RE: John Holloway debate

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

And folks, hows about a little less academic-baiting while you're at it?
Go for the arguments not the person. What Patrick wrote to Louis in
private should surely have remained private. You don't gain much by
having a public squabble about such things. The main upshot I can see is
a certain fad for anti-intellectualism.

Mervyn

Response Jim C: I don't know what this term "anti-intellectualism" means
exactly, especially in the context of a leftist list. Bourgeois
"intellectuals" make no pretense that their "intellectualism", jargon,
ultra-reductionism etc is not about changing the world or providing tools
for the emancipation of oppressed peoples but is about enhancing their
meager resumes and careers; so attacking them for what they do proudly and
make no apologies for I guess would be a bit useless--except to
attack/expose their apparent pomposity, insensitivity, bourgeois
reductionism and just plain irrelevance; they typically make no pretense
about giving a fuck about oppressed peoples and their issues.


But those who call themselves "Marxist" or "leftist", and it is no crime not
to be one, only to call onself one and not really be one, they are on the
line for what they produce, the basis upon which it is produced and the
possible or non-possible uses of their works. It is fair game to ask the
basis upon which certain suppositions have been formed or asserted. It is
fair game to ask how and by whom, in what concrete ways, in what conccrete
struggles, in what concrete venues, some supposed "left" intellectual work
would/could be used. In the case of case studies where the testimonies of
victims are used, it is fair game to ask if the subjects of the analysis of
some self-defined/annointed "leftist intellectual" (the victims) could or
would likely be able to read or understand what was being written about
them; or, if indeed, they had been allowed to see what was written about
them before publishing it and if it was published with their agreement.
Given the unity of theory and praxis, it is fair game to ask some leftist
intellectual--or anyone purporting to be left--what the practical
experience/basis is behind some assertions or data as well as the practical
uses of the same. It is fair game to ask some self-annointed leftist
intellectual what, besides acquiring possible "class struggle" wounds of
carpel-tunnel syndrome on the internet, they are actually doing in the real
world--besides talking to/debating the converted. If someone has heard and
used the stories of oppressed peoples, and has invaded their lives,
sometimes putting them at risk, it is fair game to ask the academic where
are those people now and how are they doing--and do you even care? It is
fair game to ask if they are not merely engaging in--and narcissistically
self-savoring--mere useless rhetoric, verbiage, tortured syntax that has no
practical value or use except in their own self-promotion and insulation
(the POMO syndrome).

Some of the shit on the net that passes for "leftist" analysis--and
praxis--is truly amazing. In some cases it is nothing more than some kind of
specialized academic market niche (see, we can do some Marxism and throw in
a little irrelevant differential calculus or p-values or general equilibrium
analysis just to be respectable to the big boys in academia and be able to
add a "respectable" notch to the ol CV). Or we can wax eloquent, with some
obscure quote from Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Marx, Lenin (basically nothing more
than quote-mongering and appeal to authority) on some arcane issue to score
some debating points without any notion or care about how and by whom and in
what concrete venues/struggles this quote or concept might be used or
applied--and without any concrete connections to, or caring about, those who
have become objectified and commodified--"victims" or "oppressed"--who
become instruments and means to ends that have nothing to do with those
victims and oppressed who are being used; the same as the bourgeois
academics do.

As the inscription on Marx's grave notes: "The philosopher's have only
interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."
Some of these types appear to be changing nothing but their length of their
own CVs and bandwidth usage--nothing of real relevance to anything real in
need of real leftist intellectual work and application.

Jim C