RE: Scholarship and politics (was Re: Proyect v Woods)

["Craven, Jim" <jcraven@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greg Schofield wrote:


I think things are definitely moving in a silly direction. Sorry Jim, but
such pugnaciousness is a little over the top.

1) The original statement that Woods a premier Marxist was made in response
to her being dismissed as being serious at all. The response was clearly
rhetorical, and while the originator thinks highly of Woods I doubt that
there is any attempt to award Woods or anyone else a "premier Marxist"
award, it was merely a statement of praise raised in response to a
criticism.

2) George's remark was likewise a rhetorical response to Woods' political
credentials being questioned.

To take things the next step and treat these statements as if they were
serious theoretical announcements is just ridiculous - George's response
was satirical for God's sake! And the previous remark raised as a personal
opinion, i.e. as a term of praise not as a full blown assessment of
theoretical status (do we have a premiership of Marxism?) - it only means
that the contribution is being highly respected, no more - I would think
that was obvious.

If you have real opposition, bite off something that has some meat on it,
not this furious tearing at finger-nails. I am sorry but I think this line
of debate should just be dropped.

Response (Jim C): I'm sorry if my responses seem to be non-substantive or a
bit "pugnacious"; and of course I'm ready to drop this line (I don't write
much on this list). But I thought a discussion on what it means to be a
"Marxist" on a Marxism list would not be too out of line; and I admit I
failed to note any "obvious" sarcasm in the comments to which I was
responding.

For those who haven't read it, I would suggest reading some of the writings
in Ward Churchill's "Marxism and Native Americans". One of the reasons so
many Indians have come to distrust some self-avowed "Marxists" with whom
they have come into contact--and unfortunately also Marxism itself--is the
perception of some of being descended upon by "saviors", who use Native
issues and issues of other oppressed groups, who really know nothing about
the realities about which they are writing and do nothing to really live and
learn in those environments, and then exit as fast as they parachuted in to
write in media that the "subjects" of "revolutionary analysis" will never
see, with words and elaborate "mathurbatory" equations (like in the URPE
stuff) that the "subjects" do not understand and that are essentially
meaningless to concrete Indian struggles in concrete contexts. Further, many
Indians find a know-it-all and I'm-more-pure-and-correct attitude among some
self-avowed activists that they just can't relate to. This has been my
experience at least.

On the other hand, maybe this discussion is simply hitting some raw nerves.
I for one am sick of some verions of "Marxism" as an academic market-niche
and vehicle for CV-building--as opposed to Marxism as a paradigm and tool
for concrete activism in concrete struggles in concrete contexts. When I
read the Woods article, I'm sorry if I missed something, but my response
was: "OK, so what?". Some of the vitriol associated with the discussions on
Woods I just couldn't/can't understand.

But OK, I'll drop this discussion; but to say it's or whatever's so
(pugnacious etc) by me or anyone else of course doesn't make it so. Just as
saying someone is highly respected as a Marxist, doesn't make them worth
being respected or make them a Marxist; and if someone is worth being
respected as a Marxist, that does make their particular work worth being
respected or accepted at face value.

And that's my final comment on this subject--perhaps.

Jim C