the development of theory. London: The MacMillan Press. Marxism and theorists of the Marxist community have been divided, it has long been noted, into roughly two tendencies: one conceiving Marxism as critique and the other conceiving it to be some kind of social science. Marxism has been divided then between Critical Marxists and Scientific Marxists []. (32) [there is not a real and a fake Marxism:] both are in fact structural differentiations of a single originally undifferentiated Marxism. (34) [he cites young Horkheimer as an example of Critical Marxist voluntarism] In distinguishing Critical and Scientific Marxism, there is, however, no intention of suggesting that the voluntarism/determinism differentiation is the deepest essence or truest meaning of that larger distinction. It is but one marker in a larger set of elements constituting the two syndromes. (36) [that of voluntarism/determinism, agency/structure is a wider issue and differentiation in sociological thought] As different, elaborated paradigms of Marxism, Critical and Scientific Marxism emerge under different sociohistorical conditions and among different persons and in differentiated social networks and groups. [CMs are: Lukacs, Gramsci, the Frankfurt School both in the first and second generation] [SMs are: Della Volpe, Althusser, Poulantzas] (38) The difference between [CM and SM] reflects a conflict between those viewing Marx as the culmination of German idealism and those emphasising Marxs superiority to that tradition. [also, an appeal to the young or rather the mature writings of Marx] [CMs] conceive of Marxism as critique rather than science; they stress the continuity of Marx with Hegel, the importance of the young Marx, [alienation and historicism]. The [SMs] have (at times) stressed that Marx made a coupure epistemologique [epistemological break] with Hegel after 1845. Marxism for them is science, not critique, entailing a structuralist methodology whose paradigm is the mature political economy of Capital rather than the ideologised anthropology of the 1844 Manuscripts. (39) [CMs] stress an historicism that emphasises social fluidity and change, a kind of organicism calling for the contextual interpretation of events; [SMs] search out firm social structures that recur and which are presumably intelligible in decontextualized ways. [SMs emphasise the base/superstructure dichotomy; CMs the totality] (40)
[he precises that CM and SM are ideal types only; individual thinkers cannot simply be reduced to them] (60)