This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Roberts, endnote.
Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1994.
A fuller appreciation of Mayer is given in my review of the book inBritish Journal of Sociology 47 (1996), 569–70.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978 (hereafter KMTH).
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.
The September Group is the name for the group of leading Analytical Marxists who happen to have met annually since the late 1970s in the month of September.
“Unanalytical” is a term introduced merely as a placeholder for that which is (a) Marxist but (b) not Analytical Marxist.
Supra n.1,Roberts, endnote at 224.
Supra n.1,Roberts, endnote at xi.
Supra n.1,Roberts, endnote at xii: original emphasis.
Cf.supra n.1,Roberts, endnote at 63–72, a passage topped and tailed by Sayers' citations.
Supra n.1, Roberts, endnote at 138.
I come cleanest in “Analytical and Essential Marxism”,Political Studies 45 (1997), 768–83.
Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1982.
New Left Review 160 (Nov–Dec 1986), 24–62 and London: Verso, 1991 respectively.
Supra n.1,Roberts, endnote at 42, 43, 44, 44–5 and 46 respectively, the last citing R. Bhaskar,Reclaiming Reality (London: Verso, 1989), 72.
See, among many other sourcesSocial Division,supra n.15,(Nov–Dec 1986), 24–62 and London: Verso, 1991 respectively. esp. chs. 8 and 17.
“Rationality and Revolution”,Posnan Studies forthing, coming. A similar line of argument in Elster is cited by Roberts as evidence of “Elster's disillusionment with rational choice theory” (at 40-1). The models in the article show on the contrary that the argument is easy to formulate as an application of rational choice.
This point is made by Ellen Wood in “Rational Choice Marxism: Is the Game worth the Candle?”,New Left Review 177 (1989), 41–88, to which I responded “In Defence of Rational Choice: A Reply to Ellen Meiksins Wood”,New Left Review 184 (1990), 97–109, with further response by Ellen Wood, 116–28.
For further discussion and references seesupra n.1,Roberts, endnote. 98–102, andsupra n.17, (Nov–Dec 1986), 24–62 and London: Verso, 1991 respectively at chs. 2 and 3.
Supra n.1,Roberts, endnote, at x.
I leave open the question of whether Marxism could properly use transhistorical rationality for clarificatory purposes, this being a difficult issue depending on a general assessment of the contractarian position in political philosophy.
Supra n.1,Roberts, endnote, at 103.
“Analytical Marxism and Historical Materialism: The Debate on Social Evolution”,Science and Society 57/1, (1993), 31–66.
I should record that there are a number of telling substantive points, including an excellent one at 109 regarding the relationship of capitalism to the world market. My response, briefly, is to agree that a world market both predated capitalism and was immensely stimulated by capitalism's subsequent development. It is therefore in one sense both a cause and a consequence of capitalism, which appears (as Roberts claims) to be a logical impossibility. But this need not be the case once the evolutionary character of the theory is appreciated: which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carling, A. A question of attitude: Marcus Roberts on analytical marxism. Res Publica 4, 211–228 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02390099
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02390099