Log in

Previous Entry

Ouch, Marxists.

"And, as we examine our collective historiographic conscience, we might take note of the Marxist and pseudo-Marxist attempts to read, sometimes perceptively but more often with self-defeating rigidity, the economic doctrines of Karl Marx into the still mysterious creative desires of humanity."

- "Art and Freedom in Quattrocento Florence", Frederick Hartt in Modern Perspectives in Western Art History

I found this amusing, as I have had to read a decent amount of Marxist stuff for the same class.


( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
Dec. 18th, 2008 01:18 am (UTC)
That's a good one. I always feel redeemed when someone throws a jab at a scholar I've had to read a lot of.
Dec. 18th, 2008 02:12 am (UTC)
Same, especially when my notes include lots of me disagreeing with said scholar, or at least their devotees. It shows someone other than some poor undergrad in an intro class has the same opinion.
Dec. 18th, 2008 02:02 pm (UTC)
I'm not sure this comment is totally relevant, but this jab about Marxism indirectly reminded me of a passage I love from the Communist Manifesto, which, while not exactly academic snark (it is after all directed at the prevalent ideology of the time, not at scholars), is pretty fun and snarky:

"The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private."
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )


When Academics Attack! Quotes and marginalia.

One rule to ring them all.

Only one rule: post only quotations from published material or amusing glosses - do not attempt to start fresh, UNPUBLISHED fights with each other in the comments while attempting to justify, explain, or temporize for, an attackademic in your field.

Anything that starts to look serious or pedantic will be deleted on the grounds that it will threaten to turn things deadly dull. WWF-style (or similar) rooting only. If you want to colloq, TAKE IT OUTSIDE OF THE THUNDERDOME.
Powered by LiveJournal.com