Okay, so you say "of course" capitalists use Marxism against itself, which was my contention from the beginning. So I'm not sure what we're arguing about, if we're even arguing.
My point was that folks like Zoellick are highly class conscious and advisers to such top officials are generally very cognizant of Marxist ideas, moreso than the actual working class. You seem to agree. Cleaver cites a lot of capitalist theorists that have employed Marx's insights for the benefit of capital. It seems you agree they do indeed do this, but yet you "think he's [Cleaver] wrong" (your exact quote). Sooooo.... what is he wrong about?
All I know is what I see on the printed page in front of me: Marxist theory presented to managerial elites, the likes of which you'd never find at vocational school, etc. I have never said Marxists are omnipresent in academia or anything remotely resembling that. I wish there were more. I said that many pro-caps use Marxism but "turn the formula upside down, as it were." (My exact words in a previous post.) To benefit capital, not labor.
Seems you agree, I guess? If so, then maybe we're at cross-purposes or something, and I have no idea what your argument is with. But where's Cleaver wrong with the list of folks he cites as using Marxist theory for capitalist purposes?
-B.
andie nachgeborenen wrote:
"Marxism and other radical thought has little or no exposure _as such) in the academy. This is territory I know; I've spent most of my adult life in the biz, both at glitzy and not so glitzy institutions here and in England. Let me tell you from the inside as someone who lost one academic (philosophy) job for being too red, you'd have to be a complete idiot to come out as a Marxist, anarchist, socialist, revolutionary, or other sort of radical if you were not tenured and didn't have ambitions to move to a more prestigious school. Cleaver's no fool, but he's eccentric, and I think he's wrong.'