Re: [Marxism] The Road to Rightville

[Haines Brown <brownh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sayan, I'm not sure what your point here is. You are interested in
college radicalism, but your point seems only implicit. Are you
talking about the heady atmosphere of the 60s or about today? Are you
talking about grad students or the professoriat or US citizens in
general?

Why assume college radicalism was "stupid". It may sometimes have been
excessive and unthinking, but "stupid" doesn't seem the right
word. For one thing, the movement represented an expression of moral
principle and outrage that is always admirable, whether coming from
the right or left, especially from the perspective of today when young
people seem to lack a moral backbone.

The left activism of the 60s attracted ever new cadre from the student
body, but failed to institutionalize the movement. As a result, most
protesters were newcomers to the movement, and so it is not surprising
that they were often ill-informed and their actions ill-considered. On
the other hand, most of the people who were more permanently involved
and offered leadership seem to have been intelligent and
thoughtful. The word "stupid" just does not fit a very complex
situation.

While I'm acquainted with a number of people who are obviously
mentally handicapped, I don't otherwise find people at all "stupid". I
live among the hoi poloi and am one of them, and so I don't care to
see people dismissed as being stupid. I know people of varying
heights, but it would make no sense to use height as a measure of
their intrinsic worth. Likewise I know people who seem to be sharper
than others, but I surely don't use that as an index of their
worthiness.

Another thing I don't understand is your identification of radicalism
with the professors. My experience in the 50s and 60s was quite the
opposite. The professors I knew were passive and did not express
political views out of the norm. The campus at which I attended grad
school was a hotbed of the new left in the 60s, but the leadership and
inspiration came entirely from students. Many of these grad students
did end up in teaching careers, and so naturally later on some
professors were radical, That is, I don't believe a radicalized
professioriat was the cause of student activism, but was rather one of its
effects.

I also don't understand your apparent counterposing of conservative
and liberal, but that may be due to my ignorance. I think of a
conservative as holding to the view that nothing outside should impose
itself on our rational decision making. But in economic terms, that is
the definition of liberal. Free trade, for example, simply applies
optimal decision theory to the level of commerce. This is why
liberalism is really a capitalist ideology. Given this, a radical
would be someone who rejects that ideology, such as a communist on the
left or fascist on the right. Much of the student movement of the 60s
was not "radical", but reformist within the constraints of capitalism,
such as advocating a social or economic democracy.

The definition of conservatism you offer does not really seem to be a
definition of that outlook, but a list of the personal virtues that
you associate with conservatives. For example, take
"skepticism". Well, a skeptical outlook seems to me to have emerged in
the mid 50s as part of a rising bohemianism that was not particularly
political. When the New Left did emerge (or even if we go back to such
things as Partisan Review), surely they represent skepticism almost by
definition. The conservative movement was also skeptical. In fact, is
not any movement critical of the status quo skeptical?

And why shouldn't the academy be a generator of our  
political and cultural battles? Is that not one reason academia
exists? And what would you have in its place? From what
institutionalized framework would you prefer to see challenges to the
status quo? A dull conformity represents a submission to those in
power and acceptance of mediocrity. Surely you are not advocating
that.

> Here we near the answer to our riddle: how privileged college
> aduates, while fronting for the interests of corporations and the
> ch, speak the language of angry populism, and with such depth of
> nviction. [...]

This again simply is not realistic. I went to grad school on the GI
Bill and also worked to pay my bills. I was no more privileged than
any one else in the US. I would not condemn anyone for making an
effort to attend school or pursue scholarly interests. And in what
possible sense were graduate students fronting for corporations? A
good reason to attend grad school was to escape the grip of the
corporations. 

And the language of angry populism? What angry populism?  Of when do
you speak? A graduate student is in principle a member of the
bourgeoisie, and that is a contradictory social location, at one
moment sounding like the working class and in another, the ruling
class. I don't know why they are so important and worthy of your
ire. A good defense of conservatism would be a healthy challenge, but
that does not seem to be your aim. 

-- 
 
       Haines Brown, KB1GRM

         
        

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism