James Brown certainly seems to be asking a pertinent question: why the anti-intellectualism on the left? It gets to the point where any attempt at analysis is criticized as "dogmatic" or "too abstract." And Lenin in his time was lambasted as a doctrinaire by the social-democratic types. (That is, folks we would now refer to as "social democrats".) He noticed that "high-sounding phrases against the ossification of thought, etc., conceal unconcern and helplessness with regard to the development of theoretical thought." (pg. 25)
Lenin also observed that these criticisms were surfacing because the spread of Marxist ideas among intellectuals had watered down the content of their meaning. With increased popularity came increased criticism from within. So, I think the leftists today (though admittedly in a very different situation from that of the RSDLP a century ago), are afraid of losing people. Or, more adequately, of _not gaining_ anyone. But, I would say this is more due to the fact that radical organizing has largely confined itself to campus folk and lumpens. And in the final analysis, this type of organizing indicates a reliance on the bourgeoisie as a class to initiate fundamental change.
So, maybe a partial answer to James' question is: The anti-intellectualism is present because the theory behind it has been coopted, and is so pervasive. It's kind of like how the liberals chewed up post-1963 Malcolm X, spit him out, recast him as a more tame "civil rights" version of his former self, so he could be put on a postage stamp and licked.
In terms of socialism itself, all this seems to be complicated by the fact that "Marxism" remains in vogue on college campuses, to the point where the term is bandied about endlessly, across disciplines, devoid of any of the historical context from whence it came. And then leftists wonder why nothing with the word "Marxism" on it has any substantive connection to movements of working people in the U.S.! (Not to say that there's only one reason.....)
I think there needs to be a way for radical theory to be transformed into a mode of praxis, not for campus elites, but for working people themselves to gain power. Perhaps surprisingly, I am not necessarily cynical about this taking place.
Anyway, that was kind of a rambling start, and I know it's kind of general, but I hope to talk with everyone more about things like this,
David
In a message dated 8/5/2 12:00:08 AM, you wrote:
>I'm not a big fan of Lenin but at least he understood the basic form of
>
>intellectual work activists need -- "What is to be Done." Most academic
>
>work addresses every issue other than that. They explain history, the
>
>criticize activist leadership. they question "dualities", but they rarely
>
>lay out step-by-step programs for activists to evaluate. The reason EMPIRE
>
>excited folks was that, however half-assed its program in my mind, it
>
>actually tried to connect deep historical analysis to a program of action, a
>
>rare thing so it stood out.