by Devine, James just one point, since I'm busy:
CB writes >On this, I take the position that Marx actually believed that dialectics is valid and therefore necessary as part of his conception ( not merely the word forms to be coquetted with, despite Marx's own description). In other words, we can't dispense with dialectics and still understand _Capital_.< I don't reject dialectical thinking. I just don't like Hegelian jargon. I think that all of CAPITAL could be translated in relatively simple language without dropping Marx's dialectical method, mode of presentation, or understanding of the world. jim ^^^^^ CB: I'm quite open to Hegel in relatively simple language compared to the original. From my experience, the translation to simpler language would be a complicated project itself though. Are you saying someone has put Hegel ( or dialectics) into simpler language ?
