The political philosophies, namely socialism and communism, are a product of such thinking, but are not the same.
For instance, many feminists make heavy use of dialectics and are considered Marxist critique, but may not identify with e.g. communism.
These things are necessarily correlated and I'm not sure the necessity of drawing the line. Why not just use another term?
It seems to me we are making a rhetorical space for bourjois marxists. Why?
??? Academically they're interesting questions to ask? Have you ever taken a class on Marxist critical theory or Marxist feminism or ...
A "marxist" is someone who uses Marx's method of analyzing class and capitalism to talk about whatever they want. One specific example is a Marxist critical theorist I know who likes to discuss the way class and capitalism as Marx discussed them arise in philosophical interpretations of modern literature.
Marxism is a political philosophy - one that has a lot of negative connotation in the United States due to its ties to communism, but Marxism is just philosophy so of course we'd want a space where academics can talk philosophy.
See this comment for a better explanation https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15512846
Faculty members are not in control of their own situation. I'm sorry to sound a bit rude here, but you're being a bit oblivious. Faculty are under the rule of law of the administration. That is who their boss is and that is whose rules they follow. They don't get to choose the class hierarchy and power dynamics of their job same as you or I. If it were that easy to disrupt a power imbalance, then Marxism would be a lot more than just a theoretical framework. More importantly, academics are the very definition of the type of people who "get their head stuck in the clouds". They care about their work at the expense of every other aspect of their lives, expecting them to apply the same critical lens to their lives (which they are likely somewhat comfortable in) is very naive. Even Marx goes out of his way to emphasize that the means of production must be "seized" - there has to be great motivation to change the power dynamic. For professors, it can be hard to get them to care about anything that doesn't directly affect their research.
> When I was in school, talking about my student loan problems was looked down on as 'showing my class.'
The faculty have no control over your student loans. They are not the ones who charge you. And in my own experience, my professors were very enthusiastic about me talking about my issues with student loan debt. Are you sure it wasn't just in the wrong class / awkward timing? I brought this stuff up in a course on class dynamics and got plenty of positive feedback - where you say something is just as important as what you say after all.
You should redirect some of your frustration at the University's administration. Professors and faculty are getting screwed in a lot of the same ways as you, so why do you choose to get upset at them and their talk about "Marxism". They're academics whose heads are up in the clouds, what do you expect?
Yes, they are. They are in so much as a police officer. They too, can leave their positions any time they please. They can discuss and protest, by all means. Teaching and research can and might should be done elsewhere.
The growth of administration is dispicable but not authoritarian. I will argue the administration bloat is of the same sensibilities as the oversocialized culture of academic careerism. I say with much disappointment 'Flush them both!'
We would be insulting to conclude hypocrisy excusable because of a little "head in the clouds." I will defend with you the value of submersion, of passion and obsessiveness to inspire study and discovery. Anecdotally, I find this freedom abounds more outside of academia than within.
Nonetheless, I understand your reasoning; more generously in some disciplines than others. Political theorists may visit "the clouds" but if they hang out too long, they would be oblivious to the very specimin of their research!
I am young and cannot claim to have known these mythical "genuine marxists" who amandoned Academia some decades back, but conceptually they are relatable. I would have liked a shot at an academic career but lacked the quite obvious requirements: monetary entry fee, cultural decoration, marketing/social skills.
My work has involved many ties with Academia and I've even been published in some academic journals. I want to believe, but I just find Academia and its' self-obsessive traditions, processes, and increasingly oversocialized culture to be terribly distracting. The necessity of these things is a worthwhile debate, but with so many bright minds enmeshed, anything less than greatness would be near impossible. But, my observations and personal experiences suggest that the "clouds" in which the academics' tend to place their heads are so rarely a result of curiosity and exploration as you imply. They often more resemble a narrow path down which they will chase the next carrot.
I understand you to be defending those few who place their research practice above all else. I implore you to question what might be if they were not constrained by this path. Admittedly, I'm not offering any more a solution to this than I am to the problem of pay: Leave the path or speak up/protest. These rhetorical frameworks for distancing sake is a losing proposition, and has become commonplace. These practice of prioritizing the carrot path favors a survival of the shmooziest. This is bad for research, bad for education, bad for faculty, bad for business. We can probably agree the administration does not represent bygone Academia, but I assert instead it is a bureaucratic creep that will feed on academic careerism like a virus. I suggest it is a symptom, not a cause.
Sorry for the length. My battery is soon to die or I would try to edit.
My best guess is that the behavior is an unconscious projection due to underlying narcissistic tendencies of people who are put on an intellectual pedastal...
I suppose it could be camouflage for being an asshole but that just seems too exhausting to be sustainable. And if they don't genuinely hold those beliefs, then what do they actually believe?
1.) Overwork their students, stretch them thin doing everything.
2.) Have more graduate students.
They would always pick #2. Professors are notoriously short-handed. They are typically not the ones who are outright abusing the power. It's usually the administration tying the professor's hands in these matters.
As a graduate student, your boss is usually the administration more than the professor - especially w.r.t. things a union would care about (workplace safety, wages, benefits, overwork...). Professors do not like to overwork their students - it's just they don't care if you are overworked.
This is important to note. I have very little control over how much my students are paid, their benefits, their course load, etc.
And, for the record, I do care if my students are overworked. Burnt out students produce shitty science.
Good point and apologies for the slight. I suppose a better way of putting it is that faculty are often ignorant of their students' issues / difficulties due to their busy schedules.
It's like a competition between universities to see who can get the biggest war chest. Lacking any market concerns they're just looking for some variable to maximize just to keep themselves occupied. It seems largely orthogonal to any social purpose a university is supposed to have.
Spending down an endowment could provide lots of free tuition... for a few years. Universities (like the Church) think in centuries.
IIRC they managed it in 2007 and then...in 2008...well, that went away.
Perhaps ... the system is the result of organizational dynamics and some basic rules that some exploit and others get exploited by.
Apparently you are missing the irony in such critical theory, post-structuralism, marxism, etc. having been so vigorously theorized that it's application was overlooked! The "system" here is quite late to blame itself and the brazen approach to doing so is a bit humurous.
Are you seeking to divide academia into smaller parts; innocent ones and guilty others? Where have we seen that before?
Face it, the entire system probably needs an overhaul but isn't governed by some sort of "evil overmind". Small regulatory or incentive-based changes or movements like unionization will probably cause the system to re-adjust.
I guess it's just textbook components of neo-liberalism: priorities which lead to bloated administration and marketing initiatives.
I agree unionizing is a good solution. One would think the experts would have acted sooner; that's all. The trajectory has been obvious for a very long time.
To clarify, the shoemaker's customers in your analogy (the students) have been wearing worse shoes for much longer.
There is a sense that liberal academics assume, which purports that they carry the torch of revolution or something like this. The notion, however, lives only in the academic professorial abstract and fails to materialize outside of it. This torch is an academic torch, not a proletariat torch, not a working class torch. This is a bourjois torch.
Does this refer to political attitudes typically associated with faculty?
academia
And this to decisions made by university administrators?
If so, then no, I don't expect one to apply to the other.
By academia I mean the whole thing.
The faculty has maintained these these acclaimed leftist views for many decades, sat back and drank Kool-Aid while the administration took on the bloat. They were too busy climbing the ladder and forgot to critique it; no better than than the rest of the average neo-liberals.
Student debt swallowed at least 2 generations whole while the faculty did nothing. They didn't have to. But, they'll be the first to commend a proletariat revolution which remains a safe enough distance from their job. I cannot help notice the hypocrisy here.