Re: Academics

[Philip Ferguson <PLF13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mervyn wrote in response to Louis:
>I fully share your concern about challenges to Marxism in the name of
>Marxism from within the academy. However, I'm confident that the
research
>paradigm founded by Marx can more than hold its own on the basis
>of  results. Moreover, you can't reasonably expect academics to accept
>some kind of intellectual division of labour policed by yourself and
other
>self-appointed defenders of 'the fundamental ideas of Marxism' whereby
>academics do the empirical research (provide the 'information') and
either
>(it is not clear from your post) the theoretical fundamentals remain
>unchanged and undeveloped, or are developed by non-academics.


I find this kind of funny, because the chief danger and problem at
present is not the repression of academics by Louis Proyect and other
practical Marxists, but the autonomy of academics from the class
struggle and any serious political engagement in the real world.

Moreover, I must say that the history of Marxist theoretical development
is the history precisely of fundamentals being "developed by
non-academics".  Let's take a few post-Marx examples: Lenin (theory of
imperialism; theoretical work on the national question), Trotsky (theory
on fascism; theory on the degeneration of the Russian revolution),
Luxemburg (on reformism), Mao (some very good theoretical stuff on
dialectics), Lukacs (theory of reification, which in turn is derived
from Marx's concept of commodity fetishism), Gramsci (hegemony) - none
of them were academics.  I doubt you could find one serious addition to
*the Marxist fundamentals* that has been made by an academic.

The most useful stuff done by *some* academics has fallen into two
categories: research which has helped *restore* certain Marxist
fundamentals (eg a number of academics on the falling rate of profit)
and research which has countered capitalist propaganda (Chomsky,
Finkelstein, Parenti, Gibbs, Chossudovsky, etc) or capitalist views of
history (eg Zinn).  Some academics, like Patrick Bond, have, at their
best, probably contributed to both.  And people like Chossudovsky, Zinn,
Bond and few others have been socially/politically engaged.  But I don't
think any of them would claim to have developed the theoretical
fundamentals of Marxism.


>For one thing, theory and practice go hand in hand.


Which is why academics, *as opposed to Marxists who happen to have jobs
teaching in universities*, are unlikely contributors to the development
of theoretical fundamentals of Marxism.  I finished a PhD early this
year, I have a debt and no money, no house, no car, no job.  I'm also
now middle-aged.  I would love to have *a job* teaching in a university.
 It would be the most money I could ever earn and provide me with all
kinds of information and other resources.  All of that would allow me to
do all kinds of political work which at present is not possible.  But be
an *academic* - nah, never!

Philip Ferguson