>
>And what does that mean, "firmly rooted in
>neo-Kantianism"?
>
>Tahir: Unconsciously reproducing it.
>
>. . . >
>Tahir: You misunderstand the argument. It is that neo-kantianism is alive
>and well in everyone from Althusser to Habermas and the rest. It is not
>that these people say "I am an expert in neo-kantianism and hereby pledge
>my allegiance to it".
Ah, they are "objectively" neo-Kantian. Enemies of the people, too?
>I would check out Gillian Rose's book "Hegel Contra Sociology" to see how
>the paridigm of validity vs. value plays itself out in both marxist and
>non-marxist sociology before you respond as sarcastically again.
You know, something about you brings out the sarcastic in me. You've never seen a soc textbook that claimed Marx, Durkheim and Weber as the founders of sociology? Really? This formulation is so standard that it is a cliche. You might look at Geoff Alexander's big multivolume work on thefounders of sociology, including guess who! We can "all agree" that marx did not "propose" a sociology, although he brought empirical data to bear on the theoretical explanation of social phenomena? I've read Rose a long time ago, can't recall much about it, honestly wasn't that impressed. You are obviouslt operating with highly idionsyncratic notions of "Marxism" and "sociology."
>
> >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!"
>
>Tahir: Kind of, yeah.
Well, you and I are not going to agree much. I don't think there's a distinctive Marxist method, just better or worse social science. I don't think Marxism is necessarily especially revolutionary, in fact much of it is quite conservative, and I don't think anyone has a clue what it means to be revolutionary today. Maybe we will learn again, but I predict that whatever it comes to mean in the future, it won;t call itself Marxist.
>! (But I am neither a
>marxist nor an academic, so what would I know).
>
>Tahir: So why the jerking knee then? Which other nerve did I touch?
Don't presume to be personal. I made fun of you because you say silly things in a pretentious manner. I don't have to be a Marxist to care about such pronouncements, any more than I have to be a Kantian or a Hegelian or a Nieztzschean to have strong views about those thinkers. Or do you suppise that Marx is only of interest to people who call themselves Marxists? (This is another example of the sort of portentous comment that I am mocking here.)
jks
>
> >So who are the marxist sociologists
>
>Erik Olin Wright?
>
> >and political scientists?
>
>Adam Przezworski? Mike Goldfield?
>
>
>Just for starters . . .
>
>
>jks
>
>_
>
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx