So far as I know, 100% of self-described Marxist governments that have lasted for any significant time have been brutal and despotic. Now it may be that the Marxist apologists are right, and none of these was actually Marxist, in which case authentic Marxism would appear unattainable. Or, these may represent the inevitable outcome of Marxist policies and programs, in which case it is undesirable. Either way, it is hardly an attractive model.

Marx did have some interesting and enduring insights about social and economic affairs, and these have been profoundly influential. He deserves to be respected for these, and certainly belongs on an academic curriculum.

But I suspect he would have been profoundly insulted by attempts to portray him as a misunderstood Social Democrat.

Marxism is an economic theory and a way to understand economics - right or wrong it is not a political movement. Marx never speaks of a political movement. Marx merely predicts that capitalism will ultimately fail and then something communistic must follow.

Most intelligent people would concede Marx's class struggle is a false dichotomy. Never the less, even Marx's critics, have conceded Marx a special place for framing the human condition in economic terms.

But the more important issue here is that there simply aren't any Marxist professors or marxist courses in our University. Our English and Humanities departments are dominated by post modernist, andliterary theorists. These are entirely different animals to Marxists. I go to bed each night praying for more Marxists.

Moreover there has not been one Marxist professor in our universities for nigh on 20 years. Outside pure sciences and often even in the sciences our universities have effectively become little more than corporate indoctrination centres. The sole purpose to produce thoroughly compliant none thinking corporate drones.

The knowledge these students acquire in this orgy of business courses is abstract near meaningless concepts who's relevance in the real world are past there use by date by the time they graduate.

Geez, what are all these rednecks and fascists worried about.

While, in the past, states calling themselves socialist have committed crimes against humanity, this is nothing like the crimes committed by all the various capitalist regimes around the globe.

Here is a list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_squads

Israeli, French, British, CIA and Australian secret service assassinations are extra.

Capitalists can only grow wealthy if others grow poor. Real socialists only grow wealthy if all of society grows wealthy as well.

That's the difference.

Socialists states do not go bankraupt - unlike Iceland, Yeltsin/Putin's Russia, and 32 states.

( EG: http://tinyurl.com/32-bankraupt ).

We just need to ensure that socialism emerges with necessary protections against alternative forms of exploitation and against outside subversion.

YEBIGA
"But the more important issue here is that there simply aren't any Marxist professors or marxist courses in our University. Our English and Humanities departments are dominated by post modernist, andliterary theorists. These are entirely different animals to Marxists. I go to bed each night praying for more Marxists."

This is true to a large extent; Humanities and Social Sciences departments are dominated by the post-modernists. But I would say the postmodern theorists are the progression from Marxist theorists. Post-modernists take Marx's class distinctions and oppression theory and convert them into other forms. You still have the classic bourgeois oppression of the proletariat (now translated as employers and employees), but now also white oppression of non-whites, male oppression of females, and heterosexual oppression of gays. Sociology courses completely revolve around these topics.

It starts when Marxists like Gramsci and the Frankfurt School converted Marx's economic and class theory into cultural terms. They pointed out new forms of oppression, that didn't revolve completely around economics. They then spawned the critical theorists and then the postmodernists. Postmodernists like Foucault, Butler, and Derrida speak of oppression in similar terms to Marx, but just replace bourgeois with males, whites, and heterosexuals, and proletariats with females, non-whites, and gays.

Conservative literature has been wiped out of the Humanities and Social Sciences departments. So any one who talks of there being diversity of literature and being exposed to alternative viewpoints in these departments are liars.

Aristocrat
The postmodernists have not evolved from Marxism
Rather, they are a product of revulsion with the whole modernist enlightenment project, which for them includes communism and fascism. Lets be frank they find offence with everyone including capitalists.

The postmodernism is a bad faith a loss of faith in any big picture project. Its agency,, is entirely at the margins, as you illustrate: identity politics, political correctness and gender neutral language, colonial pasts...

A Marxist talks at power from a holistic and revolutionary perspective. The postmodernist, looks for hidden oppression in language, gender, literature, culture. These are diametrically different animals.

Postmodernism has eviscerated the left. The once strident revolutionary Marxist replaced by a sensitive, don't wish to offend anyone, victim obsessed bunch of babies.

Marxism is focused on economics and the power relations between classes, the rights and conditions of workers - who owns what and how. The postmodernist has no interest in how economies work. Their concern is that the homosexual employee gets a fair go, that women are represented equally on the board. Its an incremental approach which achieves little wins, which are its stated aims.

From a capitalist corporate point of view, it can be pesky and annoying but ultimately it serves the corporate purpose. The totalisation of these incremental but ultimately benign reforms only further legitimise the corporate hegemony.

Marxism on the other hand, is an existential threat for capitalism, not because any of the answers and solutions Marx predicts.. Rather, because of the framing of the questions he raises. Precisely the sorts of questions now absent from our universities but the mere possibility of their return frightens right wing stooges like Bolt.

so many comments..anyhow the best comment..4/5 ths through

jon/j/quote..<<.."May you fall into the hands
of those, who know what is good for you!">>..

reminds us thAT..many greAT..'leaders'..wrote the thesis
this thesis marketed a concept..that was fronted..by the writer
BUT THE BACKING..machine..behind the man..simply uses..the man/and his thesis..as a front..to continue doing as it damm well pleases.

yep we vote for the thesis of the man..[front man]
while the backdoor faceleSS MEN..continue doing via the public service..WHAT THEY and those before them..HAVE DONE THROUGH OUT TIMe

nest fluffing their own too comfortable nests
always looking for the NEXT DREAMER/THESIS
TILL THAT ONE DAY..the spin/lies dont work
AND WE INVADE LOOT AND PLUNDER OTHERS WEALTH..yet aGAIN

these guys by themself are great men/having great thoughts
but govt is run bY PUBLIC SERVICE/PLAY IT THEIR WAY..or they send you away/like gough..or like jfk..or anY OTHER WAY..

MY THESUS..IS IF THEY LIVE LONG AND PROSPER
THEY ALLOWED THEIR THESES..to DIE

truely/by their fruits WILL WE KNOW THEM
housing 30,000 SPEAKS FOR ITSELF..feeding 4000/5000..speaks for itself
[feeding Indians and Aboriginals poisoned FLOUR..AND pox infested blankets..speaks FOR itself..

THE Theses..is but the root of the tree
where the man came from..but..via process
the fruit=..the fruit..there for all to see

but..YET THE SEED THE TREE WAS GOOD
JUST WATCH OUT FOR THE INEVITABLE..FRUIT ROT.

i ignored bolt..in the beginning
but he was/is right..about man made CLIMATE CHANGE
AND MANY OTHER ISSUES..but thankfully he too has feet of clay..as do we all.