Jim Devine: >we should remember that MR published a long critique of the book by John >Bellamy Foster. That was only because I contacted John and described the problem to him. > >BTW, I think a good case can be made that Sokal is an adherent of critical >realism, which to me seems an important part of the Marxist world-view >(it's akin to "dialectical materialism"). You mean an unconscious Bhaskarite? I myself would stick with old-fashioned unconsciousness. >On the other hand, I don't think >it's worth spending a lot of energy on whether or not some thinker (Sokal >or Lacan or whoever) is (really) a "Marxist." Names are less important than >deeds. Jim, the "science wars" are not about how to label people. They have been about how to regard the social role of science. Also, you are wrong when you think the question of whether Sokal is a Marxist or not is irrelevant. Both he and Norman Levitt are anxious to establish their leftist bona fides. Alan told me that Norman Levitt got into some hot water in an anti-war protest 30 years ago and that he is a member of the DSA today. I then asked him why he would accept funding from the Olin Foundation, which funded Nicaraguan contra support, anti-abortion initiatives, anti-gay ballot initiatives, etc. He said that this was the only place that would offer him funding and I should not read too much into it. I guess on questions like this, I will remain a crude economic determinist. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
