The “September Group”: From Analytical Marxism to Normative Political Philosophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analytical Marxism – formerly also known as the “September group” – is a branch of Anglo-Saxon social theory, political and normative philosophy. There are several publications on the set in the Russian humanities and social sciences, but all articles are limited to the sociological aspect of the work of analytical Marxists. In this article we propose to consider another aspect of this direction – normative aspect. To show this aspect of analytical Marxists, the author suggests considering the movement in historical dynamics. It originates from the publication of “Karl Marx’s Theory of History” (1978) by Canadian-English philosopher J.A. Cohen. Cohen tried to rid Marxism of Hegelianism and make it the subject of a real science, which set the framework the current’s activity. At the first stage of the work, analytical Marxists (J.A. Cohen, Jon Elster, John Roemer, Erik Olin Wright, Robert Brenner, Adam Przeworski and others) worked within the framework of sociology and historical sociology, combining the problems raised by Marx with various scientific methods – game theory, rational choice theory, historical sociology, etc. By the early 1990’s, some of the participants of the movement left the group (Elster, Przeworski), while others refocused on new topics, namely, normative political philosophy. Arguing with the ideas and arguments of John Rawls, Robert Nozick, and others, analytical Marxists answered the problems of normative theory in their own way – an attempt to combine freedom and equality (Cohen), egalitarianism (Roemer), real utopias (Wright), and basic income (Philippe Van Parijs).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".