Academic Marxism, off-putting?

[The Idler]

Is academic marxism off-putting to any non-marxists here in OI?

[ed miliband]

i have a question: academic marxism is often thrown around as an insult (and it probably should be), but is there really such a thing any more? i'd say marxists in academia are almost definitely in a tiny minority these days, i haven't encountered any. it seems since the 80s or so, marxism is basically frowned upon. perhaps given a head-nod to, but not engaged in in any significant way by a large number of academics.

just my impression, really.

[motion denied]

i have a question: academic marxism is often thrown around as an insult (and it probably should be), but is there really such a thing any more? i'd say marxists in academia are almost definitely in a tiny minority these days, i haven't encountered any. it seems since the 80s or so, marxism is basically frowned upon. perhaps given a head-nod to, but not engaged in in any significant way by a large number of academics.

just my impression, really.

Down here, it is kind of a thing. But as you said, they are such a tiny minority that they should be supported, otherwise Marx would be thrown out of academia and left ostracized.

They're still much much better than hyper-activist types anyway.

[liberlict]

Not sure what you mean? What is academic Marxism?

[Sinister Intents]

Not sure what you mean? What is academic Marxism?

Here's Wikipedia for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Marxism
edit: I think it just redirects to Marxism though, and I don't know if it has anything on academic Marxism, so go figure.

[Decolonize The Left]

As with everything I think it depends on the person. I've met academic Marxists who are kind and thoughtful people and seem relatively connected with the working class and our interests. I've also met some who seem distant and arrogant. I think you could say the same thing about any group of leftists, though.

[liberlict]

So what is it? bourgeois Marxism as opposed to proletarian class envy?

[radiocaroline]

I'd say academic Marxists exist mainly of the people who do not necessarily come from the groups which would primarily exercise these beliefs, people who aren't part of the working class, manual labourers or trade unionists.

Obviously they are going to be a massive minority, particularly in modern times since the obsession with neo-liberal, monetarist economics in the 1980s and the disregard of labour in priority of capital.

Overall, I believe it is a group that many struggle to connect with as I find that being a working class reader of Marxism that it becomes hard not to automatically hold prejudices against those who come from a more middle class background and go on to hold Marxist views in their academic lives.

However, ultimately we cannot change the class we are born into, exactly the same with ethnicity and gender. Therefore these groups must be supported because, in the end, we share the same struggle.

We must however try to influence them as academic Marxists have the tendency to be easily pried away from the politics of the workers, due to their overwhelmingly right-wing, conservative peers who exercise the view of capitalism being a common sense economic system - the myth which has held workers captive for centuries.

We have to remember that a good few of the major Marxist theorists which wrote some of the staple, classic texts that we all read are to be considered academic Marxists, because that's the way the system was - if Marx was born into a family of factory workers, he probably never would've learned to read and write and thus the Communist Manifesto and the rest of his massively influential works would never have been written.

We must take them into our struggle, and nurture their ideologies to be Marxist, rather than excluding them as a group and watch them inevitably repatriate to capitalism.

[liberlict]

I think what I'm understanding academic Marxists to be, educated Marxists, are the only type worth listening to. It's not the average idiot throwing bottles at a g-20 summit has anything intelligent to say.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I think what I'm understanding academic Marxists to be, educated Marxists, are the only type worth listening to. It's not the average idiot throwing bottles at a g-20 summit has anything intelligent to say. as if it's impossible for grad students to bloc up

[Vanguard1917]

I always understood 'academic Marxism' as referring to a particular kind of theoretical/political/temperamental orientation - not to all Marxists who happen to make a living as university lecturers. Academic Marxists were people who treated Marxism as primarily a scholarly pursuit. They tended to not only be detached from socialist politics (and much else besides), but to see their detachment as a virtue, the only means by which they could arrive at 'unbiased' and 'scientific' theoretical findings. Probably the best example of this orientation were the 'analytical Marxists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism)', who were all the rage in academia in the late 1970s and 1980s. Fittingly, they rejected Marxist dialectics - which emphasises the unity of theory and practice - in favour of incorporating various liberal ideas and frameworks into Marxist theory.

[audiored]

Fittingly, they rejected Marxist dialectics - which emphasises the unity of theory and practice - in favour of incorporating various liberal ideas and frameworks into Marxist theory.

This tradition remains though significantly changed after the wave of post modernism which washed over academia in the 90s. Mileage may vary, but my experience is class and capitalism are dirty words. Capitalism tends to only be refereed to as "neoliberalism". Popular concepts like colonialism are only ever talked about as separate and unconnected from capitalism.

Though in disparate fields like family studies and public health, the central role of political economy is more and more acknowledged in ways it hasn't been for decades which at times verge on radical critiques.

In the absence of sustained, mass working class movements and resistance, there is little material from which academics can theorize from over the last couple decades.

[Creative Destruction]

i don't know what academic Marxism is supposed to mean, exactly, but i do know that Slavoj Zizek is annoying as hell.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So what is it? bourgeois Marxism as opposed to proletarian class envy?

I think that's an interesting framing, and points to something (if unintentionally), that is maybe crucial to this thread.

Underlying much academic Marxism is either a certain distrust for the masses of people, or a sort of crude fetishization that comes out of academic praxis: In the first case, one sees "authentic" Marxism as predicated on familiarity with a whole constellation of specialist language, cannon thinkers, certain types of "legitimate" theoretical expression as beyond the masses of workers, saying, "Well, they're too apathetic." On the other side, one sees "the proletariat" as having some innate moral character, as having a correct political consciousness simply by virtue of the experience of alienation. The former shares your (liberlict's) view of the proletariat - envious of the bourgeoisie. The latter says, "No! The proletariat wants Communism!" Of course, neither of these things is true in reality (or, rather, both are true such that, taken individually, both are false), and they simply represent flip-sides of the same coin.

Academic Marxism (which I won't try to locate within a specific tradition, though I find other posters' attempts to do so interesting), understood in this sense, of being "Marxism which fails to grapple concretely with the lived realities of working class people, but encounters them as an object of study" is "alienating" precisely in the sense that it puts "the working class" outside of the real living working class and its "real movement". If it doesn't resonate with people, it's for this reason - and not a bad reason, at that.

[liberlict]

I think that's an interesting framing, and points to something (if unintentionally), that is maybe crucial to this thread.

Underlying much academic Marxism is either a certain distrust for the masses of people, or a sort of crude fetishization that comes out of academic praxis: In the first case, one sees "authentic" Marxism as predicated on familiarity with a whole constellation of specialist language, cannon thinkers, certain types of "legitimate" theoretical expression as beyond the masses of workers, saying, "Well, they're too apathetic." On the other side, one sees "the proletariat" as having some innate moral character, as having a correct political consciousness simply by virtue of the experience of alienation. The former shares your (liberlict's) view of the proletariat - envious of the bourgeoisie. The latter says, "No! The proletariat wants Communism!" Of course, neither of these things is true in reality (or, rather, both are true such that, taken individually, both are false), and they simply represent flip-sides of the same coin.

Academic Marxism (which I won't try to locate within a specific tradition, though I find other posters' attempts to do so interesting), understood in this sense, of being "Marxism which fails to grapple concretely with the lived realities of working class people, but encounters them as an object of study" is "alienating" precisely in the sense that it puts "the working class" outside of the real living working class and its "real movement". If it doesn't resonate with people, it's for this reason - and not a bad reason, at that.

There is a lot of this around. The writings of Antonio Negri, for example, or Žižek, as someone said. It's not clear to me who these obscurantists are talking to sometimes. Perhaps they are just talking to themselves.

Marx was a little obscure himself to be sure. But he became more of a positivist as he matured. I think he was trying to communicate a real message at any rate. These other post-modern mystics appear to have as a goal to not be understood.

[Dodo]

I have been thinking on this quiet a bit now. As a student of economic history coming from Marxist bias I'm in a bit of a struggle. I am at this stage, seriously considering an academic career and so far I am a self-proclaimed Marxist.

Now I really disagree with those who see "academic" Marxism as a bourgeouisie approach. In my opinion, Marxists should not only dismiss academics but also EMBRACE them, given the serious damage Marxism took up to today. Academic Marxism, despite being a very small minority in today's academia has a whole lot more impact on society today than revolutioanry movements.
It also acts as a compromise point with the opposing schools by a much more "healthy" debate. In that sense, academic Marxism makes the best contribution to Marxist stance by actively dealing with the hegemon theories and alternativish-hegemon theories.
Marxists lost a lot of legitimacy in the developed world and was interpreted in extremely different ways in third world.

Academic Marxism keeps this all together, creates "example" figures for new students, supports theory and provides a healthy discussion platform with non-Marxist doctrines which leads to its improvement.

There are some good points raised though. In academia, as one reads so much more different doctrines and how they handle certain issues which we think Marxism so powerfully explains, it creates doubt. In many cases, even non-Marxist stances draw heavily from Marxism but still "diverge" from core principles in Marxism. That really challenges the Marxist imo.

I am reading Barrington Moore now for instance for my thesis. His theories are all based on classes, their conflicts...etc. yet he did not consider himself a Marxist.
He probably did that because his conclusions were more different and his handling of classes were more -liberal- than Marxian economic sub-structure obsession at the time. But can't we, as Marxists incorporate his way into Marxism? I think it is easily possible.

I think academia today is a necessity for Marxists. I also think, Marxists shoud slowly distance themselves from dogmatically throwing around classical Marxist concepts like class struggle, dictatorship of the proleteriat and continue quoitng Lenin as if he is a god figure to justify something in contemporary politics. That is the essence of Marxism which is captured best in academia.

It is a justification as well. The stronger academic Marxism is, the more justified socialist movements would become which would make them a real possibility rather than occasional dissent. If we do not justify ourselves academically, what is our difference from religious zealots and Nazis who believe in their causes equally?
Academia is not "cut-off" from reality, in many cases it is a way better analysis of reality.

[OhDiddums]

The left ostracized in Academia? Have you been to a University lately? It wouldn't be sensational to brand the modern University as a left-wing institution.

[Dodo]

The left ostracized in Academia? Have you been to a University lately? It wouldn't be sensational to brand the modern University as a left-wing institution.

Academic "left" and Marxian academics are not exactly identical groups.

[TC]

Why would any Marxist oppose "academic Marxism?" I"m sorry but unless you're presently storming a palace or organizing a collective factory, its all academic...its just a question of whether you prefer your academic output in party newspapers and blogs or in peer reviewed journals and university press books.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The left ostracized in Academia? Have you been to a University lately? It wouldn't be sensational to brand the modern University as a left-wing institution.

Left wing institutions that turn out business graduates and policy wonks? Left wing institutions that helped provide the science and command personel for the US military?

Modern universities are capitalist institutions regardless of any specific specialization or the worldviews or politics of faculty in some departments.

In universities in the US there tends to be more open discussion of left-wing and even marxist concepts and politics, but this is relative to a situation where critical voices have been marginalized in wider society. Many of the more middle class student radicals of the 60s and 70s went into academia as the movements declined in order to find ways to contine to advance the politics that they had originally been attracted to through a wider social radicalization - politics that they could act on before but were becoming more closed off. This led to both a lot more critical theory coming into the universities in some fields, but it also meant they tended to be studying decline and trying to explain why women's lib or marxism or the labor movement only got to a certain point. This has led to some good critiques but it has also led to a lot of naval gazing - or more forgivingly, a imo fatalistic view or a privilaging of criticism and analysis of what exists, as opposed to how we might change it (to coin a phrase;)).

The "universities are controlled by radicals" trope is just a McCarthyist type attack on any critical voices. People like Larry Summers run universities, not the Chomskys. The right just dosn't want to tolerate any room for critical dissent.