Why is Marxism more popular among academics?

Why is Marxism more popular among academics?

You'd think it'd be more appealing the working class but for some reason, it's mostly popular among the middle class and especially academics. Why is this?

Because they think they will be in charge.

They don't know that they're the first group to be massacred.

Because young academics are often nearly as poor as the working class but spend a lot more time reading.

As for why it fails to appeal to other classes, read The Road to Wigan Pier, most of Orwell's criticisms of socialist tactics still apply today.

>Because they think they will be in charge.
Which is actually the case for young academics.

Every revolution that has ever happened was headed by academics.

temporarily embarrassed people's commisars

IF ONLY THE STUPID PROLETARIAT WOKE UP I'D BE IMPORTANT AND WELL LIKED

REEEEEEEE

you need to be quite well off and out of touch to believe it

Because it's rejected by the mainstream and bills itself as "egalitarian" and "scientific". You would not believe how much pussy Marxists get on campuses, women eat up that "I'm a radical edgemaster don't'cha'know?"

I used to think it was a meme pushed by right-wingers that mainly academics and middle-class people were Marxists then I actually went to University.

Unbelievable, you can't walk within 5 metres without being in the same room as one. The majority of the humanities professors and lecturers are Marxist to an extent. They all theorise and that's their main problem. Marxism is theory and communism is it put into practice. They tend to be middle-class as it is easier for them from that position to hold such views and middle-class people tend to be more educated so they have more access to books and theory etc.

Not to forget, academia is literally a career. They go from University where they are to an extent indoctrinated by their lecturers (as University is more casual and student/lecturer relationships are more casual) as they have little knowledge on the subject, they're young and have energy and adopt the views. Then they finish their degree and get stuck in the academic cycle, obtain their masters then their PhD and more around different Universities whilst researching their 'work'.

These kinds of people are boggled down in theory all the time, they simply think in terms of theory, everything in their lives leads them to consider it in a highly complex philosophical way.

I believe it to be a pathology and the problem with of academia.

Any proofes about popularity?
I can definetely say there no acadimic-marxists in USA.

ITT: people confusing Marxism with Communism.

Marxism is just a mode of a sociological analysis -- and a highly influential one at that. Virtually everyone today accepts that economics plays some role in structuring social relationships.

Few academics today are communists. The vast majority are left-liberals.

What? You think people who literally self-describe themselves as 'Marxists', aren't communist?

You know that isn't true. They may act moderate but you know as well as I do that they wish to achieve Marx's ideals.

>Every revolution that has ever happened was headed by academics.
Clearly, you are not an academic.

As long as they can afford food, shelter, and get things like drugs and sex, the proletariat don't care about revolution.

Most of the people who self identify as "Marxist" have never read Marx.

You know for a fact what you just said is nonsense.

because most of academics are dreamers and "do-gooders" who often want to do the "right thing".

But:
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"

look at the whole SJW movement, i belive at least 80% of those people are just naive kids who want a better world, but they get abused by con-artists and shitheads (Sarkeesian/liberal fuck up Professor/etc.)
And this is the same with Marxism/Communism/Socialism/Stalinism/Maoism/Leninism, they belive that they can to good, and create a Utopian society.

sjws are fueled by puerile hatred for white people more than anything desu

>Why are academics who never had a (manual labour) job communists?

Gee I dont know OP, it really makes you think!

When the steel hits your neck, you'll know better.

You people won't be in charge.

Leroy and Paco will be in charge.

How many of those college kids who call themselves Marxist do you think have even read a single word he wrote? Do you seriously think those shitheads even know anything about Marx other than "Muh means of production"?

because (at least those who are brainwashed) think that the white man is the root of all evil.
Like the Communist thinks that capitalism and the bourgeois is their biggest enemy

What's your point? Pol Pot actually was a (failed) academic, and I wasn't just talking about the leaders, but rather the whole upper level apparatus. But even if that didn't apply to the case either, I could just pedal back a bit, claiming that it was a hyperbole, and say that it just applies to the vast majority of all revolutions, which is why it would still be a reasonable bet to think you'd be in charge.

It's not. There is like one college in the US that is an actual haven for Marxist thought, and all the rest are havens for what conservatives believe qualifies as Marxist thought.

There are a lot of marxian academics (not necessarily marxist or communist) because of good hermeneutics, meaning it makes sense by itself. In many ways it's a continuation of classical liberalism.

This holds true especially in political economics

meanwhile, liberal interpretations often fail to connect politics, sociology and economics

Karl Popper demolished Marxism pretty thoroughly.

Because academics are less stupid and can see through the facade of nationalism (being just a tool of the hegemonic classes to give a sense of brotherhood/duty/belonging to the uneducated woring class)

Because it's hard to understand Marxism. And you gotta read shit tons of books to read.

Seriously, I stopped calling myself a Marxist, after I realized how little I know about Marxism

>"Probably the intellectual has more difficulty than the common man in freeing himself from this ideology which, like the State which derives from it, is his especial handiwork. The Soviet government rules in the name of a doctrine elaborated by an intellectual whose life was spent in libraries and interpreted for the past century by countless other intellectuals. Under a Communist régime the intellectuals, sophists rather than philosophers, rule the roost. The examining magistrates who unmask deviations, the writers coerced into socialist realism, the engineers and managers who are supposed to execute the plans and to interpret the ambiguous orders of the central authority — all must be dialecticians. The Secretary-General of the Party, master and arbiter over the lives of millions of men, is also an intellectual: at the end of a triumphal career he offers to the faithful a theory of capitalism and socialism — as though a book represented the highest accomplishment. The emperors of old were often poets or thinkers; for the first time the emperor actually reigns qua dialectician, interpreter of the doctrine and of history."

Raymond Aron, The Opium of the Intellectuals

>Marxism is theory and communism is it put into practice

The problem with your point is that practice is a crucial aspect of Marxist theory (as per the Theses on Feuerbach). Theory is a species of practice regardless.