social science production (was: Dark Sides of

[Carrol Cox]

Let's not clutter either the main questions with my side show or my side
show with the important questions. I vaguely remembered a passage, I
thought in george Thompson (whose thought was grounded in Caldwell) about
evolution becoming *industrially* important, and therefore accepted, while
otherwise it would have been fought for its ideological impact. I have NOT
located the quotation yet. I should not have tossed out the reference
untless I could. I am still looking. Rakesh's point may be relevant to the
*main* questions, but *not* to the side issue I tossed out because that is
the one book by Caldwell that I have never read a word of. So until I can
find it in Thompson, forget about my bit of helium and get back to the
point.

My apologies.

Carrol


> 
>  And what is the statement in the Manifesto ?
> Something like the ruling ideas of every age are
> the ideas of its ruling classes.
> 
> >>> Carrol Cox <cbcox at rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> 05/08 7:16 PM >>>
> > My hypothesis (which, alas, may not be empirically falsifiable) is that
> > disciplines closer to the heart of the ruling class tend to produce a
> > higher proportion of ideology than other disciplines do.
> 
> 
> George Thompson (the British classical scholar and Caldwell / Stalin / Mao 
> marxist)  made an interesting observation in one of his books, which while
> not quite a theory is worth some thought. He argued that the physical and
> biological sciences were only "allowed" to develop when and if their
> results became crucial to capital. His particular instance was Darwinian
> biology, which (my memory is vague on the exact argument) he said became
> respectable only when capital came to need the practical results of the
> biological sciences, results which were inseparable from Darwinism.
> 
> Carrol
> 
> 
> 
>