Educated leftists [Archive]

Severian

27th August 2006, 06:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 05:56 PM
Are there any Marxists out there with PhDs in economics? And if not, do none of you find that just a tad disturbing? The only well-educated Communist economist I can think of died over a hundred years ago.
Sure. Ernest Mandel for example. Wrote "Introduction to Marxist Economic Theory" among other things. His stuff on economics is mostly worth reading; when it came to politics he completely fell down.

Some rightists will tell you that universities are full of Marxist professors who are corrupting the younger generation. Most of the people they're complaining about don't share Marx's political approach of course.

That's the problem here: people who make their living off the system's universities aren't going to have the same interests our outlook as working people.

In that sense, then, all these professors and whatnot aren't Marxists at all; most of the academics supposedly expert on Marxism don't really understand the first thing about it (and can't let themselves understand it.)

Vanguard1917

27th August 2006, 06:40

In that sense, then, all these professors and whatnot aren't Marxists at all; most of the academics supposedly expert on Marxism don't really understand the first thing about it (and can't let themselves understand it.)

I wouldn't put it like that. There have been quite a few Marxist academics who have historically made a genuine contribution to Marxism.

The real problem is 'academic Marxism', which is, of course, an oxymoronic term. It's the idea that 'Marxism' can be employed on a purely scholary basis, detached and 'scientific'. The 'Analytical Marxists' (G.A Cohen and co.) immediately spring to mind.

afrikaNOW

27th August 2006, 07:34

I think the young brother is sayin how a large number of supposed marxists may understand the political and social aspects of Marxism and capitalism but not the economics.

Martin Blank

27th August 2006, 08:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 06:56 PM
Are there any Marxists out there with PhDs in economics? And if not, do none of you find that just a tad disturbing? The only well-educated Communist economist I can think of died over a hundred years ago.
There are thousands of academics with PhDs that claim to be "Marxists". Some of them have written some interesting things, but most of it is crap. Why? Because "Marxism" (communist theory) is class-based, and academics are not in the class for which "Marxism" serves. They end up dragging in elements of bourgeois ideology and academia into their writings (Mandel's "Late Capitalism" is a good example of this, so is the whole "long wave" theory by Kondratyev), especially if they are elements of "fad" theories and academics (the explosion of postmodernism among leftwing academics in the 1990s is an example of this).

I do not, in any way, find it "disturbing", not even "a tad", that there are no "Marxist" PhDs. In fact, I find it encouraging. To coin a phrase, one class-conscious worker is worth 100 PhDs.

Miles

Leo

27th August 2006, 14:57

Why? Because "Marxism" (communist theory) is class-based, and academics are not in the class for which "Marxism" serves.

Well, most teachers are proletarian, and technically academics are also wage slaves with no controll over the means of production, so that makes a pure acadamic, someone who only writes and teaches, proletarian as well. However, most academics in fact are not in the proletarian class because of the extras they do such as projects, consulting companies etc.

To coin a phrase, one class-conscious worker is worth 100 PhDs.

Nice phrase but one class-conscious workers is worth much more than every PhD, after all PhD is just a meaningless piece of paper, telling someone is accepted as a doctorate by the capitalist society.

Qwerty Dvorak

27th August 2006, 15:17

Why? Because "Marxism" (communist theory) is class-based, and academics are not in the class for which "Marxism" serves.
This may be true, but academia isn't a material object we can just throw away, nor is it some outdated way of thinking. It is the study of real and relevant sciences, and this includes economics. Just because the working-class aren't very educated in this regard doesn't mean economics is a worthless and ineffectual subject. AFAIK the economy still obeys its laws, and the majority of Communists' ignorance as regards these laws is giving the capitalists just the ammunition they need.

Nice phrase but one class-conscious workers is worth much more than every PhD, after all PhD is just a meaningless piece of paper, telling someone is accepted as a doctorate by the capitalist society.
It indicates that a person has studied a subject and gained and demonstrated great knowledge therein. It shows they know what they're talking about.

Leo

27th August 2006, 15:31

It indicates that a person has studied a subject and gained and demonstrated great knowledge therein. It shows they know what they're talking about.

No, you can't believe how many idiots there are who have no idea what they are talking about but have a PhD. Diploma is a very bourgeoise thing, and the fact that people get educated for the diploma is one of the factors that makes the education system fucked up. The diploma is a tool for acceptance, and acceptance is a tool for being respected, and being respected is a tool for making money, so people aim getting the diploma, as it will enable them to gain lots of money, the education itself, the actual process of learning loses its significance, becomes irrelevant.

Phugebrins

27th August 2006, 18:12

Paul Cockshott and Alan Cottrill are two economists I can think of. Cockshott, at least, seems to be a little on the Stalinist side, though he tends to view the history from an almost exclusively economic point of view.

JimFar

27th August 2006, 18:40

There certainly have been over the years a number of Marxist economists, both within academia and without. Ernest Mandel, as has already been mentioned, is one example. In the UK, one prominent Marxist economist was Maurice Dobb at Cambridge University. In the US, Paul Sweezy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Sweezy), Leo Huberman, and Harry Magdoff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Magdoff) were fairly prominent as Marxist economists. There have also been economists who while not necessarily labeling themselves as Marxists, held views that were close to Marxism. That was particularly true for the so-called Cambridge economists, like Piero Sraffa (http://www.economyprofessor.com/theorists/pierosraffa.php) (who was a close friend of Gramsci), Michal Kalecki (http://www.economyprofessor.com/theorists/michalkalecki.php), and Joan Robinson (http://www.economyprofessor.com/theorists/joanrobinson.php). Joan Robinson, for instance, had started out as a neoclassical economist in the tradition of Alfred Marshall, later became one of Keynes' early disciples, and still later under the influence of Kalecki and Sraffa, developed a viewpoint that veered close to Marxism. She declined to call herself a Marxist because she rejected the labor theory of value, and because like our own Rosa Lichtenstein, she rejected dialectics. But nevertheless, she was very much a socialist and unlike many people, her politics shifted farther and farther to the left as she grew older. That, and her gender, were probably the reasons why she never won the Nobel Prize in Economics, despite the fact that she had a very solid body of research work with contributions like her work on imperfect competition, her work on the relationships between Keynesianism and neoclassical theory, her work on "cambridge growth theory," her critique of neoclassical capital theory; anyone of which should have been sufficient to merit the Prize.

Amusing Scrotum

27th August 2006, 19:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 11:56 PM
How many leftists (and by that I mean Communists, not reformists) are there out there with serious education in the relevant fields?

Depends what you mean by "serious education" I suppose. I imagine you mean University or College level education at a "top notch" University or College....though your mention of PhDs suggests you're looking for an even higher level of education. Anyway, if you run through some of the prominent communists alive today, you'll find that the majority of them went to University or College. For instance:

Bob Avakian (Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party) -- "Bob [Avakian] attended the University of California at Berkeley, where he became involved in radical politics."

Chris Harman (SWP [UK] theoretician) -- "....Harman attended the London School of Economics where he joined the International Socialists."

Jack Barnes (National Secretary of the SWP [US]) -- "He had joined the SWP in the early 1960s as a student at Carleton College in Minnesota and quickly became a leading member of the party's youth wing." Carleton College, by the way, is a Private Educational facility.

[b]Alan Woods (IMT theoretician) -- "At the age of 16 he [Woods] joined the Young Socialists and became a Marxist joining the Militant Tendency. He studied Russian in the Sussex University and later in Sofia (Bulgaria) and the Moscow State University (MGU)."

Tommy "chest hair" Sheridan (MSP for the SSP) -- "He [Sheridan] attended Roman Catholic schools before attending the University of Stirling, from which he graduated."

I could go on. But I imagine that is enough to quell your fears that "the left" lacks "serious education". Though, I imagine there's something to be said about how all these well educated folks sought and attained positions of "leadership". Working class heroes? Or slimy careerists? You decide. <_<

More Fire for the People

27th August 2006, 19:53

All of these intellectuals have failed because they failed to distribute their knowledge amongst the working class.

OneBrickOneVoice

27th August 2006, 20:05

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Aug 27 2006, 05:30 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Aug 27 2006, 05:30 AM)
[email protected] 26 2006, 06:56 PM
Are there any Marxists out there with PhDs in economics? And if not, do none of you find that just a tad disturbing? The only well-educated Communist economist I can think of died over a hundred years ago.
There are thousands of academics with PhDs that claim to be "Marxists". Some of them have written some interesting things, but most of it is crap. Why? Because "Marxism" (communist theory) is class-based, and academics are not in the class for which "Marxism" serves. They end up dragging in elements of bourgeois ideology and academia into their writings (Mandel's "Late Capitalism" is a good example of this, so is the whole "long wave" theory by Kondratyev), especially if they are elements of "fad" theories and academics (the explosion of postmodernism among leftwing academics in the 1990s is an example of this).

I do not, in any way, find it "disturbing", not even "a tad", that there are no "Marxist" PhDs. In fact, I find it encouraging. To coin a phrase, one class-conscious worker is worth 100 PhDs.

Miles [/b]
What the fuck? the proletarian qre not supposed to be smart and educated? It's not in their class? What kind of bullshit is that? <_<

ComradeRed

27th August 2006, 20:08

Are there any Marxists out there with PhDs in economics? And if not, do none of you find that just a tad disturbing? The only well-educated Communist economist I can think of died over a hundred years ago. I've studied (unofficially) graduate level economics at the California Institute of Technology, does that count?

THere are many marxist economists who have studied at "professional" institutions, why if I am not mistaken Paul Sweezy went to Harvard.

And Ernest Mendel had his Ph.,D...didn't he?

There are numbers of Marxists who have Ph.,Ds in those fields; it's just that economics is one of the worst fields to get a Ph.,D in. Not that it's "hard", it's just counter-intuitive nonsense (and not the sort you would find in Quantum Field Theory either).

Seriously, all the capitalists ever do is spew some shit at us they learnt in economics and in fairness, and who am I to say it's bullshit? I didn't even take business studies in secondary. The thing is, most capitalists are having a field day saying we don't know anything about economics. And we don't seem to be able to properly respond. And? As though we *can't* criticize economics for its shortcomings?

THat's part of science, it doesn't matter who you are or what credentials you have, you can still contribute to the field. THat's why bourgeois economics isn't scientific.

If you were to get into serious debates in economics, you need to read a lot. And not just Ricardo and Smith and Marx, you also need to read the heterodox economists of this century like Sraffa, Keynes, etc. They bring up a number of good points that bourgeois economists can't answer and thus have ignored.

Sraffa is especially good for poking holes in bourgeois economics mathematically.

But to say "Oh, you haven't studied economics, so we can end this here and now; I've won because I've studied economics" is not a logical argument ;)

JimFar

27th August 2006, 20:29

ComradeRed wrote:

THere are many marxist economists who have studied at "professional" institutions, why if I am not mistaken Paul Sweezy went to Harvard.

Yes, he did. In fact Seezy studied under Joseph Schumpeter at Harvard. Schumpeter was the same man who taught Paul Samuelson and J.K. Galbraith. In fact after Sweezy completed his doctorate at Harvard, Schumpeter went to bat both for Sweezy and Samuelson to get them teaching positions at Harvard. Despite Schumpeter's prestige, he failed in both cases. In Samuelson's case because Harvard was not very keen about hiring Jews back then, and in Sweezy's case because they were even less keen about hiring reds. Since that time, Harvard has become much more accomodating about hiring Jews but their attitudes towards reds has changed little since the 1930s.

And I would agree with you that the economists of the Cambridge school such as Sraffa, Kalecki, and Robinson, are a good place to start for understanding modern critiques of mainstream economics. In fact Marxists like Sweezy and Magdoff drew heavily upon their work.

For people without a technical background in economics, one good writer they might wish to look at is Doug Henwood (http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/), who edits the Left Business Observer and has written several books including, Wall Street (http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/WSDownload.html), and After the New Economy (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1565847709/002-1790811-2156003?v=glance&n=283155).

namepending

27th August 2006, 20:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:56 PM
How many leftists (and by that I mean Communists, not reformists) are there out there with serious education in the relevant fields? I'm guessing these would include history, sociology, political science and, perhaps most importantly, economics.

Seriously, all the capitalists ever do is spew some shit at us they learnt in economics and in fairness, and who am I to say it's bullshit? I didn't even take business studies in secondary. The thing is, most capitalists are having a field day saying we don't know anything about economics. And we don't seem to be able to properly respond.

Are there any Marxists out there with PhDs in economics? And if not, do none of you find that just a tad disturbing? The only well-educated Communist economist I can think of died over a hundred years ago.
Look at the great successes of the economics they learn and profess...

Or maybe I should rephrase that as their total failure

Economics is entirely theoretic at the functioning level and no one should let the hefty titles, language and math schemes fool them as to the real reasons why capitalism is in place.

I've read economics and about them and its all conflict over how to stem things like inflation and deflation which are caused by capitalism, while everything else is completely unscientific methods of cloaked robbery of workers, third world countries etc. Communists are exposed to the worst kinds of insults, "refutations" and moral attacks, but these are for the huge fear that capitalists feel toward them and their observations of life... and they are justified fears.

Phugebrins

27th August 2006, 22:32

Modern economics has always struck me as part a mathematical description of fairly basic and intuitive principles about human nature, part just a study of how capitalism is supposed to work, and part observations about how it does work.
The first part we don't really need economics to understand - we can arrive at the same or better conlusions through other disciplines or just plain life, the second is pretty much irrelevant as it never finds its way into reality, and as for the third, well, we've got to ask ourselves how much the various indicators used reflect the reality of the situations.

That said, it's a discipline which can help us see the world through their eyes and explain in their somewhat inhuman terms just how capitalism wrecks humanity. I wouldn't say we need every revolutionary worker to have a degree in economics, though.

Floyce White

6th September 2006, 07:04

Economics is the social science that describes property ownership and trade. Antiproperty struggle cannot be described using economics. That's why no economist of any stripe has been or will ever be able to contribute any insight about the struggle of the poor. Only the poor themselves can do that.

AlexJohnson

6th September 2006, 07:39

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 27 2006, 04:54 PM
All of these intellectuals have failed because they failed to distribute their knowledge amongst the working class.
That's because the average member of the working class cannot digest the works of people like Noam Chomsky.

If the left-wing wants to win back the working class, we need simple talking points like conservatives have. However, this also means we'd have to stupe to the conservatives/capitalists level.

( R )evolution

6th September 2006, 07:41

I agree, a common working man would not be able to understand or digest the writeen works of Chomsky or even Marx we must connected to them on a simplistic and logical appeal. Plant the seed in there head right now so when the revolution does come they will have at least some what understanding.

Amusing Scrotum

6th September 2006, 16:36

Originally posted by AlexJohnson+--> (AlexJohnson)That's because the average member of the working class cannot digest the works of people like Noam Chomsky.[/b]

Originally posted by Machiavelli [email protected]
I agree, a common working man would not be able to understand or digest the writeen works of Chomsky or even Marx we must connected to them on a simplistic and logical appeal.

The "common working man" through the lens of The Sun? Probably. Though, whether you two have got that view from the pages of that particular tabloid, or some other bourgeois media outlet, really doesn't matter; because, essentially, it emphasises the common ruling class stereotype of what your "common working man" can and can't understand. And, like most stereotypes, it says nothing much about objective reality....and the actual nuances of working class culture. For instance:

Aufheben; September 1997
For most of the history of the proletarian movement, a demanding critical thought was not seen as alien or elitist. In fact research into the use of union libraries, workers' book collections, radical publishers etc shows that 'deep' theoretical works were often far more widely read amongst sections of the proletariat than the upper classes. Knowledge was something that had to be fought for collectively and did not come cheap to the poor, and was therefore all the more highly valued. Proles were open to theory if it could be seen to be useful and related to their own reality and struggle. There were also many lectures, debates, meetings and workers educational events regularly held; 'it can be estimated on the basis of published speakers' lists in various journals that between 1885 and 1939 there were approximately 100 street corner meetings per week throughout London.' Self-educated artisan/worker theoreticians produced by this international culture include; Weitling, Proudhon, Dietzgen, Bill Haywood, B. Tavern, Paul Mattick, Lucy Parsons, Makhno, Arshinov, Jack Common, Fundi the Caribbean Situationist etc.

The rest of the article is a theoretical criticism of a prominent anarchist organisation in Britain that took the approach you two advocate. As the writer puts it, "[they were] a kind of anarcho-Saatchi and Saatchi". I suggest you both read it....you might learn something instead of just repeating ruling class stereotypes. (http://libcom.org/library/paper-tiger-class-war-aufheben-6)

There's actually a wonderful story you hear from time to time, about some Welsh Miners from the Valleys in around 1880. They would, of an evening, walk up a large hill and, under a marked boulder, retrieve a copy of a work by Rousseau (?) that they had acquired. They would then sit down and collectively read and discuss said work. At least that's how the story goes....

The point being, of course, that the "common working man" has never been an illiterate Neanderthal, even before the time of Public Education. Rather, the working class as a whole, and the most politically conscious sections of it especially, have always had a certain thirst for knowledge which completely contradicts the distinctly middle class stereotype of the "working class ogre". (Which is, at the moment, portrayed mainly through the "Chav" stereotype in the popular media.)

And it's attitudes like the ones you two have presented, which really make the saying "one class-conscious worker is worth 100 PhDs" relevant. So why don't the pair of you fuck off back to University-land, where you can scoff at all these "working class imbeciles" with all your middle class buddies? The "common working man" will certainly be perfectly fine without "comrades" like you two.

AlexJohnson

7th September 2006, 04:56

Originally posted by Amusing Scrotum+Sep 6 2006, 01:37 PM--> (Amusing Scrotum @ Sep 6 2006, 01:37 PM)
Originally posted by AlexJohnson+--> (AlexJohnson)That's because the average member of the working class cannot digest the works of people like Noam Chomsky.[/b]

Machiavelli [email protected]
I agree, a common working man would not be able to understand or digest the writeen works of Chomsky or even Marx we must connected to them on a simplistic and logical appeal.

The "common working man" through the lens of The Sun? Probably. Though, whether you two have got that view from the pages of that particular tabloid, or some other bourgeois media outlet, really doesn't matter; because, essentially, it emphasises the common ruling class stereotype of what your "common working man" can and can't understand. And, like most stereotypes, it says nothing much about objective reality....and the actual nuances of working class culture. For instance:

Aufheben; September 1997
For most of the history of the proletarian movement, a demanding critical thought was not seen as alien or elitist. In fact research into the use of union libraries, workers' book collections, radical publishers etc shows that 'deep' theoretical works were often far more widely read amongst sections of the proletariat than the upper classes. Knowledge was something that had to be fought for collectively and did not come cheap to the poor, and was therefore all the more highly valued. Proles were open to theory if it could be seen to be useful and related to their own reality and struggle. There were also many lectures, debates, meetings and workers educational events regularly held; 'it can be estimated on the basis of published speakers' lists in various journals that between 1885 and 1939 there were approximately 100 street corner meetings per week throughout London.' Self-educated artisan/worker theoreticians produced by this international culture include; Weitling, Proudhon, Dietzgen, Bill Haywood, B. Tavern, Paul Mattick, Lucy Parsons, Makhno, Arshinov, Jack Common, Fundi the Caribbean Situationist etc.

The rest of the article is a theoretical criticism of a prominent anarchist organisation in Britain that took the approach you two advocate. As the writer puts it, "[they were] a kind of anarcho-Saatchi and Saatchi". I suggest you both read it....you might learn something instead of just repeating ruling class stereotypes. (http://libcom.org/library/paper-tiger-class-war-aufheben-6)

There's actually a wonderful story you hear from time to time, about some Welsh Miners from the Valleys in around 1880. They would, of an evening, walk up a large hill and, under a marked boulder, retrieve a copy of a work by Rousseau (?) that they had acquired. They would then sit down and collectively read and discuss said work. At least that's how the story goes....

The point being, of course, that the "common working man" has never been an illiterate Neanderthal, even before the time of Public Education. Rather, the working class as a whole, and the most politically conscious sections of it especially, have always had a certain thirst for knowledge which completely contradicts the distinctly middle class stereotype of the "working class ogre". (Which is, at the moment, portrayed mainly through the "Chav" stereotype in the popular media.)

And it's attitudes like the ones you two have presented, which really make the saying "one class-conscious worker is worth 100 PhDs" relevant. So why don't the pair of you fuck off back to University-land, where you can scoff at all these "working class imbeciles" with all your middle class buddies? The "common working man" will certainly be perfectly fine without "comrades" like you two. [/b]
Okay, it's possible that the common working man is capable of digesting the likes of Chomsky. But what makes you think there is a halfway decent chance of the common working man to ever do so?

People like Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter wrap everything in nice, neat, simple little packages. To reach the common man, I think the only way we have a chance is to make the knowledge of people like Chomsky more palatable.

It's not like we have to compromise the truth to make a more simple message.

Floyce White

7th September 2006, 05:30

Practice is the source of all knowledge. Interpretations by non-participants are useless. Like water in a fish bowl, they get cloudier with every redigestion.

Besides, even if you think that more schooling means more knowledge, common folk in developed countries average about 14 years of schooling. The problem with Sweezy or Chomsky is not that workers can't understand them. It's that, to workers, their writings are not relevant.

End The Empire

7th September 2006, 07:57

While I don't consider myself a Marxist (at least yet, I'm still looking into the different branches of anarchism/communism/socialism) I currently attend a University and am majoring in Economics (a Bachelor Of Science). Some of the classes I'm looking forward to are the comparitive economics where they talk about socialism and social democracy (they say they rely heavily on texts by Marx and Lenin), I want to take that along with some labor issues classes. One of the things I want to do with my degree is to go on to graduate school and getting a master's in Industrial Relations (aka Labor Relations) and hopefully work for a union.

ahab

7th September 2006, 08:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 11:56 PM
How many leftists (and by that I mean Communists, not reformists) are there out there with serious education in the relevant fields? I'm guessing these would include history, sociology, political science and, perhaps most importantly, economics.

Seriously, all the capitalists ever do is spew some shit at us they learnt in economics and in fairness, and who am I to say it's bullshit? I didn't even take business studies in secondary. The thing is, most capitalists are having a field day saying we don't know anything about economics. And we don't seem to be able to properly respond.

Are there any Marxists out there with PhDs in economics? And if not, do none of you find that just a tad disturbing? The only well-educated Communist economist I can think of died over a hundred years ago.
i'd say im still in the learnin stages because im in high school and my teachers only teach the cappie point of view on EVERYTHING! so right now im just educating myself till i can get to a more open minded college

Marion

7th September 2006, 10:34

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 7 2006, 02:31 AM
The problem with Sweezy or Chomsky is not that workers can't understand them. It's that, to workers, their writings are not relevant.
I'd say the level of relevance would depend on the issue. Certainly most people have a fairly critical approach to the media, so Chomsky's views on that would be fairly relevant (and not dissimilar to the views that many would probably have), while I'd guess that in many circumstances the views of Sweezy on certain issues like monopolies would be fairly relevant. I think its more the case that if you start discussing an issue and preface every comment with "Chomsky, referring to the recent Iraq war, said..." or "in Monopoly Capital, Sweezy stated..." you'll get looked at as if you're an idiot, and probably quite rightly.

Actually, I'd be quite interested in knowing what areas of Chomsky and Sweezy are not at all relevant to workers (unless you mean workers qua workers in which case you can perhaps dismiss everything unless it relates directly to the production process, but that isn't very helpful)?

chebol

7th September 2006, 11:32

Although I think AS's post says most of what I was gonna say, i'll chuck this in too..

There are bucketloads of "qualified" "leftists" in institutions all over the world. The question we should be asking, where these people exist, WHAT ARE THEY DOING?

I personally know several dozen leftist academics in the areas of economics, politics, etc.

I also know plenty more "leftists" with those same qualifications who don't teach.

Most of them do fuck all.

Some of them do a lot.

But people like Michael Lebowitz do exist too. So, don't worry, look hard enough and there are plenty of theoretical arguments to salve your soul. (And Mike's are rather good, actually).

However, they play only a secondary role to the organised working class. And this, not in a lecture theatre, is where we win or lose.

Demogorgon

8th September 2006, 01:24

I have education in economics up to and including University level. Several Marxists I know do indeed have PHDs in economics. It's not a question of Capitalists being more learned in the subject. That is for sure.

In fact in general I find Leftists to have a very high degree of education. That's actually one of the criticisms we get. That we are too academic.

gilhyle

8th September 2006, 01:51

I say this as someone who got the PhD on Marxism (although not economics)....Phds are not the point. The point is culture.

You cant build a culture that will create serious intellectuals out of nowhere. its not about individuals - the only time Marxism produced serious intellectuals (besides the strange blessing of Marx/Engels themselves) were

1 the Second International and in particular the people who taught in the Berlin School (and those who came out of that) and

2. in the 1920s in Russia in the ferment of revolution before Stalin embraced everyone with his steely guidance.

There are no revolutionary intellectuals because there is no communist culture.

Floyce White

8th September 2006, 06:51

Marion: "Actually, I'd be quite interested in knowing what areas of Chomsky and Sweezy are not at all relevant to workers..."

Process of elimination isn't a good way to approach topics. Here's an example of my point.

Some years before I lived in this city, Herbert Marcuse was a professor at UC San Diego, so he's a particularly relevant example. Anyone could quote Marcuse about the stupefying effects of mass media. However, actual workplace experience reveals a different "dimension."

Several times I've worked at places where everybody sits in the break room waiting to punch in. Every morning, one or another of the finks starts mouthing off about whatever divisive nonsense is on the front page of the newspaper. It's really depressing, and many workplaces have some social dynamic like that. They're trying to program what their still-sleepy co-workers are going to be thinking about for the next few hours.

I notice that some workers arrive shouting "Hey, home boy f**ked up last nite!" (to refer to the previous night's major-league-sport event). They loudly ask the finks for the sports section, yak it up about the merits of one player versus another, and so on, until time to clock in. They shout down the pro-capitalist propaganda. And I've seen that happen several times in several workplaces. Stupid mass media is played against stupid mass media. That's a form of ideological worker fightback. Ordinary workers are accustomed to being restricted and boxed in, and become very adept at finding and manipulating the weaknesses in the situations. So saying sports is part of "false consciousness" and "confusing resistance with conformity" is not meaningful to those ordinary workers in the break room who very clearly could tell the difference.

encephalon

8th September 2006, 07:33

i'd say im still in the learnin stages because im in high school and my teachers only teach the cappie point of view on EVERYTHING! so right now im just educating myself till i can get to a more open minded college

Unless you're in a private school at the moment, I must regretfully inform you that college, at least in the US, is no more "liberating" in the education sense than high school. I'm taking an Urban history course right now, actually, where the professor has decided to frame the entire subject around the issue of private property. According to him, where private property was respected, civilization flourished; where it didn't, civilization stagnated. Of course, this is even more blatant than most of the time, but you get the point. (actually, I've read articles by the guy from the late 80s, and it seems he's a former trot, or pseudo-socialist at the least.. which makes him even worse.)

As for the original question posed in this thread: I've been in school six years come december (after a decent break after high school), and while I'm a major in both history and english, I've yet to "attain" a degree.

For the first two or three years, I worked at factories and warehouses full-time while going to school, because for some reason a worker in the US isn't considered an adult until reaching the age of 24, joining the military or getting married (the latter two indoctrinating a person enough to have a vested interest in capitalism, and the former to discourage young workers in general from college). After turning 24 and starting a new school year, however, I immediately went to find a low paying job (to raise my financial aid) and I have worked 24 hours a week since then.

But, more to the point: I will probably stay in school, for the most part, until they no longer give me money. Even more to the point, I would suggest that every worker out there do the same. Don't go to college to "get smart"--if you do, you'll be severely disappointed. Don't go to college to get a degree. Don't go to college for anything other than leeching off of the capitalist system that already steals the fruits of your labor.

Once they finally stop you: leave the country. This leaves them with the debt you incurred as well as "deprives" them of your labor. And while I can suggest not paying back any student loans you might incur, I can't say I'll be doing the same. But not because I won't be doing the same.

While there, though, at the very least you'll learn a lot about who you're up against, and concerning the economics side (most colleges list basic economics courses here as university requirements) you'll at least become slightly versed in their circular logic (which, in turn, will further bolster your investigation of other economic systems).

Also, someone mentioned above that professors make a lot of money, don't share the same class interests, etc. While in some respects this is true, it's also untrue in many ways. They are still exploited, and many of the professors here make less a year than the local high school teachers.

In sum, disregarding my suggestions: while I don't have a phd at the moment, by the time I'm done leeching off of the system for all it's worth, I'll probably have one. Which will make me no more able to understand the world than I can now, nor more than any of you. A degree is meaningless. If you can read and write, you can understand any concept ever established throughout history.

Martin Blank

8th September 2006, 09:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 12:06 PM
What the fuck? the proletarian qre not supposed to be smart and educated? It's not in their class? What kind of bullshit is that? <_<
It's the kind of bullshit that happens when people don't closely read what was written. I never said that workers should not be educated. On the contrary, workers should be as educated and knowledgeable as possible. But they don't need PhDs (the people or the degrees themselves) to be knowledgeable.

Miles

encephalon

8th September 2006, 10:28

It's the kind of bullshit that happens when people don't closely read what was written. I never said that workers should not be educated. On the contrary, workers should be as educated and knowledgeable as possible. But they don't need PhDs (the people or the degrees themselves) to be knowledgeable.

Indeed, they do not; but they also don't need to hammer a metal bar into a clamp twelve hours a day for the rest of their lives in order to become class conscious.

Most of the people that I can recall you admire, actually (lenin, marx, etc.), were petite bourgeoisie college graduates (rather than workers in college); which is quite different than what you seem to argue.

Regardless, the problem isn't one of "college" education (which is near being an oxymoron); it's a problem of education, period.. or rather miseducation. If CNN is louder than we are, the great majority will listen to CNN without question. It's a matter of visibility and access to key ideas and concepts (of the ruling class or the working class), not a matter of understanding.

We should all acknowledge that we are fighting against the grain, not with it. No phd, B.A., B.S., M.A. or any other degree is going to change our relation to everyone else in the working class (that is, if you are of the working class; I'm under the impression that many here are not). In fact, such degrees are likely to antagonize our relations.

Marion

8th September 2006, 12:05

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 8 2006, 03:52 AM
Ordinary workers are accustomed to being restricted and boxed in, and become very adept at finding and manipulating the weaknesses in the situations. So saying sports is part of "false consciousness" and "confusing resistance with conformity" is not meaningful to those ordinary workers in the break room who very clearly could tell the difference.
Agree totally. I think that the myriad ways that people fight back (even "subconsciously") against capital are often ignored and often occur without any sort of detailed academic theoretical evaluation of the situation.

However, seems to me that its still possible to say that there is a role for theoretical discussion and that there is no reason why this theoretical discussion should be limited to "intellectuals" as opposed to "workers". Yep, understanding the very concrete ways that people react to their own situations is very important as well, but I don't think its an either/or issue. I don't expect Chomsky, Sweezy or anyone to be able to answer all or even most of the issues that are relevant to working people, but I do think that they provide certain angles on issues that are relevant to workers and that these can prove helpful.

OneBrickOneVoice

9th September 2006, 03:58

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Sep 8 2006, 06:44 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Sep 8 2006, 06:44 AM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 12:06 PM
What the fuck? the proletarian qre not supposed to be smart and educated? It's not in their class? What kind of bullshit is that? <_<
It's the kind of bullshit that happens when people don't closely read what was written. I never said that workers should not be educated. On the contrary, workers should be as educated and knowledgeable as possible. But they don't need PhDs (the people or the degrees themselves) to be knowledgeable.

Miles [/b]
A PhD simply gives you credibility. Also, if there aren't legitimate marxist economists, then how do we know that the economics would actually work? Other people would be extremely skeptical of our system. Like today I was arguing with a capitalist and he claimed that there are no modern marxist economists and that it is looked at as a failed system.

Tommy-K

9th September 2006, 13:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 11:56 PM
I'm guessing these would include history, sociology, political science and, perhaps most importantly, economics.
I have a GCSE in History and Business (which sort of covers economics) and I'm currently studying Sociology at A-level. sorry about the political science bit :( maybe I should take evening classes.

gilhyle

9th September 2006, 14:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 04:34 AM
[QUOTE]..... while I don't have a phd at the moment, by the time I'm done leeching off of the system for all it's worth, I'll probably have one. Which will make me no more able to understand the world than I can now, nor more than any of you. A degree is meaningless. If you can read and write, you can understand any concept ever established throughout history.
Exactly.....with the exception of anything to do with some Maths

Lenin's Law

26th September 2006, 17:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:59 AM
A PhD simply gives you credibility. Also, if there aren't legitimate marxist economists, then how do we know that the economics would actually work? Other people would be extremely skeptical of our system. Like today I was arguing with a capitalist and he claimed that there are no modern marxist economists and that it is looked at as a failed system.
Credibility with whom? For whom? Sometimes I feel that "comrades" on here are speaking from two different worlds..

Look, if you want to impress capitalist economists in tea parties at Harvard by saying "oooh oooh! I know a Marxist economist! I sure do! Can I have my credibility now please?? Can I join the club of really really smart people? May I? Puh-leeeeeeeze? ?

Then that is your privilege. However, that won't change a single thing. Why do we care what some small, privileged elite who overwhelmingly will never, can never be on our side, by that I mean the workers' side think about our "crediblity" Do you really think the average working person goes around saying- " Well gee, that person made sense, but wait! He only as an MA from NYU, I was hoping he would have a PhD in economics from Yale. I'm sorry, I can't join your socialist movement until you have a PhD from Yale, that's the way it is. I'm sorry!"

And vice versa: When you do get that sacred PhD do you believe those capitalist economists will then say: "Oh, wow! Marxists DO know what they're talking about after all! They DO have credibility! My bad! Hey, Winfrey, Rupert, get over here! We're not going to the country club today, we're becoming revolutionaries! They finally got some crediblity! Yea! Woo-hoo! Power to the People!!!"

Intellectuals have traditionally been the enemy of the working class, not their ally.

However, if you are interested in liberating the working class then the last thing you need to be concerned with is how many initials are next to your name. Ordinary workers will not care what your "credientials" are (credientals being definited here in the extremely bourgeois/conformist sense) they care about if you sound intelligent and if you make sense. Some people with a million college degrees don't make sense and are not intelligent, therefore to workers they are not credible. Some people, including a few of the greatest minds in history, did not go through formal education are deemed universally as intelligent and credible.

Don't equate "formal" bourgeois education with intelligence. Bourgeois education is used, primarily at getting a job, finding employment, cementing your status in the middle/upper class. It is not used to deepen one's knowledge. It's about memorization to pass tests and exams, saying what the teacher wants you to say and that's it. As a college educated person, I can tell you that if I am a Marxist, a leftist, it's not because of college, but in spite of it.