Camouflage. I well remember a real Chinese Marxist dropped into a supposedly Marxist-dominated academic department here a few decades ago who was astounded. How they could reconcile all being wine collectors and snobs with their trumpeted socialist views he asked me? The answer is that their progressive views masked very regressive and antisocial behavior in general, and that was quite purposeful.
Please cite something or elaborate. This is a fair statement, but it's hardly an excuse in this context. I think you are stretching the meaning here. Marxism is not an ambiguous term.
Academic Marxism - or "Marxist Critique" - is really better referred to as dialectical materialism, historical materialism, or even more generally as Hegelian dialectics.
The political philosophies, namely socialism and communism, are a product of such thinking, but are not the same.
For instance, many feminists make heavy use of dialectics and are considered Marxist critique, but may not identify with e.g. communism.
Marx was first and foremost an analyst of class in history, and capitalism. That's Marxist analysis, which can be largely divorced from specific communist implications.
> It seems to me we are making a rhetorical space for bourjois marxists. Why?
??? Academically they're interesting questions to ask? Have you ever taken a class on Marxist critical theory or Marxist feminism or ...
A "marxist" is someone who uses Marx's method of analyzing class and capitalism to talk about whatever they want. One specific example is a Marxist critical theorist I know who likes to discuss the way class and capitalism as Marx discussed them arise in philosophical interpretations of modern literature.
Marxism is a political philosophy - one that has a lot of negative connotation in the United States due to its ties to communism, but Marxism is just philosophy so of course we'd want a space where academics can talk philosophy.
I think you're explaining yourself clearly, and of I know this is a common way of treating marxism in academia. I know you were taught it this way, as was I. But, I think it is suspicious nonetheless. Reading Marx makes me wonder why we arrived at objectifying and extermalizing his work like this. If we are thinking of Marx's work and his 'philosophy', we are critiquing class and capitalism. If we are critiquing class and capitalism, we are foolish to think our critiques are only worthy when applied to others. Of course, this point could hardly be more apparent than in the faculty's current predicaments. Marxist theory would have illuminated the trajectory many years ago had they the wits to apply the thought to their own situation. I don't feel very sorry for them myself. I've got my student loans to pay off and my university faculty members could never seem to care much less. When I was in school, talking about my student loan problems was looked down on as 'showing my class.'
> Marxist theory would have illuminated the trajectory many years ago had they the wits to apply the thought to their own situation.
Faculty members are not in control of their own situation. I'm sorry to sound a bit rude here, but you're being a bit oblivious. Faculty are under the rule of law of the administration. That is who their boss is and that is whose rules they follow. They don't get to choose the class hierarchy and power dynamics of their job same as you or I. If it were that easy to disrupt a power imbalance, then Marxism would be a lot more than just a theoretical framework. More importantly, academics are the very definition of the type of people who "get their head stuck in the clouds". They care about their work at the expense of every other aspect of their lives, expecting them to apply the same critical lens to their lives (which they are likely somewhat comfortable in) is very naive. Even Marx goes out of his way to emphasize that the means of production must be "seized" - there has to be great motivation to change the power dynamic. For professors, it can be hard to get them to care about anything that doesn't directly affect their research.
> When I was in school, talking about my student loan problems was looked down on as 'showing my class.'
The faculty have no control over your student loans. They are not the ones who charge you. And in my own experience, my professors were very enthusiastic about me talking about my issues with student loan debt. Are you sure it wasn't just in the wrong class / awkward timing? I brought this stuff up in a course on class dynamics and got plenty of positive feedback - where you say something is just as important as what you say after all.
You should redirect some of your frustration at the University's administration. Professors and faculty are getting screwed in a lot of the same ways as you, so why do you choose to get upset at them and their talk about "Marxism". They're academics whose heads are up in the clouds, what do you expect?
>Faculty members are not in control of their own situation.
Yes, they are. They are in so much as a police officer. They too, can leave their positions any time they please. They can discuss and protest, by all means. Teaching and research can and might should be done elsewhere.
The growth of administration is dispicable but not authoritarian. I will argue the administration bloat is of the same sensibilities as the oversocialized culture of academic careerism. I say with much disappointment 'Flush them both!'
We would be insulting to conclude hypocrisy excusable because of a little "head in the clouds." I will defend with you the value of submersion, of passion and obsessiveness to inspire study and discovery. Anecdotally, I find this freedom abounds more outside of academia than within.
Nonetheless, I understand your reasoning; more generously in some disciplines than others. Political theorists may visit "the clouds" but if they hang out too long, they would be oblivious to the very specimin of their research!
I am young and cannot claim to have known these mythical "genuine marxists" who amandoned Academia some decades back, but conceptually they are relatable. I would have liked a shot at an academic career but lacked the quite obvious requirements: monetary entry fee, cultural decoration, marketing/social skills.
My work has involved many ties with Academia and I've even been published in some academic journals. I want to believe, but I just find Academia and its' self-obsessive traditions, processes, and increasingly oversocialized culture to be terribly distracting. The necessity of these things is a worthwhile debate, but with so many bright minds enmeshed, anything less than greatness would be near impossible. But, my observations and personal experiences suggest that the "clouds" in which the academics' tend to place their heads are so rarely a result of curiosity and exploration as you imply. They often more resemble a narrow path down which they will chase the next carrot.
I understand you to be defending those few who place their research practice above all else. I implore you to question what might be if they were not constrained by this path. Admittedly, I'm not offering any more a solution to this than I am to the problem of pay: Leave the path or speak up/protest. These rhetorical frameworks for distancing sake is a losing proposition, and has become commonplace. These practice of prioritizing the carrot path favors a survival of the shmooziest. This is bad for research, bad for education, bad for faculty, bad for business. We can probably agree the administration does not represent bygone Academia, but I assert instead it is a bureaucratic creep that will feed on academic careerism like a virus. I suggest it is a symptom, not a cause.
Sorry for the length. My battery is soon to die or I would try to edit.
The elitism is something I've noticed, but espousing socialist views is purposeful to what end?
My best guess is that the behavior is an unconscious projection due to underlying narcissistic tendencies of people who are put on an intellectual pedastal...
I suppose it could be camouflage for being an asshole but that just seems too exhausting to be sustainable. And if they don't genuinely hold those beliefs, then what do they actually believe?
