What Does "Left" Mean Today? Is the Right-Left Spectrum Notion Anymore than a Fraud Nowadays?

Who said professors don't have  a sense of humor? Two professors wrote an article as a spoof on the pretentiousness and earnest absurdity of the rather new and novel field of Gender Studies. Their article, “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct,”  claimed to prove that the penis, the male reproductive organ, was not only a leading cause of the medical condition called pregnancy, but of, among other things, climate change. Anyhow, soon after publication in the journal Cogent Social Sciences, they revealed their real names and that the article was a hoax. I personally think that they should have waited a while longer before revealing the reality in order to see how many fish --or dupes-- they could catch who might take the article seriously and quote from it in all seriousness with admiration for and in agreement with its novel thesis. Here is a quote from the original hoax essay:

 "Nowhere are the consequences of hypermasculine machismo braggadocio isomorphic identification with the conceptual penis more problematic than concerning the issue of climate change,”

Be that as it may, the online magazine for academics, Inside Higher Ed [Ed = education] ran an article describing the hoax and quoting from it liberally while discussing several related issues. This article in turn drew a good number of comments. One line of discussion was how the toilers in the field of Gender Studies, although identifying themselves as Left, neglected the traditional concerns of the Left:

Don't you all miss the days when the "academic left" was preoccupied with issues such as social formations and the class structure of contemporary capitalism, the relationship between the dominant economic order and the state, the analysis of ideological hegemony, the application of Marxist theory to contemporary social conflict, the anarchist critique of Marxian strategies for social change, labor history . . .  

This raises the question of just what meaning the label or term Left has today. Especially since its concerns have changed so much and some charge that it is too often preoccupied with what the critics call "Identity Politics." Some used a phrase of the poet William Blake who lived in the late 18th century when the factory, the steam-powered mill was just making its appearance. Blake hated early industrialization which he characterized with the phrase: dark, satanic mills. Here is my contribution to the discussion between the two broken lines:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It really is hard to know nowadays just what "Left" is and how it may be different from "Right." Furthermore, the gender studies and queer theorists seem to have no time to study the Dark, Satanic Mills that actually exist today in the inevitably progressive 21st century. How about the building sites in Qatar for the 2022 world soccer championhip as today's counterpart --or worse-- to Blake's dark, satanic mills? So are the gender and queer theorists really Left, in the traditional (patriarchal?) sense of the term, as they neglect the oppressed proletarians of Qatar? Indeed, an earnest lady of the philosophical persuasion prestidigitating in the gender studies field informed us a few years ago that Hamas and Hizbullah were parts of the "Global Left". Yet precisely Hamas was at the time (and probably still is) a recipient of $$ billions from Qatar. Now Qatar, besides overworking --sometimes to death-- the toiling gastarbeiter from Nepal and India, etc, enjoys one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, at least for its own citizens which the laborers are not. 

Although Lenin defined imperialism as not only the highest stage of capitalism but as any very large concentration of capital --a definition that surely fits Qatar & some of its neighbors on the Persian Gulf-- our philosophical theorist of what is Left today failed to see the contradiction in her own labeling of Hamas as Left. Since it is an Islamist organization funded in large part by Qatar, an imperialist state by Lenin's definition anyway, Hamas would seem to be an imperialist cats paw.

On the other hand, the old style Marxist-Leninists too might quite possibly have failed to apply Lenin's definition of imperialism consistently and might also have been reluctant to define Qatar as imperialist. And I certainly reject Marx and Lenin's notion of historical inevitability. Which leaves us with prejudice, preference, and selectivity marching forward hand in hand with new-fangled theories.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Here is a comment that partly expresses some of my thinking about the meaning and purpose of today's "Left":

. . .  the American "Left's" preoccupation with identity politics has been a major distraction from the economic and critical methodologies noted above by Goodsensecynic [= another commenter-Eliyahu]. Maybe we're talking "post-Marxism" but, if we are in that period, then Capital can continue to have its way with most workers and citizens, no matter what their race, color, creed, or gender. The "hoax" article is, of course, about gender.
Capital has always offered "bread and circuses" to the masses (although not always the bread); chariot races have been replaced by NASCAR.
The implications of all this are obvious in the current state of academia . . .          [Frank Tomasulo]

In my view, circuses today are more the demonstrations of the Occupy Movement than of NASCAR.
The Left in the 21st century -- is it any more than pane et circenses, the Roman practice of giving the plebeians Bread and Circuses? Does the left-right notion do any more than confuse and mislead the public and the student of politics in our first fifth of the 21st century?
- - - - - - - - - - - -

--More on Qatar as well as on how certain capitalist institutions finance "leftist" organizations, especially if they are anti-Israel/anti-Jewish [here]
--Qatar's beneficiary, the Hamas Islamist group that controls the Gaza Strip [here]
-- The Qatar paradox, anti-American & pro-American at the same time [here]
-- How Qatar's royal broadcasting enterprise, Al-Jazeera, broadcasts anti-Israel "leftists" [here]

Do US Think Tanks Violate US Law Mandating Registration of Foreign Agents?

It is no secret that many area studies centers and institutes specializing on the Middle East (or other subject areas for that matter) at American universities are subsidized by some of those that they are supposed to study. That is, by super-rich Arab oil kingdoms and sheikdoms, especially on the Persian Gulf. But it is not only the university-based Middle East studies centers that are funded by Arabs and their friends, it is many of those Washington think tanks. The first institute in the United States specializing on the modern Middle East was likely the Middle East Institute located in Washington, long funded by friends of the Arabs, a large part of the US petroleum industry, and still going strong. Iran too has its own lobby in Washington, DC, especially but not only in the NIAC [see previous blog post]. Jan Sokolovsky asks whether any of the respected think tanks [perhaps wrongly respected] that infest DC are violating US law by not registering as foreign agents under the FARA, foreign agents registration act. Here is her article:

November 23, 2014

Do Major Think Tanks Violate US Law?

By Jan Sokolovsky

Prominent American research organizations may have violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, (FARA), by failing to register and to disclose lavish donations they have received from foreign governments, as documented in a recent major report in the New York Times, “Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks”, by Eric Lipton, Brooke Williams and Nicholas Confessore. Such funding by foreign governments, especially when not disclosed, is extremely detrimental to the interests of the United States, since their goal is to influence our policies.

 “More than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donor’s priorities.”

Although receipt of such funding is not illegal, failure to report it is.

“The think tanks do not disclose the terms of the agreements they have reached with foreign governments.  And they have not registered with the United States government as representatives of the donor countries, an omission that appears, in some cases, to be a violation of federal law, according to several legal specialists who examined the agreements at the request of the Times”

FARA requires registration and disclosure by persons who are funded by foreign nations if they engage in “political activities” which is defined as an attempt to influence public opinion or any part thereof, in the United States on matters of policy.  That is precisely what these think tanks do, as Martin Indyk of the Brookings Institute explicitly states in this article. “Our business is to influence policy with scholarly, independent research, based on objective criteria, and to be policy-relevant, we need to engage policy makers,” said Indyk. To assume that the researchers and the think tanks are not influenced by the agenda of their donors belies common sense.

Norway, Japan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are among nations identified as heavy donors to these think tanks

Indyk’s problematic role as an envoy of the United States to Israel during the early stages of its campaign against Hamas in Gaza, Protective Edge, is a perfect example of conflict of interest, because of the financial role of Qatar.   At that time, Indyk was the Vice President and director of foreign policy for Brookings; Qatar gives extensive support to both Brookings and Hamas.

Qatar is widely accepted to be Hamas’ main financial backer.   The New York Times reported that Qatar gave Brookings $14 million, making Qatar also its largest donor.  Neither Brookings nor Indyk disclosed this financial connection during Protective Edge.

The entire purpose of the FARA law is to ensure transparency when foreign nations try to influence American policy.  Unfortunately, no reference to Qatar was found either on the Brookings website or in its annual report. From the NYT article, one may reasonably infer that the same invisibility is true for donations from foreign governments received by the other think tanks.

Shortly before Attorney General Eric Holder announced his imminent resignation, he ordered investigations into the Ferguson, Missouri police department, and domestic violence within the ranks of the NFL.  As important as these issues are, it is incumbent upon his soon to be appointed successor to promptly initiate an investigation into the funding of major research organizations by foreign nations. Clearly, there is ample cause for the Justice Department to open an investigation promptly into violations of FARA both by these institutions and the individuals involved, and if warranted by their findings, to commence judicial proceedings to impose the full extent of the civil and criminal penalties provided.

More Arab Corruption of the Academy

The latest ranking of mathematics departments in universities around the world shows the department of math in a Saudi Arabian university coming out in seventh place, behind the top three, Berkeley, Stanford and Princeton, in that order, but ahead of the renowned MIT in only eleventh place.
Taking seventh place was King Abdulaziz University in Jedda. This institution was founded only in 1967 (Osama bin Laden studied there in 1975, by the way), unlike the other, more venerable institutions mentioned above. Its math department only began to offer a doctoral research program just two years ago. And the department chairman Professor Abdullah Mathker Al-Otaibi (he got his doctorate in 2005) , has no academic publications to his credit in the field of math -- or any other apparently. So with its recent beginnings and its undistinguished department head, how did this Saudi math department manage to beat out MIT?  [come si chiede Daniele Raineri, "Come fa il dipartimento saudita a battere il Mit di Boston?" -- Il Foglio, 4 Novembre 2014]. Just how did something so seemingly unlikely happen?
   
Daniele Raineri writing in Il Foglio, says that he is on to the trick. If you think that the trick has to do with all of that Saudi money, well then, you would be -- right.

The rating drawn up by US News & World Report [published in USNWR about a week ago] is based on the number of academic publications  by department members and on how often these publications have been cited by other scholars and by researchers. This is a common enough method of academic evaluation. So how did King Abdulaziz University's math department manage to beat out the department at MIT? Representatives of the Saudi university went around to prominent scholars in the field and asked them to "also" be scholars in the math department in Jedda. That is, in return for compensation, they would identify themselves when publishing their articles as professors in the math department of wherever they had positions and add to that they were "also" on the faculty at King Abdulaziz. As compensation they would get $ 6,000 dollars per month. The contract also stipulated that they had to spend three weeks per year in Jedda, staying at a 5-star hotel as part of their compensation, The three weeks need not be consecutive. The eminent profs would fly business class with expenses included. And meanwhile, they would still have their positions in their present institutions and get paid by them too. of course.

Raineri's source referred to an article in Science in 2011 entitled --backtranslating from the Italian translation-- "The Saudi universities offer cash in exchange for academic prestige"  [“Le università saudite offrono cash in cambio di prestigio accademico”]. Raineri adds that the trick works with mathematical precision. Such are the standards in the academic world today. 

Arab money also functions in the field of Middle Eastern studies [who would have imagined?]. 
There is no need to take the opinions of university "experts" as representing truth or wisdom. And scholarship is obviously not always pure. Consider too all of the university departments of Middle Eastern studies that are Arab-funded. How about professors who are on the take from Saudis or Kuwatis or Qataris or Dubaians? How about the famous Yale University which allowed its hunger for Arab money to eliminate a center studying antisemitism? The academy ought to be judged by its reality that is very much down to earth and interested in filthy lucre like everybody else. And has prejudices and bigotries and so on and so forth.

Here is a link to Raineri's article:
http://www.ilfoglio.it/articoli/v/122520/rubriche/arabia-saudita/universita-con-questo-trucco-i-matematici-sauditi-battono-pure-il-mit-di-boston.htm