Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> Oh, come on, Sam. Elster can't lay a hand on Kolokowski as a scholar or an
> interpreter of Marx: K's readings are always possible, while Elsters' are
> often just obtuse or perverse. On the other side, Elster isn't anti-Marxist;
> he wasn't trying to construct a tombstone, but to do develop and
> reconstitute the tradition. --jks
>
I agree. I should have said "trying to be the Kolakowski of the 80's."
Kolakowski thought that some of the tenets of Marxism (as he defined it)
were true but could be integrated into mainstream history and social
science. I read Elster much the same way incorporating what he thought
was true in Marx into mainstream social science (I would guess that
rational choice theory is mainstream in poli sci/sociology and economics
nowadays) such that there was no longer a distinct theoretical tradition
called "Marxism". Just regular 'nuts'n' bolts' of social science with
some Marxian concepts mixed in. Kolakowski's erudition is(was) quite
stunning. The complete works of Lenin, Trotsky, Kautsky, Plekhnakov,
Luxembourg, Lukacs,Gramsci and on ...in the original languages.
Sam Pawlett
