This totally misrepresents Rockhill. His project is much broader and stands firm on sound dialectics: actually analysing the historic material prerequisites for producing theory. No more, no less. The incredibly well researched stories about the CIA, the Frankfurt school and so on: all those are merely examples (incredibly well sourced examples) for applying dialectics to theory production itself. From this clear analysis, it is to be expected that a compatible left will form within capitalism. Rockhill is so obviously correct on this core thesis, it’s really no question: he is right at least on this. And it’s just as clear, that a honest left that is actually interested in achieving what it claims as it’s aims, need to avoid being deemed “compatible” by the CIA who invented the term “compatible left”.

Having recognized that Rockhill is at the heart of his thesis correct, it’s a natural scientific question as well as a pressing strategic necessity to identify who were part of the compatible left historically as well as today. And here the anti-communist sources cited by Rockhill really speak for themselves.

The problem that people have with Rockhill is, that all his work has led him to the conviction, that imperialism is the principal contradiction of today. So that explains all of this controversy around his work. It has been here long before and it is simply the controversy between the anti-imperialist left and, well, the rest.