@thirdform You sound like Gabriel Rockhill. I will say this: the people who think post-structuralism was pushed at the expense of Marxism in the late 20th century have a point. But this point ignores the work the post structuralists did on Marx as well as the original contributions to social theory of Foucault for example. The way I see it, the dominant culture in America is anti-intellectualism. The counter culture should present an intellectual alternative, and the post-structuralists are great for that. I admit that most post structuralists don't have concrete programs about distributive justice or how to change material conditions. But cultural representation is important too, and Marxists hardly have a Marxist identity politics available to them, even though, ironically Hegel created the politics of recognition. What's wrong with reading Marxist theory and post structuralism side by side and trying to create a new theory that combines both? Right, the charge of revisionism. But I like revision. I think that shows the greatness of a theory when it's able to persist despite numerous revisions. We need to revise our theories to deal with cases we didn't think of when we made our theories.
marxism is not an academic theory with its pros and cons which can be equally weighted in a market place of ideas. If that were so, it would be subject to the same kind of ideological political antagonism I outlined upthread, and there would be no reason to be a Marxist, because Marxism could not critique the faecal matter of ideology and ideological reproduction, if you will. Consequently, there would be no good reason to be a marxist or a communist, and you would reintroduce ideas pertaining to catholic heresy into your thinking. There is no heresy, only deviation from the correct and scientific lines of enquiry. We critique revisionism precisely for regressing back to an atavistic form of thought, and reintroducing metaphysical quackery (aka: theocratic fetish.) Correct orientations are only ascertained by ruthless dialectical enquiry, which can only ever resolve to an indefatigably necessary schematism — as a philosopher you should know that this is the essence of experimental science! One does not reject a hypothesis simply because it is incomplete, but the hypothesis as such must be disproven. If for instance one took a revisionist approach to Darwin's hypotheses as you say, then you would have to necessarily combine evolution with theism, which certain conservatives have to do because they are unable to comprehend just how science works. An affliction, by the way, shared by most of the left today.
On the contrary, Marxism is a theoretical doctrine for revolutionary war, not to affirm identity politics either (another egoistic sickness of bourgeois society.) The working class has no identity as a social fact of capitalism, and only acts for itself within its political party... much less about redistributive justice, inane social democratic philistinism if ever!
This is why it is preferable to negate and falsify it than to revise it. In fact, negators are the most consistent, whereas modernisers always define and redefine terms for their own benefit, and the hope of obtaining a soggy parliamentary cushion.
Also, Marxism is not a theory that was made by one head thinking, in absentia it was a collective effort based on lengthy historical time sequences. Your idea of a theory being made by a great man of knowledge is metaphysical idealist rubbish. It is also bizarre to me that you speak of Hegel's politics of recognition when Althusser A) rejected Hegelianism and B) failed to understand what Marx got from Hegel, that is to say his historicism. What you are advocating is not historical recognition but immediate recognition, as if recognition as such can be pursued as a disembodied process divorced from the absolute totality of a mode of production. Consciousness always comes last.
In any case, American culture is incapable of intellectualism without losing its world imperial might. Humanities-related intellectual pursuits are incompatible with aircraft carriers and bombing. Counter-cultures in this sense merely end up putting a human face on imperialism. We do not need more middle class crybabies, hippies and punks were bad enough!