Jim Devine wrote:
>At 09:57 AM 5/8/00 -0500, you wrote:
>> > > As one of the most boring books ever written, one which 99% of
>>> Marxist do not have the patience or even temper to read, should we
>>> not but sympathize with poor Darwin's rejection of this offer?
>
>since when do we let mere boredom stand in our way? Boredom seems
>part of life and work, something that everybody (except the very
>rich and some dilettantes, that is) cannot avoid. Boredom seems part
>and parcel of necessary labor, something that won't be abolished for
>a long time. Some might say that without boredom, we couldn't
>appreciate non-boredom, but I wouldn't go that far.
>
>I don't find CAPITAL to be boring at all, especially because I read
>the footnotes, where Marx lets down his hair (i.e., his scientific
>pretensions) and lets his venom and wit flow. In any event, the
>boredom involved in CAPITAL should be compared to the boredom of the
>normal academic treatise with its excessive pedantry and caution. In
>terms of the benefits received from digging through its tedium,
>CAPITAL wins hands down.
I have to admit that while I love vols. 1 & 3 of Capital, I found
vol. 2 pretty excruciating. Are there others, aside from our
reflexively hostile anti-Marxist, who agree?
Doug
