jcraven at clark.edu
Fri Aug 1 11:26:05 MDT 2003
Response Jim C: Just like with Horowitz, who was an Academic/House "Marxist"
and legend in his own mind when he was considered on the "left", and whose
main "contribution" was a formulaic-jargon-ladden intro to "Marx and Modern
Economics" that he edited, so this other one was obviously a dabbler and
dilettante nominally touring on the "left" and who has now leveraged his
meager "credentials" as a "former leftist" (only for those shallow
right-wingers looking for an "ex-leftist" to shill for them and have no idea
about what the real left is about and what real leftists are) into this
market niche on the right.
This organism is irrelevant and any money those who use him on the right
(and will throw him away when he is no longer useful as in the case of
Valdas Anelauskas) spend on him and this bullshit "think tank" will simply
be less available to spend on proto-fascist machinations--and brighter less
lazy shills-- that can can do some real damage.
The difference for us is that we have critics like Stan Goff who once served
the forces of imperialism and have real credentials with and know a great
deal about the forces of reaction they used to serve, and provide some very
insightful and useful analyses (see also Mike Levine), whereas the
right-wingers can only come up with creatures who were always pompous and
insulated dilettantes, punks and nobodys when they were seen as on the
nominal "left" and now are the same--and serving the same functions--on the
More information about the Marxism