What's the deal with this post-leftism stuff?

[International_Solidarity]

I had an argument about Marxism recently with a bunch of "post-leftists". I didn't understand their position at all. The main guy was a huge supporter of Anarcho-Communists, but when it was convenient he claimed that "the left is dead" and that "all the left ever do is complain". He ignored when I pointed out the fact that the left actually organizes and the post-left hasn't done anything except in small, academic circles.

I don't understand the post-left. Does anyone have more knowledge on them? There was an old thread on this awhile ago but there wasn't all that much information on them. Are there any Leftist analyses of the post-left?

[cliffhanger]

Well, in the West the Left isn't really a major factor in politics, it's more of a subculture. Most groups just show up to routinized protests with signs or flags and march around. They have fun little debating clubs where they get angry about Stalin or whatever. Except for a few moments where it bubbles to the surface, or large social-democratic protests against certain wars or social policies, the radical left just sort of hangs out together and engages in largely meaningless acts of faux-resistance. Some anarchists got pretty tired of thinking that was doing anything productive, although post-left is a pretty broad category which, like "lifestylist", covers a lot of ground. You could read Bob Black's book on the subject, it's pretty mean and funny. At the very least, don't read Bookchin's book, he's an idiot.

Personally, I think leftism matters, but probably more in situations where there is a mass revolutionary party that contends with power or is building socialism. In such cases there are endless important tasks to accomplish. If you're just a small group of a thousand or so people, like the ISO in the US, you're probably just having fun. But that's not a bad thing, having fun is cool.

[Venas Abiertas]

There's an article in wikipedia on it under the title "Post-left anarchy".

Basically, they typify existing leftist organizations in the West as being ossified, hidebound, and out of touch with the bases, which to them explains why they haven't been successful in effecting real change.

The article is worth reading if you're not familiar with their arguments already. Sometimes you learn more from your critics than from your friends.

[BIXX]

The post-left doesn't have one single ideology (in fact many of us reject ideology), so you can't really tell someone all their positions.

[Art Vandelay]

Post-Leftism is a heterogeneous grouping of theories which reject identification with the existing left, genuinely due to a belief of its reactionary nature. Alot of people interested in the works of the situationist international, Max Stirner, Communization theory, etc...tend to identify as 'post-leftists.'

[argeiphontes]

post-left anarchy is marked by a focus on social insurrection and a rejection of leftist social organisation. .... Post-left anarchy offers critiques of radical strategies and tactics which it considers antiquated


Great, where do I sign up? Oh, wait... ;)

Without organization you've got nothing. That's when the Marcuse quote in my sig (which is a self-referential joke) comes into play.

(edit: I'm not saying anything about the content of their critiques of course.)

[cliffhanger]

Without organization you've got nothing.

Post-left anarchism is not a strategy for achieving socialism. It's a rejection of the lifestyle and rituals associated with leftism. They don't care that they won't build a global socialist society or something. They just want to live their lives. Sometimes I almost agree with them when I take a look at the socialist movement.

[Ele'ill]

the wiki isn't bad at all I would just read it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-left_anarchy

and

http://anarchy101.org/1312/what-are-some-definitive-post-left-texts

[argeiphontes]

@cliffhander, Mari3L: I do think that critique and synthesis are in order. Thanks for the link.

edit: Of course, critique and synthesis are always in order, no matter what the endeavor is :D

[Ele'ill]

http://libcom.org/library/nihilist-communism-monsieur-dupont

[Popular Front of Judea]

The irony of a critique is that the object being critiqued has to continue to exist for the critique to be relevant. For example to fully understand Foucault you have to know something about the Stalinist French Communist Party. It was a major cultural influence on the France that Foucault came of age in. Needless to say it has ceased to exist. "Post-leftism" makes little sense outside of the urban enclaves where what is left of the Left gathers.

[baronci]

Needless to say it has ceased to exist. "Post-leftism" makes little sense outside of the urban enclaves where what is left of the Left gathers.

uh, "the left" is already an irrelevant fringe grouping itself, unless you include social democracy or even Stalinism. I doubt you've actually read any 'post left' literature aside from a wiki article, because it is very relevant to the present day and focuses on creating pro-revolutionary theory that breaks from tradition while criticizing the existing left for doing just the opposite.

[Popular Front of Judea]

I doubt you've actually read any 'post left' literature aside from a wiki article ...

I lived through the 90's, trust me I have. :grin:

[Lord Hargreaves]

I don't know much about it tbh. But it seems to be based on a a number of polemical characterizations of what the Left is - some of which are perhaps reasonable, some half-truths, some outright strawmen.

They see the Left as an unreconstructed modernist, enlightenment political project, with a quasi-religious belief in the inevitability of Progress, an obsession with organisation and with "politics", and as having austere, disciplinarian, work-hard values. It is also seen as something based on the twin paradigms of class and capitalism, failing to see that these concepts have been superseded (thus the "post-") in the contemporary world

[CyM]

Post-leftism is intellectual circle-jerking that is a close cousin to post-modernism. Its purpose is to confuse and dilute the radicalization of the youth. There is a reason why so much money is spent on it in the bourgeois universities. To the bourgeois, it is a useful hodgepodge of crap. To us, is as useless as lifestylism.

1. The anti-modernism idea
2. The denial of the existence of progress
3. Often the denial of the existence of the working class ("we're a post-industrial society!")
4. The circlejerking ("isn't it an outdated idea to talk about means of production? That's so old left!")

[baronci]

Post-leftism is intellectual circle-jerking that is a close cousin to post-modernism. Its purpose is to confuse and dilute the radicalization of the youth. There is a reason why so much money is spent on it in the bourgeois universities. To the bourgeois, it is a useful hodgepodge of crap. To us, is as useless as lifestylism.

1. The anti-modernism idea
2. The denial of the existence of progress
3. Often the denial of the existence of the working class ("we're a post-industrial society!")
4. The circlejerking ("isn't it an outdated idea to talk about means of production? That's so old left!")

lmfao. universities do not spend "so much money" on post-leftism. It's promoted by individuals. No institution in the world is funneling millions of dollars to promote post-left thought. take your fucking tin foil hat off and stop making insane accusations. You people are just so afraid that your theology might be flawed that you'll make up anything to discredit opposing ideologies.

[human strike]

Post-leftism is intellectual circle-jerking that is a close cousin to post-modernism. Its purpose is to confuse and dilute the radicalization of the youth. There is a reason why so much money is spent on it in the bourgeois universities. To the bourgeois, it is a useful hodgepodge of crap. To us, is as useless as lifestylism.

1. The anti-modernism idea
2. The denial of the existence of progress
3. Often the denial of the existence of the working class ("we're a post-industrial society!")
4. The circlejerking ("isn't it an outdated idea to talk about means of production? That's so old left!")

Hopefully most here will spend more than the five seconds this person spent reading, analysing and critiquing post-left thought before forming any opinions.

I recommend Wolfi Landstreicher (AKA Feral Faun) for more explicit outlines of what post-left means, especially From Politics to Life: Ridding Anarchy of the Leftist Millstone (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wolfi-landstreicher-from-politics-to-life-ridding-anarchy-of-the-leftist-millstone). And I'll point out post-left ideas aren't just for anarchists - I share a lot of ideas with post-left thought but have never properly considered myself to be an anarchist.

[CyM]

lmfao. universities do not spend "so much money" on post-leftism. It's promoted by individuals. No institution in the world is funneling millions of dollars to promote post-left thought. take your fucking tin foil hat off and stop making insane accusations. You people are just so afraid that your theology might be flawed that you'll make up anything to discredit opposing ideologies.

Lol, right. So all those grants are magical fairy gifts that don't come from bourgeois universities. And the tenured post-modernist and post-leftist professors just magically appeared against the will of their boards of governors which are 90% controlled by big corporations.

Nope, to say that the intellectual product exiting the universities is useful to the bourgeois would be so conspiratorial, because a market mechanism of supply, demand, and payment for product, is nothing but tin foil conspiracy theories, right?

[CyM]

Hopefully most here will spend more than the five seconds this person spent reading, analysing and critiquing post-left thought before forming any opinions.

I recommend Wolfi Landstreicher (AKA Feral Faun) for more explicit outlines of what post-left means, especially From Politics to Life: Ridding Anarchy of the Leftist Millstone (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wolfi-landstreicher-from-politics-to-life-ridding-anarchy-of-the-leftist-millstone). And I'll point out post-left ideas aren't just for anarchists - I share a lot of ideas with post-left thought but have never properly considered myself to be an anarchist.
I'm going from years of dealing with self described post-leftists. But I will indulge you.

From the site you linked:

"A clear example of this is found in the Spanish revolution where the leadership of the CNT, after inspiring the workers and peasants of Catalonia to expropriate the means of production (as well as arms with which they formed their free militias), did not dissolve the organization and allow the workers to explore the recreation of social life on their own terms, but rather took over management of production."

Right. The problem with the CNT is that it didn't dissolve itself in the middle of a civil war and "let the workers frollic and discover life on their own".

That doesn't sound like the spewings of a blinded individual who might be found to be useful by the bourgeois universities, without his knowledge of course. Not at all. Nope, I don't see why those corporate boards would want to give grants to people who write like this.

/sarcasm

The problem with the CNT is they agreed to "dissolve" the communes so they could frollic in the corridors of the bourgeois state as ministers in a bourgeois government.

[L.A.P.]

Lol, right. So all those grants are magical fairy gifts that don't come from bourgeois universities. And the tenured post-modernist and post-leftist professors just magically appeared against the will of their boards of governors which are 90% controlled by big corporations.





Nope, to say that the intellectual product exiting the universities is useful to the bourgeois would be so conspiratorial, because a market mechanism of supply, demand, and payment for product, is nothing but tin foil conspiracy theories, right?





There is a weird conspiracy among some in the Anglo-American Left that the humanities and social studies departments are funding grants to these regimes of postmodern intellectuals out to deradicalize students with their jargon and obsession with obscure literature.



In reality, social studies and humanities programs have been the biggest target by massive cuts in education (both secondary and post-secondary school) system. Any kind of post-structuralist, deconstructionist, critical theorist type of academic is generally marginalized in an already marginalized department of the academic institutions


in the US and UK. If anything, after the "science wars", interdisciplinary studies like cognitive science, behavioral neuroscience, and evolutionary psychology have been getting loads of grants from the bourgeois education state-apparatus. The reason the "postmodern/postleft" can seem cultish or gangish is because they all tend to flock to the few universities and publishers (i.e. Verso) that accept them. And of course there's a certain niche market to it, but that has more to do with the boredom among leftists than a vast conspiracy by the academic bourgeoisie to channel radical discontent into deconstructing French stories. The only places where that stuff is even notably popular are in Paris and Buenos Aires.





Sent from my Windows Phone using Tapatalk

[bcbm]

Lol, right. So all those grants are magical fairy gifts that don't come from bourgeois universities. And the tenured post-modernist and post-leftist professors just magically appeared against the will of their boards of governors which are 90% controlled by big corporations.

Nope, to say that the intellectual product exiting the universities is useful to the bourgeois would be so conspiratorial, because a market mechanism of supply, demand, and payment for product, is nothing but tin foil conspiracy theories, right?

because there are no marxists in the universities.

[Aleister Granger]

The Post-left is the problem I've had with the left. They're the ones who say, unless you're going as far as Che Guevara it's pointless to do anything, so die. Most of them embody the modern left in the eyes of many: cold, machine-like, sexless, incapable of any intelligible thought except what's come before, and probably hiding some Cthulhu Mythos in their Kapitals.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Most of them embody the modern left in the eyes of many: cold, machine-like, sexless, incapable of any intelligible thought except what's come before, and probably hiding some Cthulhu Mythos in their Kapitals.

OMG they are on to us! Must tell the the high priests!

[CyM]

because there are no marxists in the universities.

More or less, you are right, there are close to none.

Most successful ones are "post marxist" or "marxian" academics, but I can't think of an actual Marxist.

Zizek is the perfect example of radical sounding intelligentsia who serve a counterrevolutionary purpose and are extremely useful to the bourgeoisie. He may call himself a marxist, but that he is not. The bourgeois are promoting his ideology and the ideology of post modernism and post leftism in order to combat revolutionary ideas.

[Yuppie Grinder]

The Post-left is the problem I've had with the left. They're the ones who say, unless you're going as far as Che Guevara it's pointless to do anything, so die. Most of them embody the modern left in the eyes of many: cold, machine-like, sexless, incapable of any intelligible thought except what's come before, and probably hiding some Cthulhu Mythos in their Kapitals.

The Post-Left hasn't got anything to do with Che or anything else you said.
I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.
Read Duave and Tiqqun if you want to know what people mean by "post-left".

[human strike]

The Post-Left hasn't got anything to do with Che or anything else you said.
I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.
Read Duave and Tiqqun if you want to know what people mean by "post-left".

And Vaneigem.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

More or less, you are right, there are close to none.

Most successful ones are "post marxist" or "marxian" academics, but I can't think of an actual Marxist.

Zizek is the perfect example of radical sounding intelligentsia who serve a counterrevolutionary purpose and are extremely useful to the bourgeoisie. He may call himself a marxist, but that he is not. The bourgeois are promoting his ideology and the ideology of post modernism and post leftism in order to combat revolutionary ideas.

Žižek, Negri with his "multitudes" and "Empire", Guattari with his "ecosophy" and so on... in fact, one sort of feels nostalgic for the time when academic "Marxians" like Tugan-Baranovsky and so on dared to openly proclaim their renegacy and did not feel the need to hide behind obtuse pseudophilosophy. Thus those "Marxian" academics who recently openly proclaimed their support for the AKP in Turkey are, it's sad to say, a breath of fresh air in a very stale milieu.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Honestly, I'm skeptical of most of the post-left, even when its critiques of what it terms the left ring true. For the most part, I think it replicates the worst of the ostensible object of its critiques. Wolfi Landstreicher's critiques of femninism are an excellent example - they read like borderline date-rape appologia - a recasting of the hegemonic patriarchal attitudes of (parts of) the left as "individualist". This is illustrative of, in my opinion, the actual problem we need to confront - it's not "the left" so much as the totality of capitalism which neither the left nor post-left can step outside of by any number of semantic games. The poverty isn't nearly so much one of professions of faith (of which there are plenty), but of praxis. Consequently, Bob Black the pig-fucking lawyer of post-left fame, despite posturing, presents us with a theory as practically useless as Leo Panitch (university Marxist par excellence).

Speaking of University Marxists, can we drop the "No true Scotsman" shit? Fuck Negri, but let's not pretend he's not our fault. Similarly with Anarchist Academics - I mean, hell, David Graeber and I pass through the same spaces - I'm not going to pretend it isn't true to establish proletarian anarchist authenticity.

[CyM]

Speaking of University Marxists, can we drop the "No true Scotsman" shit? Fuck Negri, but let's not pretend he's not our fault. Similarly with Anarchist Academics - I mean, hell, David Graeber and I pass through the same spaces - I'm not going to pretend it isn't true to establish proletarian anarchist authenticity.

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."
There is no such thing as a Marxist who does not organize. The academics are philosophers, not Marxists.

[bcbm]

More or less, you are right, there are close to none.

i doubt this, certainly wasn't my experience and i'd be more surprised in europe, but whatever


The bourgeois are promoting his ideology and the ideology of post modernism and post leftism in order to combat revolutionary ideas.

but


There is no such thing as a Marxist who does not organize. The academics are philosophers, not Marxists.

if the academics are just philosophers who don't organize, why are you so worried about the bourgeois promoting (not that i agree with this) post-whateverism since it would not have any impact on those actually 'doing stuff?' or are the tentacles of the university seeping into the 'workers movement?' or is radicalism so enmeshed with academia at this point that that is why you take issue?

[blake 3:17]

@TGDU -- Bob Black is useless, I friggin wish people here would actually read Panitch. His stuff on the British Labour Party is AMAZING. It's academic and scholarly. Good.

I don't roll with LP, I do with some of his crew, can't stand the sycophants. But that's academic hells for other peeps.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

@TGDU -- Bob Black is useless, I friggin wish people here would actually read Panitch. His stuff on the British Labour Party is AMAZING. It's academic and scholarly. Good.

I don't roll with LP, I do with some of his crew, can't stand the sycophants. But that's academic hells for other peeps.

Yeah, to be fair, my exposure to LP has been limited to a couple interviews/short articles, and seeing him speak on economics. What is his writing on the Labour Party about.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Where are these post-left departments which universities i want to enroll

but I can't think of an actual Marxist. Because the only university profs you know are verso celebrities. You've got a limited sample size there, bruh.

[Jimmie Higgins]

@CyM,

I think certainly in the us, post-modernism has been the dominant trend in academia, but I'm not sure post-leftism is specifically all that widespread in academia at all. And while I don't find the alternatives they present to be useful at all really (the critiques of the left can have some insights) I don't think there's any "trick" involved.

Really I think this and similar things in academia comes from the new left being able to function to a degree in academia, but at a time when the moments that created the new left were repressed or fell apart or demoralized which severed any organic connection between theory and activism. So they were in a position where they could only "analyze the world" without any real means to be a part of changing it. Left organizations themselves also suffered greatly in theory and ability to put it in practice due to the same situation (which also made them easier targets I guess too). Wandering through a desert for a generation... People are going to develop some strange ideas I guess.

As a worker making $13 an hour I really find little connection between their prescriptions and my daily reality.


Where are these post-left departments which universities i want to enrolluc Santa Cruz I guess.

[blake 3:17]

Yeah, to be fair, my exposure to LP has been limited to a couple interviews/short articles, and seeing him speak on economics. What is his writing on the Labour Party about.

His best stuff is on the state. There's a collection from the mid 80s that's on the British Labour Party from 45 - 80. It's crazy nerdy. I get a little obsessed with things.... I was trying to figure out why I even picked it up in the first place and I'm thinking probably I got interested in Tony Benn.

It was many moons ago...

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

because there are no marxists in the universities.
Excuse me? Immediately Andrew Kliman of Pace University comes to mind, and he recently published a very in-depth analysis of the 2008 crash. Or are you saying that Marxists in academia are worthless in general?


"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."
There is no such thing as a Marxist who does not organize. The academics are philosophers, not Marxists.
Even if they are only philosophers, does that mean they are incapable of producing useful contributions to Marxism in spite of their social position? It sounds as though you're prematurely throwing them all out with the bathwater. This is not to mention that under your definition, nobody can be a Marxist in today's world except in private.

[human strike]

Excuse me? Immediately Andrew Kliman of Pace University comes to mind, and he recently published a very in-depth analysis of the 2008 crash. Or are you saying that Marxists in academia are worthless in general?

I'm fairly positive bcbm was being sarcastic.

[CyM]

Even if they are only philosophers, does that mean they are incapable of producing useful contributions to Marxism in spite of their social position? It sounds as though you're prematurely throwing them all out with the bathwater. This is not to mention that under your definition, nobody can be a Marxist in today's world except in private.

I am bending the stick to make a point. I think the vast majority of academics are absolutely fucking useless. Whoever you find who isn't, is an insignificant exception. As for being a Marxist, if you really are one, you should be trying to build an organization, or else you're just doing some intellectual circle jerking.

And to the original point, Marxism exists outside of the university in real organizations. Post-leftism's "anti-politics" ideology means it, by definition, is an almost entirely intellectual exercise. The decisive majority of post-left ideas comes from the ivory tower and nowhere else.

[creamsicle]

lmfao. universities do not spend "so much money" on post-leftism. It's promoted by individuals. No institution in the world is funneling millions of dollars to promote post-left thought. take your fucking tin foil hat off and stop making insane accusations. You people are just so afraid that your theology might be flawed that you'll make up anything to discredit opposing ideologies.I was with you until you called leftism theology. No better way to look ridiculous.

[Thirsty Crow]

I am bending the stick to make a point. I think the vast majority of academics are absolutely fucking useless. Whoever you find who isn't, is an insignificant exception. As for being a Marxist, if you really are one, you should be trying to build an organization, or else you're just doing some intellectual circle jerking.

And to the original point, Marxism exists outside of the university in real organizations. Post-leftism's "anti-politics" ideology means it, by definition, is an almost entirely intellectual exercise. The decisive majority of post-left ideas comes from the ivory tower and nowhere else.
That's real cute and precious.

But how about the following problem. People engaged in political organizing, and coming from all sorts of intellectual backgrounds (pertaining to training, the habits of investigation, skills, capacities and so on) really do not either have the time to immerse themselves into, oh I don't know, the world of contemporary capitalism and its development (into open crisis), and perhaps they even lack the capacities for such an undertaking.

So would you rather that such people embrace superficial summaries as correct theories, or maybe to uphold traditional sets of opinions, just for the sake of them having something to write about in the party paper, and something to talk about as part of the propaganda process - but without any in depth understanding of the problem?

And here is where academics come in as potentially more than useful since it is their social position and practice that much more easily enables the things I wrote about above. To be sure, this is a mere potential and for every valuable contribution coming from these circles (Marxist and critical ones) there's a dozen which are rubbish.

But to make such sweeping generalizations as that about intellectual circle jerking is just ridiculous (incidentally, the example I have in mind, of Andrew Kliman, isn't at all like that) since it presupposes the building of the organization as the only valuable activity. After all, to change the world, it would be best to know it prior to that changing business, right?

[Jimmie Higgins]

So would you rather that such people embrace superficial summaries as correct theories, or maybe to uphold traditional sets of opinions, just for the sake of them having something to write about in the party paper, and something to talk about as part of the propaganda process - but without any in depth understanding of the problem?

And here is where academics come in as potentially more than useful since it is their social position and practice that much more easily enables the things I wrote about above. To be sure, this is a mere potential and for every valuable contribution coming from these circles (Marxist and critical ones) there's a dozen which are rubbish.

But to make such sweeping generalizations as that about intellectual circle jerking is just ridiculous (incidentally, the example I have in mind, of Andrew Kliman, isn't at all like that) since it presupposes the building of the organization as the only valuable activity. After all, to change the world, it would be best to know it prior to that changing business, right?My view is that academics don't exist outside of society (as much as they often might slide into thinking they do) and so the problem isn't so much that they are "intellectual circle-jerking" or what me might call "analysing and criticizing" but that for the most part (in the US anyway) they are doing so in the absense of a working class movement (or even much in the way of social movements). In the US there are some specific issues with modern universities and the need to publish and justify departments and areas of study in the neoliberal era which also contribute to some naval-gazing among left-oriented (i'm including post-left in this) academics. And also I think it's a bit old fashioned to think that in-debth studies have to come out of intellectuals; movements can and will produce "organic-intellectuals" imo.

[CyM]

That's real cute and precious.

But how about the following problem. People engaged in political organizing, and coming from all sorts of intellectual backgrounds (pertaining to training, the habits of investigation, skills, capacities and so on) really do not either have the time to immerse themselves into, oh I don't know, the world of contemporary capitalism and its development (into open crisis), and perhaps they even lack the capacities for such an undertaking.

So would you rather that such people embrace superficial summaries as correct theories, or maybe to uphold traditional sets of opinions, just for the sake of them having something to write about in the party paper, and something to talk about as part of the propaganda process - but without any in depth understanding of the problem?

And here is where academics come in as potentially more than useful since it is their social position and practice that much more easily enables the things I wrote about above. To be sure, this is a mere potential and for every valuable contribution coming from these circles (Marxist and critical ones) there's a dozen which are rubbish.

But to make such sweeping generalizations as that about intellectual circle jerking is just ridiculous (incidentally, the example I have in mind, of Andrew Kliman, isn't at all like that) since it presupposes the building of the organization as the only valuable activity. After all, to change the world, it would be best to know it prior to that changing business, right?

I am not speaking against theory. I am speaking against the professional "thinkers" divorced from the movement who pride themselves on not actually being involved and only participating in a purely intellectual pursuit. Are some of them useful? Yes, but those are the exception that proves the rule: the vast majority are absolute garbage.

Your point about most people not having the time to theoretically analyze capitalism and develop political perspectives is completely correct. Your answer to this problem is dangerous however. By taking the task for politically orienting the movement and putting it in the hands of the academics you have in effect inserted intellectual elitism and an alien class influence.

I think the average worker can develop a better understanding than the average academic, given enough time and effort. This is where the need for a professional organization becomes crystal clear. Those most dedicated revolutionary workers who show the most potential as political and theoretical leaders should not be left to rot in the grind of capitalist exploitation. Rather, the monthly dues of the members should be used to pay them a wage to become full time revolutionaries and develop theoretically and organizationally.

Not academics, but workers going full time as revolutionaries, that is where you'll find a theoretical leadership.

[Thirsty Crow]

Your point about most people not having the time to theoretically analyze capitalism and develop political perspectives is completely correct. Your answer to this problem is dangerous however. By taking the task for politically orienting the movement and putting it in the hands of the academics you have in effect inserted intellectual elitism and an alien class influence.
I don't see how "politically orienting the movement" has got anything to do with what I said.

Let's take the example of Kliman, and let's forget for a moment that he is a member of an organization as well. The rigorous analysis of contemporary capital is essential in that it doesn't automatically provide political orientation, but real knowledge of the world, and that is the stuff for political militants who know better than to let people divorced from daily struggle and the class to dictate politics.

I didn't in any way advocate what you say above. I merely said that i just might be that this is better actually than recruiting academics into the org and producing a schism between theory and practice which would run along the lines of the rank and file and party leadership - with a part of the latter being immersed in pure theory.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I am bending the stick to make a point. I think the vast majority of academics are absolutely fucking useless. Whoever you find who isn't, is an insignificant exception. As for being a Marxist, if you really are one, you should be trying to build an organization, or else you're just doing some intellectual circle jerking.

And to the original point, Marxism exists outside of the university in real organizations. Post-leftism's "anti-politics" ideology means it, by definition, is an almost entirely intellectual exercise. The decisive majority of post-left ideas comes from the ivory tower and nowhere else.

In the first place, many Marxists are isolated from one another today, whether it be in the trade unions or universities, and as such do not have the financial resources (maybe not even the theoretical grounding) to build an organization. As we are still in an era of reaction, I think you have set your bar far too high so that most Marxists must be cast into the same mold as post-leftists.

Furthermore, most of the "Marxist" organizations in America today are little more than reformist parties looking wistfully back to Social Democracy for its politics. They do not count for much on the left, which is compounded by two things: (1) The drive to build a "broad" petty-bourgeois left that has little worker involvement (see the ISO, CWI on this), and (2) even in the cases where a Marxist party has a sizable presence, they instead decide to play footsie with the trade union leadership, lest they be forced out never to return.

So when you say that Marxism exists outside of the academic scene, I agree only within strict limits. Unfortunately, I would say that Marxism is almost insignificant outside academia. Academia’s (sort of) favorable environment is in part a reflection of the radical left’s utter failure to actually intervene in the working class’s struggles. So on one hand we have an educational institution that is inherently hostile to Marxism, and on the other we have these “outside” organizations doing nothing more than raise what Lenin called the bourgeois consciousness of workers as opposed to socialist class consciousness. Playing “True Scotsman” with either of these will only serve to undermine your own argument.