I'd say that the long term interests of the poor and ordinary people are best promoted by academic freedom in the universities ... that the twentieth century got sidetracked into futile insurrectionism of left and right is well known ... that the interests of the day labourers, the unemployed, the single mothers, the hamburger flippers on the minimum wage, are not going to be promoted by screening of university staff for political loyalty to the government of the day is so obviously true, one begins to wonder why anyone would suggest the persecution of Marxist academics?

Academic and political freedoms are the swords that allow a hundred flowers to bloom, that allow open debate of a better world, that lead to students and workers clarifying values and agendas, that permit long term the possibility of social change that leads to a better world ...

Not being a Marxist myself, I still project to many ideas of many writers, such as H. G. Wells, whose utopias and dystopias pervade my subconscious ... The world's in such a terrible state I am sure there must be something better!

Agreed Tristan.

It's quite clear that there is general lack of understanding of the role of Marx and even Marxism in the development of economics itself. That it has been manifested as actual political movements down through the decades since first published as text is not surprising.

The equating of Marxism with totalitarianism is to misunderstand and deny it's pace in history. That needs to be taught and understood for a fuller picture of history so as people are made ware of other expressions of it.

Workers relationships with capital is vital to coming to terms with so much that needs to be addressed with encroaching economic neo-liberalism. Not even that it captures as discussion of the very nature of the capitalist enterprise in totem.

I definitely do denounce totalitarian expressions of this political philosophy myself, They aren't the be and end all of his and Engels political thought but a later development of a misapplication of it.

That Andrew Bolt seems to subscribe to this mischaracterisation says more about him than any thing else about the lack of the veracity of Marxism or not.

The saddest aspect of this - entirely unexceptionable - article, is that Mr Ewins actually believes that it is necessary to respond to Andrew Bolt's dribble.

Yes, yes, I know. I suppose in the grand scheme of things someone has to point out every so often how the unreconstructed bloviator's ratbag witterings are founded on a profound sense of self-loathing.

But it would be so much cooler just to let it through to the 'keeper. Giving him the dignity of a response is simply feeding the troll.

Hundreds of thousands of readers means Bolt's opinions need to be responded to. You can't just assume that by ignoring him he will disappear.

And in any case - Bolt's writings just serve as a platform, here, for a much wider and deeper argument about misconceptions with regard Marxism. The facts about Austro-Marxism alone I found fascinating and inspirational. I don't know why you say the article in 'entirely unexceptionable'; but thankfully not everyone feels the same as you, Pericles.

'Andrew Bolt simply does not understand Marxism'

Nor do very many others but we all understand how easily is was to be manipulated and corrupted.
The three evil men who corrupted it mostly were Stalin, Hitler and Mao. The three greatest mass murders of all time.

Marxist economic theory is a proven failure. It doesn't allow for expression of greed. It suppresses the desire for individual self improvement unless sanctioned by the collective.

Liberalism and conservatism haven't produced the equivalent mass murders. There have been various odd ball despots but none can be equated with the abovementioned.

Capitalism, the economic expression of liberalism and conservatism has the ability and does correct it's own shortcomings.

Liberalism and conservatism does not regulate the self-improvement of the individual.

Andrew Bolt is fully entitled to express his opinions and receive fair criticism. So are you Tristan.

But you never seem to criticise the socialists and their companions. That too is your right.

I have seen Andrew Bolt challenge Liberals and conservatives.

Let's see you condemn the policies and those who introduced policies that led to 1200 people perishing at sea, that led to the death of young men installing pink bats, that will lead to the deaths of many elderly when the cooling climate change kills them because it is too expensive to use electricity.

Let's see you roundly condemn the behaviour of those among your Marxist collective, who were corrupt politicians and/or unionists, as well as those who also delayed or who oppose their exposure.

I'd bet a pile of my hard earned proceeds from my businesses that Andrew Bolt wouldn't ignore these issues had they been a result of the actions liberal or conservative capitalists.

See ... you will only give token condemnation. You will find some way of denying those responsible were Marxists or were part of you great Marxist social democratic movement.

We might not understand Marxism but we just prefer capitalism to Marxism because Marxism has shown it has no way of self-regulating itself. It's pure form and origins are largely irrelevant.

Sadly Pericles ignoring it is not an option. Lunatics have taken over everywhere precisely because rational people can't be bothered.

Andrew Bolt is a very useful tool for grooming public opinion in Australia. His opinions regarding foreign affairs are simply justifications of US foreign policy.

I remember an article he wrote back when the French refused to become part of the coalition of the willing to invade Iraq. At the time, in the US the MSM were ratcheting up criticism of the French. On queue, Andrew came out with his own wondrous analysis, apparently the French were a people who were unfamiliar with Democracy unlike the USA and Australia of course.

Amazing! Here is the Bolt routinely parroting on about the left and the right of politics but is blithely unaware of the most fundamentlal political history.

Similarly, here, the ignorance is past believing. Marxism is not a political but an economic theory. There is nothing intrinsically totalitarian about Marxism. There have been totalitarian capitalist countries like NAZI germany and Mussolinis Italy. Should we then ban the study of Capitalism?

Andrew, Andrew stick with baiting political correctness - that is your strong suit.
I know it must be frustrating being a one trick pony, but to critique Democracy or Marxism you need some level of education in the subject. A quick search of Wikipedia won't cut the mustard. I suggest you read the Communist Manifesto, its actually pretty short, sadly there you will find Marx lauding the power of capitalism, you won't find any call for totalitarianism.

Then you can go back to baiting left wing artists.