They didn't exactly exist as academic disciplines in those days, as I am sure you know. And what would it show if these thinkers hadn't shown any interest in these disciplines, if they had existed? Btw, Marx thought he'd put paid to philosophy after 1845 or so, and never gave it a sideways glance again, Hegel excepted.
There is a strong argument, made by Gillian Rose and others that 'marxist sociology' etc. is firmly rooted in neo-kantianism
"Ect," covers a lot of ground. And what does that mean, "firmly rooted in neo-Kantianism"? Dollars will get you donuts that 99 of 100 Marxist social scientists could not even identify by name a single neo-Kantian (a late 19th century tendency in German and Austrian philosophy, now long since dead) and have no views at all about the transcendental ideality of space and time or the noumenal nature of freedom. Matterof fact, I bet you 99 out of 100 Marxist philosopher could do no better.
>and thereby destroys the revolutionary content of marxism in favour of some
>sort of 'progressive' variation of bourgeois social science.
Thereby! How magical! A counterevolutiuonary new product! Oh la! "Just mix in Kant to get rid of that nasty red stain!"
It's a way of being an academic and a marxist at the same time.
Oh horror! How inauthentic! After all, a _real_ Marxist ought to put on a blue collar and organize factory workers, after all! (But I am neither a marxist nor an academic, so what would I know).
>So who are the marxist sociologists
Erik Olin Wright?
>and political scientists?
Adam Przezworski? Mike Goldfield?
Just for starters . . .
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.