I don't speculate about what psychological or personal problems you have
that make you sy silly things, I just make fun of them because they are
silly.
>
> 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.
>
>Tahir: I didn't say that I hadn't seen that. What I was drawing attention
>to was precisely the way that academia, in both its Soviet and Western
>forms, has appropriated "marxism" to the point that this "marxism" is now a
>part of sociology rather than what I and many others prefer to see it as,
>namely a critique of capitalism that suggests a revolutionary communism. I
>am well aware that every first year sociology student needs to learn by
>rote Marx's definition of class.
That's fair enough, except of course that Marx, famously, has no definition of class. The discussion of c;ass in Cap. vol. III breaks off after 40 lines.
>
>Tahir: When I read marxism I read precisely those writers who do not
>present some limited aspect of Marx as part of their professional
>specialisation.
Because surely one could not learn from someone who hasa different, perhas even a more limited perspective.
>Marx's greatness lies in his ability to maintain a perspective on the
>historical whole.
Agreed.
>If anything Marx was one of the first great interdisciplinarians.
Although this was before there were such disciplines, which is why, in part, he was able to be so broad.
>I don't take as my point of reference a particular academic trend, but
>rather what I find useful.
Always a good idea.
>I am well aware, as I've said, that the views I expressed fly in the face
>of 'left' academic orthodoxy. So what? Why does this irritate you so much
>(and why should your irritation interest anyone else)?
Flying in the face of left academic orthodoxy doesn't irritate me: I'm not an academic, and I'm not orthodox about anything. Your tone irritates me, though.
>I also don't think there's a "distinctive marxist method" in social
>science. Did you forget that this was my starting point?
No, indeeed. But we aren't (as usual) on thesame page. What I said what that there was no distinctive Marxust method--I didn't add the "in social science," which changes the meaning considerable.
>
> 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.
>
>Tahir: Well I hope you will support the first two of these points with some
>explanation at least.
OK: As to the first point. Marxism as a state ideology, the Soviet diamat, or Mao Zedong thought, or Juche, is not revolutuionary but conservative, basically a legitimating mantle for state power. There;s no point in pretending that that's not "real" Marxism: it was Marxism for most of the 20th century. The revolutionary stuff was sidelined and confined to the margins. That also doesn't mean that the revolutionary stuff didn't matter, just that it was less socially significant.
As to the second point, you tell me what it is to be revolutionary. The workers and peasants soviets are not going to march on Washington, raise the red flag over the capital. This isn't Petrograd 1917, and it's never going to be Petrograd 1917. A change is gonna come, maybe, but who knows when or how.
>As for the last point I hope you are right. I still think that it should be
>called communism rather.
I gravely doubt whether this term can be rescued either; I think Stalinism has irremediably poisoned it. It's hard enough to hang on to "socialist."
> Now will you tell me that there is also an anarchist sociology, an anarchist pol sci, an anarchist anthro, etc.?
There's some. Michael Taylor, a political scientist, is a rationsal choicea narchist who had done important work on cooperation.
>>Tahir: You started with the personal stuff pal and you continue with it
>>down below, and you won't tell me what to "presume".
When I was a personal? Abusive, maybe, but never personal.
>let me just say I can tell a dry pedant when I come across one. It's
>something in the rusty creaking of the voice that even comes across in
>email.
Creak creak to you.
As I've suggested, the only issue that you've even engaged with is the idea
that there might be some vital intellectual life outside of the framework
and disciplinary procedures of the academy. That definitely bugs you.
>
Well, since I'm a practicing lawyer and not a professor, I surea s hell hope taht there's a lively intellectual life outside the academy.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com