(I thought I had sent this but haven't seen it.) My post was not from Cox the Radical but from Cox the retired professor, teacher of freshman comp. I actually did make such remarks in the margin of freshman themes. I would equally object to "some k-mart customers," "some fly fishermen," etc.
Carrol -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jurriaan Bendien Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 6:47 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Pen-l] Special Page at Monthly Review: Exchange with M. Heinrich on Crisis Theory I can well imagine, Carrol, that you would feel huffed when I call the apparently super-radical profundity and erudition of many Marxists bunkum. But in my 35 years of experience with it, Marxist scholarship is enormously frustrating, since it gets Marx and Engels wrong almost every time, in some or other way. Even highly respected Marxists get it wrong, and they often get it wrong in rather simple ways, which could be easily avoided, if the relevant texts were properly read and their context was understood. The American Marx-scholar Hal Draper lampooned the academic "Marxology industry" in his writings, and pointed out that straightforward mistakes of scholarship which would be completely unacceptable in almost any other context, are happily touted as "authentic representation" in the case of Marx and Engels. It makes you want to forget about Marx, Engels and Marxism, and take up a different subject altogether. In my experience, the academic "Marxists" are often not the "friends of the people" they claim to be either. The workers and the oppressed are merely a dramatic backdrop for the writing desks, TV appearances and podiums at which they voice their exalted philosophy about the world. They are often people who aim to capitalize personally on sympathy for the oppressed, and on the resistance against oppression and exploitation, seeking to capture youthful idealism and rope it to the bandwagons of their own ego. They "imagine" themselves to be involved in some kind of glorious project, but in reality something quite the opposite is happening. It is more the projection of their own resentment and status anxiety. Recently the Marxist superstar Slavoj Žižek meditated on Nelson Mandela, a generation of struggles, and the failure of socialism - in the pages of the New York Times and The Guardian. Mandela's "universal glory", concluded Žižek, is "a sign that he really didn't disturb the global order of power." Mightn't that be said of Slavoj Žižek himself, though, whatever he imagines about his own persona? Why, one might well ask, is today's theory of a socialist society no further ahead intellectually with any of the basic issues than it was 40 years ago, despite a ton of Marxist scholarship? Could it be, perhaps, that the new crop of Marxists have totally confused the issue, with their super-radical "levels of abstraction"? For Jacobin Magazine, Marxism is a beautiful jeweled mantle from a glorious past, which supporters would like to reclaim, wear and show off today. But what if the revered Marxist emperors of the human sciences really have no clothes on? And if that is so, shouldn't we at least try to call a spade a spade, rather than protectively coddling the "poor little wealthy Marxist academics" because they are good at doing Manny Pacquiao impressions? You might not agree with me, but you might consider the question I am asking. J. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
