> I have to side with M.  If you can't say it simply, it's probably because the
> world isn't a simple place.  And to conflate the collapse of European
> Marxism/Leninsm with an imaginary *collapse of Marxist credibility* on the
> academic front is a sad mistake.  Neo-Marxist critical theory is about as far
> from iron curtain ideology as you can get, and its one of the best tools we
> have for understanding *obscure* things like semiotics and film.  Once you giv
> a jargon a chance, it often (but regrettably, not always) allows you to see
> things with surprising clarity.
>
> J. Berkley
> Harvard Business School
 
I respectfully differ ... on all counts. The world IS a simple
place, but clearly our understanding of it is not, hence the
smokescreen of jargon, especially in the humanities.
Marxism/Leninism DID collapse, and if academics do not clearly
comprehend the magnitude of that mass shift away from jargon
(i.e. b.s.), THAT is a sad mistake on their part.  Neo-Marxist
critical theory is rooted in the delusionary origins of that
mistake, and has nothing concrete or practical to offer.  Film is
not obscure, but semiotics is deliberately so. Let's see some
objective, apolitical research from this crowd, then perhaps we
could all join in and jargon ourselves into collective silliness
...
 
... we still wouldn't be making great film ...
 
Malcolm Dean