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
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
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
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
