Received: from mail1.sas.upenn.edu (MAIL1.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.32])
          by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP
	  id HAA14220 for <socgrad@csf.colorado.edu>; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 07:39:28 -0600 (MDT)
Received: (from jmote@localhost)
	by mail1.sas.upenn.edu (8.8.5/8.8.3/SAS.03)
	id JAA09176 for socgrad@csf.colorado.edu; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:39:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: jmote@sas.upenn.edu (Jonathan E Mote)
Message-Id: <199710091339.JAA09176@mail1.sas.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: Relevant Marxisms
To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:39:27 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <199710091158.HAA04338@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> from "Thomas F Brown" at Oct 9, 97 07:58:03 am
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I, for one, would much rather prefer to see the exchange between 
Christian and Thomas, than the patronizing "lectures" of TR Young.  
At least with the former I see folks *discussing* and *exchanging 
ideas* as opposed to sloganeering.

Thomas F Brown wrote: > > 
> I agree with TR and Christian that Marxian theory continues to
> be relevant. I disagree that blaming a catalog of negative outcomes
> on capitalism  somehow demonstrates that continuing relevance. So what 
> does? Here are the strains of Marxian theory that I think should still 
> pertain in sociology:
> 
> 1) Marx's conception of economic class is still relevant, although
> not as powerful an explanatory factor as it was in his era. Still,
> even controlling for various SES variables, class is still a significant
> factor influencing a number of outcomes, and should be used more than
> it is. Today, too many people confuse class with stratification.
> I've seen many instances where sociologists conflate "SES" and
> "class".
> 
> 2) Marx's conception of politics as consequent to the economic
> organization of society, and of individuals' ideology being
> shaped in the workplace. This clearly is still relevant theory,
> although Marx himself did not develop it very far.
> 
> 3) World-systems theory. This school derives from Lenin, not
> Marx, but it's still clearly a Marxist theory, and it's still
> relevant, although not as relevant to the contemporary era
> as it is to earlier eras. Unfortunately, it's kind of moribund 
> at the moment, and has very little influence outside of its own 
> small band of practitioners.
> 
> Would anybody add to this list? I am curious about the ongoing
> relevance of Marxist economics, since I have no experience
> in that realm. It looks to me like they're in the same boat
> as the world-systems people, in that no one is listening
> anymore.
> 

The three points you outline would also be relevant for Marxist 
economics, but I think you're right about no one listening.  David Gordon 
was perhaps the last remaining Marxist voice in economics that was taken 
seriously within the discipline, and he unfortunately passed away last 
year.  However, his legacy lives on in the form of "The Review of Radical 
Political Economy" and the Union of Radical Political Economists 
(URPE--I love that acronym!), both which he helped to co-found.  

Jonathon Mote