>Also Posmodernism and Nihilism create this context in mass making narrative and hysteria be the new source of life meaning

Have you read anything by Adorno, and Guy Debord's Society of the Spectacle? This kind of thing is taken from a different direction, looking from the perspective of how the capitalist mode of production has shaped society.

>so the psyche is desperately set to seek political meaning externally

Nihilism doesn't mean you have no goals, or that you can't make your own meaning. It only purports that there is no meaning to our lives in general. Perhaps the only forces contrary to this are religions (and to be clear, by no stretch do I think religion is a Bad Thing). Your meaning can come internally, or perhaps some people just find they don't need a meaning. Your claim doesn't really fit that well with others, as in the past (and still in the present) non-nihilists sought meaning outside their own lives, such as by having children to "leave something behind".

Although what you say may seem true, I don't think it is all that much, and I think you're overstating the effect that postmodern thought has had. The "fight for social justice" is not about reaching a utopia, it is about improving conditions; arguably most political ideologies are fights for some kind of social justice. If you really want to relate this to Marxism as you have, I must note that Marx considered Communism in the same way in The German Ideology:

Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established , an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

>Simultaneously, posmodern techniques erode values and logic so reality becomes "maleable"

What's wrong with this? It seems that you are attaching a cultural connection to postmodern thought, one which need not necessarily exist. The "erosion" you speak of happens through deconstruction (to my knowledge), which I think can be used as a powerful tool. The state of things, if it is worthwhile, ought to stand up to the test in my opinion.

>This way people is set in a downward spiral of all kinds of marxist self-victimisms

This is an uncharitable and frankly incorrect vision of Marxism. It's not about blaming your miseries on others, it's about looking to see the functioning of the system we live in. Marxism is a method of analysis (having spread from its birth in political economy right round to literature to geography) and as such it doesn't imply certain conclusions from the outset.

If it were as self-victimising as you claim, it would have to start from that position. But it doesn't; Marx's analysis starts with political economy in general. Through analysis, Marx claims to have found interesting facts: the functioning of value, the theory of surplus value, and from this the exploitation of the proletariat.

You misunderstand the Marxian structure model; he does not present the base and superstructure to be things to blame, but rather as any person would see, the explanation of how our relationship to our means of sustenance (i.e how we are able to live, literally) shapes all other aspects of our lives in what we see as culture in general.

One last point: Marx was not really a utopian socialist (like Robert Owen was), and you'll find no shortage of Socialist thinkers who will re-iterate that Socialism is not some pill that you swallow and everything is fine. As I'm sure you'd agree with me, it's worth arguing against such ideologies. But Marxism is not one.