At 08:16 29/10/97 -0800, Michael P. wrote:
>
>> From: Ajit Sinha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I think you are trying to find an easy way out for Marx. Marx's writing
>on
>> India is definitely problematic. After saying things like,
>
>I don't know what "easy way out" means. Marx himself describes his
>intentions in a letter to Engels.
>
>I have elaborated on this subject elsewhere, as I said before. I will
>refrain from posting more text since I suspect that this subject might be
>without much interest on pen-l.
>
> Your article on Switzerland was of course an indirect smack at the
>leading articles in the Tribune (against centralisation, etc.), and its
>Carey. I have continued this hidden warfare in my first article on
>India, in which the destruction of the native industry by England is
>described as revolutionary. This will be very shocking to them. [Marx
>to Engels, 14 June 1853; in Marx and Engels 1975, pp. 78-80]
___________
Nowhere in this letter Marx is suggesting that he did not believe in what
he wrote in his article on India. I think, to interpret Marx's articles on
India as a vailed polemic against Carey would be quite problematic. It may
imply that Marx was not a serious scholar-- how could a serious person go
on to justify enormous amount of crime committed against a people in
public, simply to piss somebody off? And particulary when he more or less
belongs to the group of victimizers than the victims. This is no joke
Michael. I don't know why this subject will be of no interest on pen-l,
particularly when 'Clinton got cold' type of topics seem to be of enough
interest on pen-l. And again you yourself have many times asked for more
non-US or Euro centered topics to be discussed on pen-l. So what's wrong
with this topic?
Cheers, ajit sinha
______
>
>----
>Michael Perelman
>Economics Department
>California State University
>Chico, CA 95929
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>916-898-5321
>916-898-5901 fax
>
>
