_The Manifesto of the Communist Party_, _Value, Price and Profit_, et al are more
accessible to popular audiences.
CB
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/11/00 02:30PM
Brad DeLong wrote:
I'm amazed that the literary qualities of even chap. 1 of Capital
are being called into question. Section 4 is one
yes. Eileen publishes a ton in journals.
Peter was offered (and took) a position at Michigan State
(I think) when he wasn't even on the academic market.
Of course, it was in an IR department. Not "econ."
mbs
Does that work win the respect of "real" economists?
I beg your pardon but our
They are difficult, although there is some nice stuff in them. Hard as it is, there is
some pretty language in the cahpter on commodity fetishism. The standard English
translations are not great--Moore 7 Aveling is very Victorian and not all that
accurate, and the new MECW slightly cleaned up
Where did she make the claim? I don't know of any specific examples, but few
economists of his time had such experience.
This calumny is not novel. The earliest instance is Mitrany, David. Marx against the
peasant: a study in social dogmatism.
P.S.: Dierdre McCloskey was claiming this
RE
They are difficult, although there is some nice stuff in them. Hard as it
is, there is some pretty language in the cahpter on commodity fetishism.
-- and --
The first few chapters of _Capital_. They *are* turgid and nearly
unreadable, in the standard English
I'm amazed that the literary qualities of even chap. 1 of Capital are
being called into question. Section 4 is one of Marx's most
deservedly famous passages, the analysis of commodity fetishism,
which blends political economy, pyschology, philosophy, and cultural
analysis in dazzling ways. As
At 07:55 PM 9/10/00 -0700, you wrote:
Dierdre McCloskey was claiming this morning that Marx had never visited
either a farm or a factory. Does anyone know of documented counterexamples?
maybe, but didn't his friend Fred manage a factory? If old Karlos didn't
have the time or resources to visit
I'm amazed that the literary qualities of even chap. 1 of Capital
are being called into question. Section 4 is one of Marx's most
deservedly famous passages, the analysis of commodity fetishism,
which blends political economy, pyschology, philosophy, and cultural
analysis in dazzling ways. As
I beg your pardon but our industrial relations
people -- Eileen Appelbaum and Peter Berg --
have visited many factories, interviewing workers
and collecting data, for their research on workplace
organization.
mbs
Modern sociologists (like Michael Burawoy) visit factories. Economists
don't do
Brad DeLong wrote:
I'm amazed that the literary qualities of even chap. 1 of Capital
are being called into question. Section 4 is one of Marx's most
deservedly famous passages, the analysis of commodity fetishism,
which blends political economy, pyschology, philosophy, and cultural
There are numerous stories about groups of workers saving up money
together so that they could share a copy. The cigar makers used to have
Capital read to them when they worked.
In many case, I am sure that the workers understood it better than their
more educated superiors.
--
Michael
Does that work win the respect of "real" economists?
I beg your pardon but our industrial relations
people -- Eileen Appelbaum and Peter Berg --
have visited many factories, interviewing workers
and collecting data, for their research on workplace
organization.
mbs
Modern
aah, but you don't understand. In the eyes of the Profession, those are
mere sociologists. And as the one of the key Party Ideologists, Paul
Krugman, has noted, they work for an organization filled with nothing but
hacks.
At 01:32 PM 9/11/00 -0400, you wrote:
I beg your pardon but our
Well, this confuses plainness and accessibility with literary mastery, which is the
question I raised. Lenin' stuff is plain and accessible, but not beautiful. Marx's is
often difficult, but generally beautiful. It has what he said in his early letter to
his dad was true of Hegel, a "grotesque
It would be interesting to get validation that Marx never had first-hand experience
with farms or factories. I don't like his
writings on agriculture particularly, but Marx' work on the reorganization of
production during the industrial revolution is
truly top-notch -- some of the finest
At 04:26 PM 9/11/00 -0700, you wrote:
It would be interesting to get validation that Marx never had first-hand
experience with farms or factories. I
This reminded me of something that I forgot to bring up. It was mentioned
that the sociologist Buroway worked in a factory to get first-hand
Like lots of folks on pen-l, I worked in factories and such not to gain
enlightenment but to make money. True, I ended up learning some useful
lessons (some of which can't be found in books), but if I were independently
wealthy and had spent all that time reading instead, I probably would have
Jim D. wrote:
At 07:55 PM 9/10/00 -0700, you wrote:
Dierdre McCloskey was claiming this morning that Marx had never
visited either a farm or a factory. Does anyone know of documented
counterexamples?
maybe, but didn't his friend Fred manage a factory? If old Karlos
didn't have the time or
Brad DeLong wrote:
I'm amazed that the literary qualities of even chap. 1 of Capital
are being called into question. Section 4 is one of Marx's most
deservedly famous passages, the analysis of commodity fetishism,
which blends political economy, pyschology, philosophy, and
cultural analysis
At 01:54 PM 09/09/2000 -0400, you wrote:
Marx is a medium rank master of the German
language, not as great as Heine or Lessing, but in the neighborhood of
Nietzsche. The canard that he is turgid and unreadable is just that, a duck.
Marx's reputations as a turgid writer seems to arise from...
One of the German professors here -- not a radical at all -- uses Marx as an
example of the best in German writing -- not of medium grade.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marx is a medium rank master of the German
language, not as great as Heine or Lessing, but in the neighborhood of
Nietzsche.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marx is a medium rank master of the German
language, not as great as Heine or Lessing, but in the neighborhood of
Nietzsche.
Nietzsche is a wonderful read, at least in translation. What's with
this "medium rank" business?
Doug
At 01:54 PM 09/09/2000 -0400, you wrote:
Marx is a medium rank master of the German
language, not as great as Heine or Lessing, but in the neighborhood of
Nietzsche. The canard that he is turgid and unreadable is just that, a duck.
Marx's reputations as a turgid writer seems to arise from four
In a message dated 9/9/00 2:28:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One of the German professors here -- not a radical at all -- uses Marx as
an
example of the best in German writing -- not of medium grade.
The _best_ in German writing in Goethe, the only writer in
24 matches
Mail list logo
