No doubt we read different works when we read Marx. However, I do not need
"orthodox Marxism" to find interesting things to say about Marx; I have never
engaged it in print except in a sideswipe. I have written, dor example, about
Cohen and Elster, about Roemer, about Fisk, and about Marx directly, but
these are all people with something to say. Orthodox Marxism is not
interesting, and not interesting to engage. As for establishing its
existence, I didn't do that; it's just there. It's not my fault that too many
people prefer orthodixy to thinking.
.
I agree of course that you can enagge in Marxist analyses without using the
concept of ideology, although I think it plays a more central role in his
ideas than is suggested by the comment that all he has to offer is "a few off
hand remarks." In fact there is a theory there, one account of which I have
set forth in a ppaer on the topic. There are others. But all of them that
deserve any credit give the notion of ideology a stabilizing or legitimating
role in class society, that is, a functional explanation.
--jks
In a message dated 6/23/00 11:50:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< Marx argues that,
> e,g., ideology promotes ruling class rule, a functional explanation of why
> certain ideas become dominant. There is no other plausible account of what
> Marx thinks ideology is and does.
This reduction of Marx helps explain why you are so obsessed with
establishing the existence of an "orthodox marxism" -- without it you
have nothing to argue with. There must be some half dozen or more
genera with innumerable species of "ideology," all of them compatible
with Marx's few offhand comments on the matter. In fact, it would
be possible to write many volumes of marxist social analysis without
ever using the concept of ideology. It is useful but not necessary
for marxist thought. (One could, for example, invoke the concept
of "common sense.")
You and I simply read totally different works when we read Marx.
>>
