Ricardo Duchesne 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?
I read *Capital* (Vol.I) several years before I became involved in
It was just Vol. II which he offered to Darwin. Which other book
would you say is a literary masterpiece?
Ricardo Duchesne 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
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?
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
Once again I took it for granted everyone knew it was only Vol. II which
Marx offered to Darwin. On boredom, I would add it is not something
which we experience during tedious work only, but when we have
"nothing to do". It is also a time when we do more than we realize;
in the broken bits of
Has anyone else here read R.P. Wolff's lovely litearry appreciation of Capital,
Moneybags Should be So Lucky? Also, SS Prawer has a nice book on Karl Marx and World
Literature, which is an old-fashioned (i.e. pre-Theory) lit critter's approach to
Cpitala nd a lot more. As someone who has
Has anyone else here read R.P. Wolff's lovely litearry appreciation
of Capital, Moneybags Should be So Lucky?
Yes...
If Wolff is correct in his assessment of what Marx is trying to do in
chapter 1, volume 1, then all I can say is that Marx failed--that
Wolff is perhaps the first and only
Ricardo Duchesne wrote:
It was just Vol. II which he offered to Darwin. Which other book
would you say is a literary masterpiece?
Here we are talking about a book which was never written (Vol. II).
Had it gotten to the point where the dedication had been relevant,
it would presumably have
At 09:22 AM 5/8/00 -0700, you wrote:
Has anyone else here read R.P. Wolff's lovely litearry appreciation of
Capital, Moneybags Should be So Lucky?
Yes...
If Wolff is correct in his assessment of what Marx is trying to do in
chapter 1, volume 1, then all I can say is that Marx failed--that
You are misreading the point. The point was not about Marxists' sympathy
with Darwin's rejection of the offer. Of course, it was a nice behavior
that Darwin did not want to popularize himself, so let's give credit to
him. However, this was not simply an ethical concern or political
correctness
Margaret Fay wrote about the letter to Darwin. It was from Aveling, not Marx.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are misreading the point. The point was not about Marxists' sympathy
with Darwin's rejection of the offer. Of course, it was a nice behavior
that Darwin did not want to popularize
I know that the letter was from Aveling.What about Gould's claim that
there was a correpondence between Marx and Darwin? Is this another
correpondence? or is Gould making up?
Mine
Margaret Fay wrote about the letter to Darwin. It was from Aveling, not
Marx.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You
I think that Gould is wrong.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know that the letter was from Aveling.What about Gould's claim that
there was a correpondence between Marx and Darwin? Is this another
correpondence? or is Gould making up?
Mine
Margaret Fay wrote about the letter to Darwin. It was
It has been established long ago that Marx did not offer to dedicate
Capital to Darwin. Check Louis Feuer's article in the Journal of the
History of Ideas, (some time in the 1970s).
Rod Hay
Carrol Cox wrote:
Ricardo Duchesne wrote:
As one of the most boring books ever written, one which
I strongly think so too, but i spying on him. there is something fishy there..
Mine
Michael Perelman wrote:
I think that Gould is wrong.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know that the letter was from Aveling.What about Gould's claim that
there was a correpondence between Marx and Darwin? Is
There is some confusion below. Obviously, Darwin's ideas were quite
progressive judged against his own circumstances charecterized by
religious convictions in Britian at that time. However, Darwin was not a
revolutionary or marxist. This is partly because Darwin could not entirely
break away
While John Bellamy Foster acknowledges Darwin's concessions to social
Darwinism, the main stress is on the importance of developing a materialist
view of nature in defiance of the essentialist and teleological consensus
of the mid 1800s. That being said, I agree strongly with Robert Young that
I definetly agree.I think we should get the best out of Darwin to see
what is potential for Marxism. Developing a materialist conception of
nature is necessary for understanding the "historicity" of human nature.
While doing that, however, Marxists should be careful not to
assimilate Marx to
18 matches
Mail list logo
