askchapo

If we follow Marx’s example, then there are two kinds of right-wing theory. First is vulgar theory, then there is scientific theory. He didn’t spend a lot of time thinking about the vulgarians except to make fun of them.

On the other hand, Marx understood the material advantage held by bourgeois intellectuals over proletarians, namely that proletarians don’t get paid to produce theory. Therefore not only was it necessary to generate theory from below, from the proletarian standpoint; it was also necessary to critically examine the most advanced bourgeois theory, to dust off the class bias, and then to hand it to the working class for their revolutionary purposes. That is essentially what Marx dedicated his life to, as himself an intellectual of bourgeois background and education. Lenin made makes this point in What Is To Be Done, stating: ” We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness ...” Gramsci also wrote about the need for the working class to have its own intellectuals and the nature of these different intellectual strata.

In brief: if you are going to read theory, left or right wing, clarify your own purpose before wading in. If your purpose is entertainment, go ahead and read whatever drivel is written by The Economist or Tucker Carlson. If your purpose is to advance your ability to help the working class, then at most I would read relevant academics pursuing science honestly, even if those academics adopt imperial or class-biased attitudes.