5 ms·
It's important to note that in the 2006 study that Caplan cites, which reported that 18% of social scientists identified as Marxists, the other options offered
by thedailymail 9y ago
It's important to note that in the 2006 study that Caplan cites, which reported that 18% of social scientists identified as Marxists, the other options offered were all about political affiliation rather than economic views (although there is certainly significant overlap between these categories). The prevalence of self-identified Marxists in social sciences, particuarly sociology, may reflect the important role Marx's commentaries on the social outcomes of 19th century capitalism has had in areas like history, sociology, and cultural studies, rather than a commitment to communist economic structures. There are plenty of Marxist scholars who use Marx's methods of analyzing social phenomena without subscribing to his statements about the inevitable triumph of socialism. Marx is generally recognized as a better diagnostician than a prescriptionist, and for fields involved in critical analysis of social-political-economic phenomena it is not surprising to see people who identify (politically) with his work and world view.
- simula67 9y agoFrom the linked SlateStarCodex piece : > Conservatives always complain that liberals “deny human nature” > But here I have to give conservatives their due. As far as I can tell, Marx literally, so strongly as to be unstrawmannable, believed there was no such thing as human nature and everything was completely malleable. So, it is possible Marx's economic prescription came out of his social diagnosis