The establishment vs Uber

[FireIceTalon]

The antithesis of university study is to confine ones knowledge to only a narrow point of view. Of course, it reinforces a fear I have that our universities have become shrines of Narcissus filled with professors reflecting on the beauty of their own ideas.

True to some extent. Although, my guess is that you are simply being condescending here and implying that I am just taking in what my "Marxist professors" feed to me and regurgitate it more than you are trying to make a point about the problems of our higher education system. Only one problem, none of my professors, at either the community college I attended or university I currently attend are Marxist. In fact, most of my learning of Marxism has come from OUTSIDE the classroom - done on my on accord for my own interest. Contrary to the fear mongering of conservative pundits everywhere, universities are not Marxist havens - quite the opposite really. Marx is covered to be sure - sometimes favorably, sometimes not so favorably (i've found it to be about half and half).

In my case when I encounter the latter, it becomes more of a question if it is trolling (like calling Marxism a religion) or just based on simple misconceptions or misunderstandings (that Marxism views history as a linear, and preordained trajectory) - thankfully it is usually the latter, and interesting discussion results. And when he is discussed favorably, it is usually more in a sociological context than in an economic one, which indicates to me that works like The Manifesto get alot of attention compared to Capital Vol.1. Of course the latter is far larger and more complex to tackle (especially in the time constraints of a university setting), but it bugs me nonetheless since one cannot really understand the foundations or entire picture of the materialist conception of history (as well as its dialectical application to historical development), even if they agree with it - without at least reading and understanding the first 3 chapters of Capital volume 1. This is of course deliberately done for ideological purposes, but that's another topic.

Most of the far leftists I have encountered through my tenure in college, professor and student alike, have been closer to Anarchists interestingly enough. But heaven forbid leftist thought of any type is somewhat more prevalent in universities than it is in most other spheres of society. We can't have that now, can we?

To read an author with no thought of criticizing the work, is senseless. To criticize the writing with no thought of reading it is much worse.

Except, I have heard Marxism be called a religion from well, almost every other reactionary on the planet. Nothing new there to read I'm afraid. If I was interested in reading such tripe I could just take a trip over to Stormfront.org or something.

I guess it is one reason my imagination returns to the caricature of Che t-shirt wearing Marxist revolutionary wannabe, who's learned to parrot the popular lines enough to fit in, but has no interest in understanding the foundations of economic thought nor debate their merits.

At least you use the word "imagination" there. I don't own any Che T-shirts, I generally disagree with Che and his idea of Focoism, nor am I trying to "fit into" anything. Well, scratch that, that isn't entirely true. I am a human being trying to fit into a anti-human system that is rife with injustice, exploitation and discrimination, scapegoating, corruption, shallowness and decadence, inefficiency, backwardsness, and untold human suffering. That aside, your description is just you letting stereotypical imagination run wild. Also, to suggest I have no interest in debating the history of economic and political thought is pretty short-sighted as well. I have done it here, on various other forums, with friends and family, as well as in the classroom.

Lastly, my point is dodged yet again. Is the idea of the state being powerful enough to single handedly destroy the entire capitalist social order an absurd idea, or not? I say it is. Disagree? Give me an argument then. Using Ad hominem fallacies like you did above isn't an argument.