RE: [Marxism] Re: Les

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

Paul Diener wrote:

  I agree entirely with your view that a severe - VERY severe - crisis
is now underway.

  I agree with your view that 'armchair Marxists' are
ANTI-revolutionary. There is a reason for this in American academics.

  I once had a conversation with a professor of social science from
Stanford.  His department was looking for a 'Marxist':  "We really need
to have one to fill out our offerings."  But he stated that they were
looking for a Marxist who would be 'colleagueal', and fit into the
'Stanford milieu' !

 Armchair 'Marxists' are, to social theory in academics, what
vaccinations are to the health system.

    They offer up a DEAD or ATTENUATED 'virus', an d they thereby
prevent 'infection' with the active 'disease'.  During my own time in
academics, I was surprised to discover that these types are often the
most arrogant, and even the most degenerate, faculty in their personal
behaviors.

   This was accepted by the departmental chairs at two institutions
where two self-labeled 'Marxists' I knew taught.  Both of these were
notorious for arrogance and for sexual peccadillos.  Both were
tolerated.

   University administrators want to expose students to 'Marxism', but
they don't want them to 'catch' the ideology.  They just want to
'vaccinate' them against it.  Hence, bullshit ideas from obnoxious
'Marxists' are the order of the day.

   The elite schools set slots aside for jerks of this type.

   
Response (Jim C): Interesting discussion and accompanying metaphors. I
was struck when, in a rather vitriolic note to Louis by Ellen Wood, she
self-described herself as an "academic Marxist". Is that the same as a
"Marxist academic"? What does it mean when the word academic is used as
an adjective as opposed to a noun in someone's self-description of what
they supposedly are and are practicing?

For example, the way I see it, an academic Marxist might be someone
calling herself/himself a Marxist but is conceptually able to separate
theory-praxis (or considers academic work inherently a form of praxis)
focusing on issues that Marxists typically raise and consider important
but in academic environments and through typically "academic"
approaches, whereas a Marxist academic might be someone who considers
himself/herself a Marxist but is doing, developing and linking the
theory-praxis unity primarily in academic settings and/or is describing
how they make a living but qualifying some limits on how far they are
prepared to go to continue to make a living in academia? Or perhaps it
is all a distinction without a difference?

Since real Marxism sees an inseparable unity between theory and praxis
and sees praxis and imperatives of concrete and effective praxis
(against the most critical forces and forms of oppression) driving and
testing the development of theory--along with the priorities and areas
of theory to be developed--what would "academic Marxism" or an academic
approach to Marxism entail? Is the notion of an academic approach to
Marxism and pure academics (e.g. reading a few articles about the
Blackfeet Reservation in Browning, Montana, and, never having visited
there or spoken with anyone from there, then making summary
pronouncements about the realities and personalities there) as a
concrete--and perhaps safer or easier or more personally
gratifying--form of praxis what is partially behind some self-described
Marxists being so dogmatic and certain and absolutist about the real
issues and conditions facing peoples in places they have never been and
whose languages they do not speak and/or about the realities of
historical periods in which they have never lived?  And where do the
concrete choices of what issues are worthy of spending scarce time and
resources to examine come from for the academic Marxists or the Marxist
academics? How much of academic Marxism or Marxist academia is nothing
but carving out and becoming a "published/publishable name" and
"respectable CV-notching" in some specialized and perhaps esoteric
academic market niche with little relevance to real struggles of real
peoples under real conditions?

Perhaps I could apply to Stanford. With me they could get at least three
additional "affirmative action" points to illustrate how "diverse" they
are or seek to become. Of course I might have some problems with the
"collegiality" requirements. Would they consider me "collegial" if I
raised--with thorough evidence and documentation--the various forms and
cases of genocide--past and present--in which Stanford has been highly
complicit (through foundations, CIA-links, fronts, research, movements
like the eugenics movement, academic whoring, spying, grants etc etc)?
As for fitting into the "Stanford Milieu", well, as a Blackfoot, most at
home back on the Rez where people talk straight and directly and where
"schmoozing" is considered a form of deceit, I might have a problem
there if they wanted a "Native American" but not one who actually tries
to behave as one and live as one; the same applies to being a
Marxist--calling oneself one is not the same as living and engaging in
struggle as one.

Just some thoughts I had that came from this discussion. As for some
self-described Marxists having some personal proclivities, postures and
peccadillos not typically associated--or not supposed to be
associated--with Marxism, the only system of praxis-theory that makes no
bones about being in the service of the oppressed against oppressors and
claims no neutrality or "evenhandedness" in that regard, perhaps that is
nothing more than the academic side or dimension or
imperatives/definitions of "success" being paramount over--and
suppressing--the claimed Marxist side or dimension or fundamental
commitments.

Jim C.

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism