That looks vastly superior to the above, and I'll make an effort to watch it. Thanks for the source. Edit: Ok so first of all, I think I should state that I

That looks vastly superior to the above, and I'll make an effort to watch it. Thanks for the source. Edit: Ok so first of all, I think I should state that I am not a Marxist. I'm of the liberal persuasion, in that I think free markets with a good social safety net is the current optimal economic and political structure. That being said, I like to understand Marxist criticism of the above. I don't think that this is a really good or compelling argument with regards to "post-modernism". Basically, the gist of it is that Marxism says X, X has empirically failed, far-leftists chose a childish reaction of not acknowledging the facts and so they embraced post-modernism to avoid having to deal with it. The argument fails on several dynamics. First, it fails to acknowledge that there are multiple political theories within Marxism itself. The Soviet Union, for example, started from Leninism, and there are quite a lot of Marxists that reject that. This allows him to claim that the failure of one type of Marxist thought is equivalent to it all failing without having to actually support that argument. Its pretty intellectually dishonest. Second, he really doesn't seem to understand some of the core things about Marxism. In particular, he boils down the notion of exploitation to a moral argument, using the colloquial definition and emotional reactions of the term. But Marx used the term in a descriptive manner to describe how value created by a worker did not go to the worker but to their employer. Neither does Marxism necessarily involve central planning by the workers which he seems to suggest. It also isn't necessarily focused on sharing. There can still be markets in a such a market-based, Marxist economy, but the products would be produced by companies that are owned and ran by the workers at those companies. Third, he does not really do any sort of deep analysis of capitalism. In particular, he talks a lot about material conditions in capitalist nations vs the soviet union and prescribes things like purges to marxism. But what is elided is the fact that capitalism has also done some pretty terrible stuff in third world countries. All of that is simply ignored in the argument. Fourth, he says post-modernism is embraced without any real evidence. I can't say that the far left is any more post modern than it was in the past, and that statement was just dropped there without any support. Fifth, he says that post modernism was embraced to avoid facing the facts. This is also not evidenced. It could be that those with different perspectives are just looking at different things and facts and are weighing things differently. He uses 1-3 to try to argue that these beliefs are obviously wrong and not supported by reality and then 4-5 to say that a certain set of beliefs are due to child-like rejection of the facts. In other words, his argument is poor, he is incredibly dismissive the people he is criticizing, and is not doing intellectual due-diligence with his arguments.