"Devine, James" wrote: > > > 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. >
In _Alienation_ Ollman both makes that criticism and (partly) answers it. I tend to agree that paraphrase is always (or nearly always) possible without changing the meaning of a text, so I would also have to agree that the translation of _Capital_ you claim possible is (probably) possible. The catch, perhaps, is in your adverb, "relatively." It is also at least possible that while whole texts can be paraphrased (translated), there do exist particular meanings (references) which are tied to particular expressions. Much of the complexity of _Capital_ comes from using the same word with different meanings at different times. It is at least possible that eliminating _that_ obscurity would only create other obscurities. Carrol > jim
