Well, 'nuff said. But leaving aside the question of whether various rightwing thinkers admire one another, I'm amazed that no-one has managed to respond to the specific argument that I made. This concerned the ways in which academic disciplines are founded and delimit themselves in relation to one another and develop as professional specialisations. I wasn't so much asking whether there are people who consider themselves marxists and who manage to make careers within academia that are more or less satisfying to them. (This applies to me too). The disciplinary boundaries themselves seem to me to be problematic and to have nothing to do with marxism - as I suggested I think they even detract from marxism's view of the totality. In the social sciences the compteting paradigms based on the primacy of either validity or value (mainly positivism and hermeneutics, broadly speaking), which have their roots in neo-kantianism of the Marburg and Heidelbg schools, have shaped the discipli! nary frameworks in which marxist academics are forced to operate. To claim that the situation is opposite - i.e. that marxism somehow divides itself into these disciplinary fields and procedures, and that bourgeois social science takes its cue from this - is ridiculous. Marx's sustained critique of bourgeois social science, in the form of political economy especially, comes closer to the spirit of what I am suggesting here.
So will there be universities as we know them after capitalism?
Tahir