Squeers

"Marx's prognoses on capitalism continue to prove correct..."

That's because you're using unfalsifiable propositions, at every step assuming Marx was right even though openly admitting that he was wrong, and completely confusing the most basic categories such as private and public, you fool.

You're a perfect example of a brainwashed Marxist - openly contradicting yourself while pretending to know how to redesign the entire world!

Yebiga
Ditto. Your alleged economic contributions of Marx are unfalsifiable generalities, merely assuming he was right in the first place, while you admit he was wrong - while your fail to distinguish between public and private ownership of the means of production. Durr. Not even Marx was that dumb.

You're both only proving my point. You admit that Marx's economic theory was erroneous in its central claims. For any person not completely stultified by an irrational belief system, that means you reject it and keep looking for theory that you keep *trying to falsify, but can't*.

But having admitted Marx's theory is critically wrong, you then want to insist that it's valuable as theory(!), and justifies the wholesale violation of people's rights to freedom and property without limit, even though this contradicts your own respective theories of the state *and* of Marx.

Complete stupidity, and this idea - that as soon as we come to human affairs, all of a sudden we enter into a logic-free zone - is exactly what Marxism spreads throughout the humanities and academe, media and government.

The reason academe is drenched in Marxoidism, is not because it has any insights to offer that are not halfwitted circularity. It's because Marxism gives an endless pretext and licence for the parasite statist class to attack and exploit the productive class. The pretext doesn't have to be true - as long as it pays Squeers to raise six children in suburban Australia while hypocritically arguing in favour of policies that kill millions of the world's poorest, on the ground of capitalism's supposed exploitative unsustainability!

You guys get the Craig Thompson prize for ethical theory.

Wonderful timing, Peter. Thank you for illustrating the point.
As I've had occasion to quote before, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

We are amazed at Squeers devastating riposte: an open embrace of the "there's no such thing as truth or logic" of the Marxist communist socialist fascists.

Then obviously there's no justification for any policy on the basis of your ideology is there Squeers?

Thus we have reached agreement: government funding of universities in general, and the humanities in particular, cannot be anything but above-market perks for a class of cheerleaders and high priests for the parasite political class, and should be abolished immediately - starting with Squeers' job!

Good to see you back Jardine
The trouble with that diatribe is that your mixing Marx with postmodernism. Now I have no problem with you hitting post modernism around the park. But postmodernists, strictly speaking, are opposed to Marxism. In fact, it is the advent of communist Marxist inspired USSR, together with the Facsists in Germany which inspires postmodernism to reject modernism and adopt a rejection of pretty much all thought and culture, including the Enlightenment.

It is however, true, that somehow many post modernists retain a soft spot for Marx and reserve the little reasoning they are capable of summoning predominantly against the Enlightenment. Although, when cornered try to slip out of that commitment as well.

So Jardine, I support entirely your antipathy towards postmodernism but Marx is not that. Indeed, there are no Marxists in our universities or even amongst our unionists. Those of us who still find value in Marx are essentially revealing a kind of nostalgia for a more innocent time. For however wrong headed Marxism may be, it is a far more honest ideal than the one we have now embraced.

Your confused rants are indicative of the dire state of the humanities in our culture. To confuse things as you do, and your disdain for any authority, any basis in reality , just as you implore me to think for myself, thoroughly defines our adolescent culture.

Your intent is pure and to be preserved, but to play chess you at least need to know how the pieces move

Squeers
I thank you for your kind words.
However, I must express my strong rejection against this relativist argument. This relativism seems to me central to the acceptance and success of postmodernism, post structuralism and all those literary theorists

Relativity is an old skeptical argument, which came to be resurrected on the back of Einsteins theories. I mention this because when considering time and the speed of light across infinite space, as Einstein does, relativity makes sense.

We on the other hand, us humans, all live on one planet. The human condition is but in small degrees different to apes. As for one human to the next, we are of one experience. Relativism is a gross exaggeration of petty fashionable differences. By exaggerating those small differences relativism cements our ancient bigotries and prevents progress. I know this is the exact opposite of what its proponents believe but unwittingly or not this is its product.

Whilst, we all may have a unique story, no human story is so unique that it cannot be. Understood by any other human. it is on the basis of our similarities that we are required to make truth decisions. And in time they may well be wrong, and. then we are tasked to make a new truth decision. Relativism surrenders this sacred human quest and regresses us into fear of error and the validation of stupidity.

Relativism will cite examples of defending the truth of the oppressed but forget that with the self same argument you justify the holocaust, school shootings or any outrage. For the shooter has their own truth too.

It is this illogical nonsense which has just destroyed the the humanities a why Jardine is not entirely wrong.

slasher, I take your opinion on board to counter others who have another opinion of HIP article. that is the nature of research, some agree and some disagree.

For what it is worth, I admit I am not that good a scholar, although I try hard, but there maybe plenty of humanities academics that are probably worse given their considerable bias.

As article suggests, I could have been much better with a more balanced education at university.