>... Once the basic building blocks were put in place for a self-sustaining
>Marxism movement, no other working-class leaders ever depended on this
>kind of funding. It all came from the dues of party members. Our problem
>today is that academic Marxism has pre-empted the space that once was
>filled by a vibrant Marxist movement. It is funded by foundations, wealthy
>individuals, academic departments, etc., all of which have a stake in the
>status quo.
Luckily the systematic biases that come from such funding sources do not
preclude the production of some academic Marxist research that hasn't been
totally removed from the needs of working-class movement.
Also, how the working-class party is organized (including in collecting
dues from the members) might bias the kinds of research done by the party
intellectuals.
I think it's best to judge someone by her or her own work rather than on
the basis of the funding. I was asking about MacArthur funding not because
I wanted to trash Matthew Rabin but because I was curious, wondering why
anyone would give money to "geniuses." However, I add that since I have
limited time (especially because I waste so much of it on pen-l), I do
sometimes use funding as a way of prioritizing what I read. I put stuff
from the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute (two right-wing groups)
at the bottom of the file.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"]
