Dear Tech_ rsr,
At first we did take this term seriously and I started it with the correct
meaning of 'intellectuals'. But, as things stand today, many people claim
themselves as intellectuals - like the Indian communists, journalists and
artists who have the habit of condemning normally accepted principles and
practices. Hence the discussion changed its course.
Does this mean that the ambiguity in terms cannot be separated? We do have the expression pseudo-intellectual to describe the latter.
Having said that, I don't think I fully agree with your classifications.
It should not be possible theoretically for someone uneducated about Communist policy to become a communist. Only two groups of people may find that motivating to do in the country - the Bengalis and the Keralites. They would always exist on the fringes and gain from the mainstream, while being disconnected and contributing minimally to internal growth.
Most of all, the derive their ability to appear intelligent, by having the opportunity to be different. Although it is true that intelligent people can be different, it need not always be true or necessary to be different to be intelligent or effective. This should be understood by all right-wingers, if they intend to answer communist
intellectuals.
Journalists are in a position to be informed about the nitty gritty of polity, and could indeed be a good source of information, and perhaps could inspire thought. Indeed, journalism is the very science of interpreting events for public consumption - and that is something which gives one the standing of being informed in the first place. But of course, when one digs deeper, one discovers whether or not these claims made to understanding something such as a situation or a person or a concept - are indeed true.
Artists I have always had a doubt about - they become popular not for the reason that they perform in an art which everyone likes - and indeed the concept of media influence is driven strongly by a non-linear trend: an artists reinforces a certain idea present in some people in a society, and these people, if otherwise of a good standing or if well networked, pass on the idea to others. This makes them influential, but not necessarily correct (or intellectual, for that matter). (For example: what do you see in an MF Hussain painting? I don't see a great deal!)
Do we undermine right-wing people who have a firm understand of why we need the mainstream? Shouldn't they be considered intellectuals? Or are they indeed, by a significant degree?