This theme article is a stub. You can help out with Wikiquote by expanding it!
Fundamentally, the problem with post-Marxists and neo-Marxists is that they want it both ways. They want to be able to claim the historical legacy and tradition of Marxism (classical) while at the same time rejecting their most important elements.
John D. Holst (1999), "The affinities of Lenin and Gramsci: implications for radical adult education theory and practice," International Journal of Lifelong Education, 18:5, 409.
Bernstein and the utopian socialists should be the historical theoretical figures of contemporary social democrats but the problem is that these figures were severely and rightfully discredited by Marx and Engels and Lenin, respectively.
John D. Holst (1999), "The affinities of Lenin and Gramsci: implications for radical adult education theory and practice," International Journal of Lifelong Education, 18:5, 409.
What is happening to Marx’s doctrine has, in the course of history, often happened to the doctrines of other revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes struggling for emancipation. ... After their death, attempts are made to turn them into harmless icons, canonise them, ... at the same time emasculating and vulgarising the real essence of their revolutionary theories and blunting their revolutionary edge. ... They omit, obliterate, and distort the revolutionary side of its teaching, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is, or seems, acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now 'Marxists' — joking aside!
Vladimir Lenin, State and Revolution (1917) as cited in John D. Holst (1999), "The affinities of Lenin and Gramsci: implications for radical adult education theory and practice," International Journal of Lifelong Education, 18:5, 408.