Rudy, Alan. “Actor-Network Theory, Marxist Economics, and Marxist Political Ecology*.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 16 6 (2005): 85-90. Print.

• The relationship between Marxism and ANT is logical because of Marxisms longtime engagement with the historical concern with relations between natures, sciences, technologies, and societies.
• ANT is characterized as a “non-modern relational mode of analysis” that isn’t comfortable with the dualisms of modernity:  science-politics, subject-object, macro-micro, etc.  In Marxist terms, it utilizes a materialist conception of history.
• Power in ANT is a network effect – not something wielded by social individuals over objectified others or natures (87).
• Latour and ANT background many of the “sociopolitical worlds” infusing technoscience.
• ANTs goal – as articulated by Callon – is to permit “an explanation of how a few obtain the right to express and to represent the many silent actors of the social and natural worlds they have mobilized” (90).  In this sense, ANT is an exploration of political representation and the genesis of sovereignty.