What comes to mind is a conversation I once had with a old school Marxist about Capital, and its "applicability", or its accessibility, to the average jane and joe. She claimed that Capital is readily assessable, I claimed it was a text hardly approaching contemporary understanding without a bit of background, definitions, and maybe several years of study.

Of course that's nothing compared to what flies for "theoretical discourse" these days, from various Marxist circles, primarily. Note this passage:

One should bear in mind here the fundamental lesson of the Hegelian "concrete universality": the universal necessity is not a teleological force which, operative from the outset, pulls the strings and runs the process, guaranteeing its happy outcome; on the contrary, this universal necessity is always retroactive, it emerges out of the radical contingency of the process and signal the moment of the contingency's self-Aufhebung.

That's this guy Slavoj Zizek, the veritable "bad boy" on the Marxist left these days, all the rage. Its from an essay about Mao. Good read if you can get through the heady crap.

This I've pulled it out of context and thus rendered its "reading" illegitimate, read it in context for yourself. You really think Zizek couldn't have stated it more plainly, without all the high flying mumbo jumbo?

Of course he can, but he doesnt want to because thats the point of this sort of intellectiual shell game writing, to make your language so arcane, and thus incommunicatable, and then chalk it up to (by proxy) "advanced ideas"... you get the picture.