Comments on: I am a Neo-Marxist.

By: Some Common Misconceptions of Sociology « The Sociological Imagination

Some Common Misconceptions of Sociology « The Sociological Imagination — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:35:34 +0000

[...] but that doesn’t mean they’re all Marxists. As I’ve written elsewhere, even the Neo-Marxists have a whole lot to offer. One of the professors I currently work for is a Marxist – [...]

By: Polanyi and Hayek on Fascism « The Sociological Imagination

Polanyi and Hayek on Fascism « The Sociological Imagination — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:16:42 +0000

[...] discern it) can or will be translated into the correct public policy. I’m sticking with the Neo-Marxists and Public Choicers on this [...]

By: Rob Bradley

Rob Bradley — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:34:57 +0000

You might be interested in my http://www.politicalcapitalism.org website and my trilogy on political capitalism described therein.

Book 1 was endorsed by Kolko.

- Rob Bradley

By: fabiorojas

fabiorojas — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:03:56 +0000

It’s useful to make the distinction between neo-Marxists and Weberians. A neo-Marxists roots analysis in some sort of historial materialism. Class position defines possibly conflicting interests.

In contrast, a Weberian would acknowledge that status groups may exist independently of the mode of production. You can have interests that don’t boil down to property or whatnot.

So: if you believe Progressives were just capitalist tools in disguise (as Kolko did), then you are a neo-Marxist. If you believe that Progressive developed their own interests that just happened to overlap with those of certain business classes, then you are probably more of a Weberian.

By: Nimish

Nimish — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:44:33 +0000

Josh: Good to know that your next project is on the role of ideas. I would be eager to read your paper. Nobel Laureate Robert Fogel is one economic historian who stresses the role of ideas in history. His book “The Fourth Great Awakening” is about how various interpretation of the egalitarianism ideal has shaped American policies.

I’ll check out Monica Prasad’s book. If you come across any work that deals with materialist/ideational debate, please send it my way. I am very interested.

By: joshmccabe

joshmccabe — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:19:30 +0000

Brian, I wouldn’t go that far. They’re still pretty much strict materialists. Nimish is correct to point out that, for many, ideology is a cover for material interests. I’m working on a paper now trying to find an independent role for ideology in political action (using South African and the American South).

Nimish: I’m reading Monica Prasad’s “The Politics of Free Markets” right now and I just think it’s absolutely wonderful. Have you read it? She argues that while ideology plays an important role for opening political opportunities, state structure is more important for actual policies outcomes. I am pretty much in agreement with her.

By: Nimish

Nimish — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:55:31 +0000

My beef with marxists or neo-marxists is this–they put too much faith in people’s ability to perceive their class interests and act accordingly.

They deny people any moral agency. In their view, people are relentlylessly driven by their interests. I think this is a overly cynical, and misleading picture of human nature.

By: Brian Pitt

Brian Pitt — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:44:44 +0000

Good post Josh! Hats off to Kolko, Quadagno, and Bonacich. They realize that appearances and feelings are constitutive of class interests.