On 2010/10/08 12:15 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
> Gurus provide
> emotional gratification to audiences by affirming what the audience
> already knows but putting it in a new and more sexy form. What Harvey,
> Chomsky, Zizek& Co say is what their audiences already know, for the
> most part, but they say it very well and in a way that the audience
> finds it entertaining. Again, there is nothing wrong with being able
> to say things well and being entertaining - the point is that it does
> not go beyond that, it does change any minds (it is mostly preaching
> to the choir,) does not give any tools for predicting future events or
> actions - it is mostly an aesthetic experience, like seeing a movie
> or a theatrical performance.
> This can be illustrated by a review of Harvey's book by someone from
> South Africa posted on Amazon
> http://www.amazon.com/Enigma-Capital-Crises-Capitalism/product-reviews/0199758719/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_2?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addTwoStar
>
Wojtek, the classical Marxist tools (by no means 'sexy') that David put out for assessment last night, which Chuck sums up but which really need several years of thinking to internalise (at least in my case it took that long, even sitting in his classes for three years), are not the stuff of 'entertainment'. And the futility of trying to reach audiences such as that South African (whom I don't know - but who said similarly vapid things about Tony Blair's autobio on an Amazon review) with classical Marxism is well known.
Ok, for entertainment, the cartoon version of David's RSA lecture a few months ago (http://www.davidharvey.org) already has more than half a million hits (which puts him way beyond your 'choir'), but what's striking there too is the explicit recourse to Marxism, and the potential for reaching out in ways that so far only two or three have done, to make political economy more immediate and urgent, but also more durable and rigorous.
Do you know any other combination of classical Marxist theory and revolutionary political advocacy that has achieved such universal respect (minus the case of the odious Brad DeLong) like this? Why would you begrudge the success of someone who, at age 75, has put on the accelerator with so many new contributions and free presentations/engagements across the world, and not compromised his analysis at all? (To be sure it has evolved and matured since the 1970s, but David's still amongst the world's most committed critics of capitalism.)
He's not lowering the tone of radical intellectual work, he's raised it more than anyone else I can think of. Celebrate with us!
Cheers, Patrick