as vain as a drug-addled lefty could be, but Billy Ayres wasn't joking when he said that the imposition of Communism in America would require the democide of ~25 million Americans:

I asked, "Well what is going to happen to those people we can't reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?" And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated.

And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say "eliminate," I mean "kill."

Twenty-five million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people and they were dead serious.

(Source.)

The irony is, there wasn't a cold chance in Hell that the New Left could have pulled this off unless the Soviet Union stepped in and took over - which would have entailed the read-diaper babies becoming puppets of the Kremlin like their parents.