I must agree with many of your points. Even Gilles Deleuze argued that the Marxist/Freudian use of the Oedipal complex as a means by configuring the goals of Marxist regimes was flawed. They felt that gaps within language represented gaps within power in which they could pose violent resistance. Capitalism and all other economic machines were viewed as utopias stuck within the "Symbolic Order of the Imaginary" Therefore, they felt that gaps within the Sovereign's control of the discourse in a geopolitical region, IE Cuba, could serve as a gap in power relations in which a violent revolution could break free and start a new communist regime. They did this by mobilizing populations that were slowly beginning to awake and resist the dominant discourse of their Sovereign, and then attempt to implant radical alternative discourses of revolution and resistance. This would be what the Marxists/Freudians called the "Real", a break away from capitalist fantasy.
What they didn't calculate was that the Freudian repression of desire and of capitalism's argument that desire led to social production (physical products) was actually a gateway into a new form of desire. Where capitalism viewed desire as a viable and productive means of attaining a product, the Marxist/Freudian political machines tried to play it into the Oedipal triangle as another gateway back to the Fantasy, another Oedipal partial drive. What they didn't realize was that desire could be productive, and that in fact, their calls to resist power was actually another form of DESIRE, a desire for power and disrupting existing power relations.
This proved problematic for communist regimes, as no one could account for the desire their leaders showed within a ideology that was thought to embrace collectivism, independent radical discourses that were never tied to the state, amd so forth.
Others, such as the political analyst/philosopher, Slavoj Zizek, still argue that the communist revolution has never really taken place yet, that postmodern criticisms and working within the current global order are flawed, and that the only thing holding back the true revolution is the mindset that it can't happen. I won't get into that here.
Anyways, good historical point. It alone isn't enough to discredit an ideology, though I also don't embrace Marxism. One on the other side could make a valid point that capitalism is obviously inherently violent, oppressive, and subversive to those out of the dominant discourse or position, or within the cracks of society.
Basically it all comes down to what is good and what is evil. If you want be on the the side of evil, that is your choice. Obviously the the Cal-State University system's pumping anti-capitalistic mush into the heads young students does a great dis-service to this country. It takes years to cleanse that crap out of your system by experiencing real life. Remember, your teachers do not get out in a real world. Professors live a cloistered life of being surrounded by like-minded people.