Max, but that is the version of Marxism corporate media have been manufacturing. It has little to do with what Marx actually wrote. I think his use of the logic of the market to dispute some of the more populist conceptions of capitalist exchange (namely based on the notion of 'unfairness') is a case in point.
What I understand as Marxism is the interpretation of the bourgeois political economy in a way that strips it of its hagiographic overtones and exposes its internal contradictions. It does not replace the rational-economic discourse with a populist-moral one. Instead, it uses the rational-economic discourse to deconstruct the claims of the bourgeois brahmins, and does so by using the same discourse - i.e. fighting the brahmins with their own logic.
In other words, it is saying "let's accept the core claim of the bourgeois political economy about the efficiency maximizing by the institution of the market -- but the claim put forth by the brahmins about prosperity and other social benefits this institution will produce is a nonsequitur, for I can use the same logic to reach opposite conclusions -- predict pauperisation and chaos.
Marxism is a critique of economics using its own discourse rather than prediction or a blue print for a new world order. That is, BTW, why the neo-classical crowd hates Marx so much, while they merely laugh at more populist claims criricizing capitalism in moral terms.
Regards,
Wojtek Sokolowski