Publius does the patter fairly well, ("truncated failure to understand the concepts of Hegelian synthesis.*" Wow.) but I've heard people so good at spewing verbal socioeconomic toxic fog that their own academic colleagues were afraid to admit they had no idea what they were talking about and would just go along with the charade. This is usually harmless when academics are just trying to impress each other. It's less harmless when they start teaching students.

The objective is to intimidate, and make a person hesitant to make judgments based on observation and reason. Subjected to this kind of gobbledygook, typically from some Marxist academic, many people will assume, "Surely this person is wiser and more learned than I am, and I must be missing something very important." They then wander off defeated, ignoring that the Marxist is standing hip-deep in the blood of a hundred million victims. The very best leftist academics can make their victims crawl away, apologizing for using up the valuable oxygen required by the academic's massive intellect.

However, people can use common sense and simple reason, and take the history of Marxist regimes at their face value when judging the value of Marxist ideas. Nazism also had long and complex philosophical ideas behind it. Who cares?

.

*How exactly does one truncate a failure? Is this stopping before the failure is complete, kind of like catching yourself when you slip on a banana peel?