[...]
>Why? If you define Marxism as a theory of an inevitable terminal crisis of
>capitalism - which I think is always the point of the whole
>value-theorizing tradition, though they've gotten shy about admitting it in
>the late 1990s - yes, it is. But if you define Marxism as a theory of
>capitalism as a social system based on exploitation, which is unstable,
>polarizing, and destructive by its very nature, then Marxism has lot of
>life left in it.
But this is not how Marx himself would have defined it. So why don't you choose another name? "Utopian socialism", perhaps ;-)
Enzo