Great Britain)" wrote:

> Thanks for the reference.
> No thanks for the comment. Is this an "I've read the three volumes of
> capital more often than you" argument?

No, it's the "you asked for the reference, here it is" comment.
> Please feel free to present her
> ideas, in that they are relevant, and argue them from Marx's ideas: but I
> stopped quoting from holy books when I left the catholics.

It is when we attempt to summarize complex ideas into short statements
that we run the greater risk of converting to religion. Indeed, there can
be no quicker way to convert Marxism into dogma than through attempts at
over-simplification (see e.g. _Quotations from Chairman Mao_).

> I have read
> capital, as it happens, a few times: but I already understood the theory
> from other authors and discussions.

Serious -- and critical! -- study requires that you read the relevant
sources for yourself. Of course, it is always easier to rely on the
"experts". Such an uncritical reliance on authority has little, if
anything, in common with Marxism, though.

> In the same way I would not consider
> anyone's ability to argue Marxian economics and politics to be impaired
> because they worked it out from popular volumes and a bit of common  
> sense.

Indeed, one can *ARGUE* "Marxist economics and politics" in this manner.
If you want to *COMPREHEND* the dynamics of capitalism it requires more of
an effort. Marx understood well the importance of *abstraction* (not
"common sense") and the hazards associated with readers who are "always
impatient to come to a conclusion, eager to know the connection between
general principles and the immediate questions that have aroused their
passions ...." yet "There is no royal road to science, and only those who
do not dread the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of
gaining its luminous summits" (from "Preface to the French Edition" of
Volume 1 of _Capital_).


     --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

Reply via email to