I don't call myself a Marxist because such terms lead to these kinds of bizarre ontological discussions that explain less about the subject at hand than the biases of those pushing a particular definition of "marxist" or whatnot. I don't really believe in "sociology" as some freestanding methodological pursuit so I'd hardly believe that adding an ideologically tinged adjective would suddenly make it transmute into some singular endeavor.
There are lots of sociologists who consider themselves Marxists. To say much more is pretty much a dead end of debate.
-- Nathan Newman
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chip Berlet" <cberlet at igc.org> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 3:38 PM Subject: RE: marxist sociology
Hi,
This has become absurd.
Charles is correct on this matter.
I am a member of the Marxist Section of the American Sociological Association. I pay dues. The section includes traditional Marxists and cultural Marxists, (class, race, gender folks like me). There are communists, socialists and progressives. We all see the value of some form of Marxist intellectual tradition.
Folks can whine that we are not "real" Marxists, but it is idiotic to suggest that we do not exist. I have presented papers at the Marxist Section sessions. We exist. We get to call our group the Marxist Section whether folks like it or not.
Furthermore, most people in the Marxist section, and most other members of the ASA, will tell you that three of the early major intellectual founders of sociology are Marx, Weber, and Durkheim.
Two people debating this matter absent any material basis of knowledge is bizarre.
Dialectical materialism?
Jeez...
-Chip Berlet "I'm not a sociologist but I play one on TV."