RE: John Holloway debate

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

Hi Jim,

I don't like academics any more than you do, and we all know that there
are many careerists - so why spend so much time and energy announcing it
to each other? Makes you feel good? A form of self-hatred? It's the
arguments that are important, and a few academics develop arguments that
are worth discussing, as even Lou et al admit, because they keep citing
them. Anti-intellectualism means, like, not focusing on the arguments!

Mervyn

Response (Jim C) I'll answer this only because it might have some practical
value. Do you mean not focusing on the arguments such as your own lack of
focus on the specific arguments (duties and responsibilities of a
revolutionary intellectual daring to call himself/herself such) in my own
missive--that you are not discussing in lieu of some pschobabble about my
own possible motives/perspectives on what I wrote?

This is a good example of what I was discussing. A whole lot of bandwidth is
wasted on this kind of snotty tit-for-tat that does nothing for any real
struggle in any real venue. Like the concept of "theoretical praxis" alluded
to by Tom O'Lincoln, there is this notion that if I am writing, using the
right buzz words and references to the "classics", doing a little
footnoting, regardless of the content or appropriateness of any sources
being cited, on some list that those I am discussing (oppressed peoples) may
well never see, this is some kind of revolutionary contribution and concrete
praxis in and of itself. Then when you get into the tortured syntax and
arcane prose of the POMO types, obviously in love with their own
wordsmithing, it gets even more ridiculous.

Mark Jones and I often discussed, for our own reasons, what it means to be
confronted with one's own mortality in direct ways that others might not yet
be confronted with--as a result of medical conditions/opinions a person is
facing. Mark was a constant source of courage and inspiration and was a
model of what being a revolutionary intellectual (and worker) is all about.
Whatever Mark wrote on, even when diving deep into archives of Soviet
history or whatever, was directly linked to current struggles in very
practical ways; he was always on the lookout for the practical lessons and
implications of the past on current struggles and was able to connect the
dots in real ways. He was able to do this because of intimate connections
with the subjects about which he was writing and a deep passion for justice
and liberation of the oppressed--and for oppressed peoples themselves in
very personal terms. Revolution, for Mark was not some kind of abstraction,
hobby, market niche (to publish or perish), a tool for academic advancement
and CV-notching, or a vehicle for narcissistic slinging of tortured syntax
and prose, it was, rather, a deeply-felt life commitment made even more
imperative and practical as his own medical condition made him more aware
than many of his mortality and therefore the need to use his time left on
this plane or dimension in important and useful (for the oppressed) ways.
And many Blackfoot that he never got to meet, for example, were able to read
his work and learn from him and were able to understand what he wrote very
easily; they could see, and often told me, that he understood a great deal
about our realities even without having been in Blackfoot Country--yet.

Even in answering this, I am faced with the notion of opportunity cost and
how precious time for revolutionary analysis/praxis really is: What else
concrete could I be doing, to advance revolution in practical ways, in lieu
of writing this or any other missive? I write this as an exposition about
what Mark stood for and practiced--as a real revolutionary
intellectual/worker--could never be a waste of bandwidth and time from the
real struggles of real people in the real world.

Jim C.