>I would IDEALLY like a lot more Marxist theory, or thought, or
>scientific study and propositions and conclusions, whatever you
>call them, both economic and political and even social-psychological.
I'd like a lot more scientific studies of many things, preferably written from Marxist points of view, but I like my theory to be sparse and elegant, rather than chunky and cluttered (Cf. Occam's Razor -- <http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/occam.html>).
>I would like a Marxist microeconomics, for example.
For what purpose?
BTW, here's a brief discussion of macro and micro in Marx: <http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine/notes%5CshortLaw-of-Value.html>.
>What can we keep of 'bourgeois science' and what do we have to
>challenge or adapt?
Throw away the premises and conclusions of social scientific studies produced by non-Marxists, and you'll find many useful descriptions of important (and not so important) phenomena. Enter and exit in medias res.
>In fact there is useful work being done in the academy, but who is
>going to filter it, interpret it, compile it, and transship it to
>the practical Marxists?
Filtering, interpreting, compiling, and transmitting some of the important academic studies to organizers (Marxists or otherwise) should be worthwhile, if anyone has time to do it. The Net is a great medium that can let us do it faster than before.
>Meanwhile the practical Marxists, in parties or whatever, are out
>there trying to use understandings which they think experience has
>proved to them, and which the academic Marxists never address,
>because they would never consider Marxist parties as a source of
>interesting propositions to test, no matter how well they might
>compare with some of the vague or irrelevant propositions which
>actually ARE tested in academe.
I don't think there are many Marxists left in academe in the USA (or anywhere else for that matter), if by Marxists you mean those who consider Marxism to be not just a useful social theory but a practical political project.
Yoshie