marxism

Does theoretical pluralism mean “anything goes”? Is this not the intellectual “anarchism” that Kautsky feared so much in party life? Let us not forget that Kautsky also saw as his ideal for the future society “communism in material production, anarchism in intellectual”. Perhaps as a transitional phase, rather than anarchism in intellectual life, we can have democratic-republicanism: not freedom from interference, but freedom from arbitrary domination. The Marxist intellectual should not be free to join with the CIA, to join with the bourgeoisie, and do propaganda for the class enemy, to become a useful idiot. Yet they should be free to pursue their work regardless of whether the party at any given moment finds it convenient for its tactical maneuvers. There shall be duties, but there shall also be rights, and the right to disagree and to question must be protected.

i would counterpose to this: either a marxist theorist is a worker and not in academy (l'intellectual organique) or they can instantly tell you the rate of exploitation in any broad industry (so an accountant, not sociologist) in their country. the rest will evolve into cultural circlejerk anyways.

Incidentally i think rockwell thesis (basically fruit of poisoned tree, eg getting cia money sometime somewhere as academic) is not good, but not in dismissive way, but rather that of course cia/ngos will find intellectuals that are compatible or obfuscatory, that's their job as arm of capitalism. thus for me rather simple cleavage is: have opinions about culture - irrelevant pontification, talks about ownership, money and goods flows and production - worth engaging in, even if they surface skimming.

free marketplace of ideas is rather apt descriptor, intellectuals are shopping their wares to willing buyers (capitalists), and if there is no capitalist buyer for marxist theorist - too fucking bad huh.