Your interpretation is nonsense, mainly because you have a cartoon idea of Marxism. Although used loosely by the right as an alternative word to ‘socialism’, Marx and those who followed him made important contributions to economics (eg theory of trade cycles - no history of economics would omit him), sociology (understanding of class structure) and political science (the concept of ideology). Many of those who said they were Marxists were probably using the term to refer to a methodological approach, analytical framework or epistemology; they were not saying that they thought Marx was right about everything or that they were personally committed to the overthrow of capitalism.
No one identifies as a Marxist because they respect his contributions to social science or economics. They do it because they believe his ideology. Plus the survey question was obviously about ideology, not which thinkers made the greatest contributions.
They call themselves marxist or critical theorists not because of Marx’s contributions to methodology. Rather they call themselves this to recognize the methodological contributions of dozens of continental intellectuals in the first half of the 20th century.
Names are what are. Not understanding the historical context of a name is a mistake a lot of people make when engaging in modern day tribal criticism and succumbing to social desirability bias.
Surely you understand the same confusion today with the terms “liberal” and “libertarian” in the US vs Europe.
No, they do not call themselves “Marxist” in a survey asking for their political beliefs because they “recognize the methodological contributions of dozens of continental intellectuals in the first half of the 20th century.”
How do you know? I bet you most would cite people like Adorno, Horkheimer and Habermas as their intellectual influences over Marx.
The point is the data Bryan shared doesn't let us tease out this distinction and anyone with even a little bit of familiarity with 20th century continental philosophy would see that.
All the questions in the survey (at least the ones that I have seen) are explicitly about political orientation. The title of the book that analyzes the research is literally titled "Politics of the American Professoriate."
The survey questions have absolutely nothing to do with "20th century continental philosophy" or “intellectual influences” or "methodological contributions." Adorno, Horkheimer, and Habermas are irrelevant to the survey questions.
Why do you feel the need to engage in such intellectual gymnastics on a point so obvious?
I would bet the opposite: that many of those who said they were Marxists had no idea about his methodological approach, analytical framework, or epistemology; they were saying only** that they are personally committed to the overthrow of capitalism.
** They may or may not believe he was right about everything.
Even if Marx’s trade cycle theory is deserving of honorable mention in a history of econ, it is not likely correct. As for methodology, etc., how does Marxism enlighten in such a way that a non-Marxist framework could not? My guess is that it’s more of an attitude of hostility towards Capitalism than an insightful methodology. I had an ex-Marxist friend who had read Marx’s works but after abandoning Marxism he observed that E.P. Thompson’s _The Making of the English Working Class_, failed to cite a single example of a clash of interests between the bourgeois and the working class in 800+ pages. This doesn’t mean Marxists haven’t or don’t make contributions to history, etc. but it’s not in terms of Marxism per se.
I laughed out loud at the implication that all the self-declared marxist walking around calling each other comrade, with 'eat the rich' pins attached to their denim jackets are just really into Marx's theory on trade cycles. Like if you go to the local DSA chapter everyone is buzzing at a low hum about the trade cycle theory. Thanks for that. I needed a nice chuckle.
But they did! One of the big sources of the replicability problem is not publishing negative results. Marxists have been doing their share to correct the problem, but unfortunately the practitioners aren't paying attention.
I agree strongly with Richard. If Bryan cared about honesty, he would subtract out the percentage that call themselves “critical theorists”. Clearly those people adhere to the general methodology not the 19th century economics.
I haven't met a critical theorist who is not committed (at least notionally) to the overthrow of capitalism. The humanities are more anti-capitalist than these surveys indicate.
I am a cynic about academia in the squishy fields. They know they are marginal academics in marginal fields passing out marginal degrees to marginal students. They hate the system that relegates them to such marginal activities and doesn't recognize their worth. That's all it is. I doubt many of them have the intellectual rigor to know much at all about Marx or capitalism, except that their oppressor is capitalist so Marx must be good. Their deep thinkers are exemplified by "Queers for Palestine".
They believe in the Labor Theory of Value, even if they don't know what the name means or have ever heard of it, because anything else would mean their jobs are worthless.
I worked, long ago during the USSR days, with a self-proclaimed Communist — "But not a Stalinist" — and one of her pet claims was that all artists should be paid for being artists. I asked who decides who the artists are. The artists themselves, of course. I said great, I'm going to paint circles on walls and call myself an artist. She said that's not art! I said I'm the artist and I say it's art.
She refused to understand it. I have run into too many entitled drones like that.
Not to say that they are activists, but the implicit normative framework is anti capitalist or anti "neoliberal". And this normative orientation informs their analyses.
Right, a “Marxist analysis” of Pride and Prejudice is looking at the economic and class structures that play a role in the novel, and is not an argument for collectivising agriculture.
Marxism seems pretty good (not perfect) at finding a lot of the issues that make people unhappy about society. But really poor (though not zero) at finding solutions to those problems.
1. It allows them to claim some sort of legitimacy by being at seats of learning (the ultimate tautology)
2. It insulates them from reality. Their unearned authority prevents them from being challenged on their nonsense, and the academic funding mechanisms mean it never has to actually support itself.
A quarter of sociologists being Marxists in 2006 is surprising, but mostly because Marx is basically the founding father of modern sociology. He provided them with most of their methodology. If his adherents are in the minority even there, then it’s safe to say Marxism doesn’t dominate any discipline in academia, even if aspects of it are obviously always going to be influential in various fields of study.
Old sociology had many founders. The old theory "Trinity" was Durkheim, Marx, and Weber. Marx's usual role was political, with respect to trajectories of social movements and revolutions. Theda Skocpol is in that tradition. A second place for Marx was with the academic development of "Analytical Marxism," a blending of rational choice theory and a theory of exploitation, with the latter drawn from Marx. Jon Elster is worth reading in that tradition. Overall, Weber and his counterpart WEB DuBois are much bigger influences than Marx, especially in American sociology.
The "18% of social scientists believe in Marxism" stat strikes me as implausible, especially given that the corresponding number for humanities is 5%. Part of what is going on seems to be that, in some social sciences, "Marxism" refers to something that is quite different from its colloquial meaning.
As Burawoy and Wright write: "Marxist Sociology" is about "selectively using particular concepts and themes in the Marxist tradition to understand specific empirical problems. But one does not have to be a “Marxist” to use Marxism in this way".
It is also worth pointing out that the study Caplan cites says that radicalism is much more common among older professors and less common at elite institutions.
Ponder this, if you will. All Professors have 2-3 years of real-world work experience before becoming a full Professor. How do you think that would impact their "life outlook" Of course, they may do very well in the private sector and not return to teaching and research, thus what returns may be of the ... less successful variety.
But maybe Marxism and naive capitalism are both wrong?
Perhaps Henry George was on point when he observed that of the returns to land labour and capital only one can't one can't run away in response to a tax and doesn't represent the returns to labour or what labour has produced.
His article about Georgism is inaccurate. Like, from section 3, he says "Similarly, the landowner is discouraged from exploring new uses for the land, particularly if those new uses might mean new taxes"... Except the whole point of Georgism is to not tax land improvements and use, just the base value people get from owning it.
And the value people get from owning the land is ENOURMOUS, way more than search costs. In the next paragraph, he says "The fundamental error in George’s thought is suggesting land has some value outside of search costs." but, for example, in this famous picture https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Everybody_works_but_the_vacant_lot_(cropped).jpg, there's no way going from $3600 to $6000 for just sitting on the lot waiting for prices to go up took $2400 of year 1914 dollars, since they literally did nothing with it.
Your interpretation is nonsense, mainly because you have a cartoon idea of Marxism. Although used loosely by the right as an alternative word to ‘socialism’, Marx and those who followed him made important contributions to economics (eg theory of trade cycles - no history of economics would omit him), sociology (understanding of class structure) and political science (the concept of ideology). Many of those who said they were Marxists were probably using the term to refer to a methodological approach, analytical framework or epistemology; they were not saying that they thought Marx was right about everything or that they were personally committed to the overthrow of capitalism.
No one identifies as a Marxist because they respect his contributions to social science or economics. They do it because they believe his ideology. Plus the survey question was obviously about ideology, not which thinkers made the greatest contributions.
They call themselves marxist or critical theorists not because of Marx’s contributions to methodology. Rather they call themselves this to recognize the methodological contributions of dozens of continental intellectuals in the first half of the 20th century.
Names are what are. Not understanding the historical context of a name is a mistake a lot of people make when engaging in modern day tribal criticism and succumbing to social desirability bias.
Surely you understand the same confusion today with the terms “liberal” and “libertarian” in the US vs Europe.
LOL
No, they do not call themselves “Marxist” in a survey asking for their political beliefs because they “recognize the methodological contributions of dozens of continental intellectuals in the first half of the 20th century.”
That is ridiculous!
How do you know? I bet you most would cite people like Adorno, Horkheimer and Habermas as their intellectual influences over Marx.
The point is the data Bryan shared doesn't let us tease out this distinction and anyone with even a little bit of familiarity with 20th century continental philosophy would see that.
Yes, it does.
All the questions in the survey (at least the ones that I have seen) are explicitly about political orientation. The title of the book that analyzes the research is literally titled "Politics of the American Professoriate."
The survey questions have absolutely nothing to do with "20th century continental philosophy" or “intellectual influences” or "methodological contributions." Adorno, Horkheimer, and Habermas are irrelevant to the survey questions.
Why do you feel the need to engage in such intellectual gymnastics on a point so obvious?
Ask yourself the same -- how do YOU know?
I would bet the opposite: that many of those who said they were Marxists had no idea about his methodological approach, analytical framework, or epistemology; they were saying only** that they are personally committed to the overthrow of capitalism.
** They may or may not believe he was right about everything.
Even if Marx’s trade cycle theory is deserving of honorable mention in a history of econ, it is not likely correct. As for methodology, etc., how does Marxism enlighten in such a way that a non-Marxist framework could not? My guess is that it’s more of an attitude of hostility towards Capitalism than an insightful methodology. I had an ex-Marxist friend who had read Marx’s works but after abandoning Marxism he observed that E.P. Thompson’s _The Making of the English Working Class_, failed to cite a single example of a clash of interests between the bourgeois and the working class in 800+ pages. This doesn’t mean Marxists haven’t or don’t make contributions to history, etc. but it’s not in terms of Marxism per se.
I laughed out loud at the implication that all the self-declared marxist walking around calling each other comrade, with 'eat the rich' pins attached to their denim jackets are just really into Marx's theory on trade cycles. Like if you go to the local DSA chapter everyone is buzzing at a low hum about the trade cycle theory. Thanks for that. I needed a nice chuckle.
"Marx and those who followed him made important contributions to economics"
Found the fellow traveler.
But they did! One of the big sources of the replicability problem is not publishing negative results. Marxists have been doing their share to correct the problem, but unfortunately the practitioners aren't paying attention.
I agree strongly with Richard. If Bryan cared about honesty, he would subtract out the percentage that call themselves “critical theorists”. Clearly those people adhere to the general methodology not the 19th century economics.
I haven't met a critical theorist who is not committed (at least notionally) to the overthrow of capitalism. The humanities are more anti-capitalist than these surveys indicate.
I am a cynic about academia in the squishy fields. They know they are marginal academics in marginal fields passing out marginal degrees to marginal students. They hate the system that relegates them to such marginal activities and doesn't recognize their worth. That's all it is. I doubt many of them have the intellectual rigor to know much at all about Marx or capitalism, except that their oppressor is capitalist so Marx must be good. Their deep thinkers are exemplified by "Queers for Palestine".
They believe in the Labor Theory of Value, even if they don't know what the name means or have ever heard of it, because anything else would mean their jobs are worthless.
I worked, long ago during the USSR days, with a self-proclaimed Communist — "But not a Stalinist" — and one of her pet claims was that all artists should be paid for being artists. I asked who decides who the artists are. The artists themselves, of course. I said great, I'm going to paint circles on walls and call myself an artist. She said that's not art! I said I'm the artist and I say it's art.
She refused to understand it. I have run into too many entitled drones like that.
Not to say that they are activists, but the implicit normative framework is anti capitalist or anti "neoliberal". And this normative orientation informs their analyses.
Right, a “Marxist analysis” of Pride and Prejudice is looking at the economic and class structures that play a role in the novel, and is not an argument for collectivising agriculture.
100% — many professors teach the methodology not the belief system.
Marxism seems pretty good (not perfect) at finding a lot of the issues that make people unhappy about society. But really poor (though not zero) at finding solutions to those problems.
On the contrary, the reason that Marxist solutions are so bad is that they've completely misidentified the issues.
Marxists exist in academia for two reasons:
1. It allows them to claim some sort of legitimacy by being at seats of learning (the ultimate tautology)
2. It insulates them from reality. Their unearned authority prevents them from being challenged on their nonsense, and the academic funding mechanisms mean it never has to actually support itself.
Queers for Palestine is a great capsule description of Marxist intellectual thought.
A quarter of sociologists being Marxists in 2006 is surprising, but mostly because Marx is basically the founding father of modern sociology. He provided them with most of their methodology. If his adherents are in the minority even there, then it’s safe to say Marxism doesn’t dominate any discipline in academia, even if aspects of it are obviously always going to be influential in various fields of study.
Old sociology had many founders. The old theory "Trinity" was Durkheim, Marx, and Weber. Marx's usual role was political, with respect to trajectories of social movements and revolutions. Theda Skocpol is in that tradition. A second place for Marx was with the academic development of "Analytical Marxism," a blending of rational choice theory and a theory of exploitation, with the latter drawn from Marx. Jon Elster is worth reading in that tradition. Overall, Weber and his counterpart WEB DuBois are much bigger influences than Marx, especially in American sociology.
My sociology instructor didn't hide the fact of being a communist.
I actually work in a university so I’ll stick with my bet.
The "18% of social scientists believe in Marxism" stat strikes me as implausible, especially given that the corresponding number for humanities is 5%. Part of what is going on seems to be that, in some social sciences, "Marxism" refers to something that is quite different from its colloquial meaning.
As Burawoy and Wright write: "Marxist Sociology" is about "selectively using particular concepts and themes in the Marxist tradition to understand specific empirical problems. But one does not have to be a “Marxist” to use Marxism in this way".
It is also worth pointing out that the study Caplan cites says that radicalism is much more common among older professors and less common at elite institutions.
Ponder this, if you will. All Professors have 2-3 years of real-world work experience before becoming a full Professor. How do you think that would impact their "life outlook" Of course, they may do very well in the private sector and not return to teaching and research, thus what returns may be of the ... less successful variety.
I’m glad Bryan just denounces the ideological corruption and doesn’t call for a purge of the wreckers, that would be too funny.
These numbers have gone up, not down, since 2006. See here from Lee Jussim: https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/the-radicalization-of-the-american-2d2
"abject intellectual corruption" I love it!
What a fascinating survey. I'm surprised there weren't more humanists.
I do wonder which branches of the social sciences are most Marxist. Sociology?
And Marxism infests AI......so beware as Marxist thought expans.
Shocking.
But maybe Marxism and naive capitalism are both wrong?
Perhaps Henry George was on point when he observed that of the returns to land labour and capital only one can't one can't run away in response to a tax and doesn't represent the returns to labour or what labour has produced.
Naive capitalism is approximately right.
George was wrong because he failed to account for the need to incentivize efficient searching for alternative uses for land. Bryan has a paper on this: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1999105
His article about Georgism is inaccurate. Like, from section 3, he says "Similarly, the landowner is discouraged from exploring new uses for the land, particularly if those new uses might mean new taxes"... Except the whole point of Georgism is to not tax land improvements and use, just the base value people get from owning it.
And the value people get from owning the land is ENOURMOUS, way more than search costs. In the next paragraph, he says "The fundamental error in George’s thought is suggesting land has some value outside of search costs." but, for example, in this famous picture https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Everybody_works_but_the_vacant_lot_(cropped).jpg, there's no way going from $3600 to $6000 for just sitting on the lot waiting for prices to go up took $2400 of year 1914 dollars, since they literally did nothing with it.