I wrote:
> > I don't think Wallerstein ever claimed to be a Marxist, though he clearly
> > learned from Marx & Marxists and Marxist can learn some from his
> research.
> > (In this, he is very similar to Barrington Moore.)
> >
> > Originally, I'd say that Analytical Marxism was a kind of Marxism, one
> > responding to dissatisfaction with both the "orthodox" Marxism of the
> 2nd &
> > 3rd Internationals and Althusserian structuralist Marxism. But combining
> > Marxist propositions with the narrow-minded method of orthodox mainstream
> > social science was like mixing oil and water, so the two parted. I guess
> > the exception would be people like Bob Brenner, who as an historian is
> > always focused on the empirical world and so didn't get lost in mainstream
> > social science. (Of course, I can't say I agree with everything he says).
Steve wrote:
>This is exactly on the mark imho
Actually, it's not exactly on the mark. I want to emphasize that the
problem is not mainstream methods _per se_ as much as the way that the
Analytical Marxists decided that _only_ mainstream methods (for example,
Walrasian general equilibrium theory and game theory for Roemer) were
valid. The problem is not GE or game theory as much as the assumption that
only these methods (and the like) were valid. This kind of reductionism led
to the AM school's fate. As I note, Brenner's status as an historian -- and
thus as a real-world oriented person -- prevented him from going this way.
Also, he's always been involved in political action (in the group
Solidarity, that publishes AGAINST THE CURRENT). That helps avoid the
academic trap.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
