Rob:
>Marx was funded by a combination of a bourgeois friend's generosity, his
>aristocratic wife's legacy, publishers' advances and some payments from
>bourgeois newspaper editors - he even played the stock market for a while.
>So funding sources are not always decisive determinants of, er, output. I
>also suspect Rabin might not be 'particularly useful', and I haven't the
>time to pursue the matter. But I know the a priori rejection of Keyneses,
>Scumpeters, Dawkinses and Rabins is not quite what Marx meant when he
>suggested we be ruthless critics of all things ...
This came up on another forum in the context of the Nader candidacy. After
I pointed out that Nader's funding model precludes accountability, a rabid
Nader defender shot back that Marx was funded in the same manner, alluding
to his legacy, etc.
This misses the point.
If it were not for such support, Marx would have never been able to
complete his research. Once the basic building blocks were put in place for
a self-sustaining Marxism movement, no other working-class leaders ever
depended on this kind of funding. It all came from the dues of party
members. Our problem today is that academic Marxism has pre-empted the
space that once was filled by a vibrant Marxist movement. It is funded by
foundations, wealthy individuals, academic departments, etc., all of which
have a stake in the status quo.
Louis Proyect
The Marxism mailing-list: http://www.marxmail.org
