Formalist criticism and Marxism are compatible, not opposed

Evidence

It could even be argued that it was Hill’s decision to treat the religious, ideological, and intellectual dimensions of the “English Revolution” seriously in their own terms—and not simply as a simple reflection of economic forces—which saved his work from its earlier tendency to economic reductionism: saved it, that is, not from but for Marxism. (Marxism is not an economic reductionism, although in the period of the Second International Weber could be forgiven for sometimes thinking that it was.) — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 335 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

So because I’m never an orthodox Marxist, I don’t feel the whole edifice is put at issue by questioning this or that about it. I don’t feel I have destroyed the whole. — Stuart Hall, Essential Essays, Volume 2, 984 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: The form-content dialectic succeeds for Marx precisely because it is aesthetic in origin — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 671; One can criticize Marxist orthodoxy without abandoning Marxist tools — Stuart Hall, Essential Essays, Volume 2: Identity…, 984; Marxism is not economic reductionism and requires attending to ideas in their own terms (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Treating ideology seriously in its own terms strengthens rather than dilutes Marxist analysis #corroborates (0.88) — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 335
• One can criticize Marxist orthodoxy without abandoning Marxist tools #corroborates (0.85) — Stuart Hall, Essential Essays, Volume 2, 984
• Marxism is not economic reductionism and requires attending to ideas in their own terms #corroborates (0.82)