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 Dar
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 whi
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.
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
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 hi
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 fo
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--
>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 re
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 worked
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 mer
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
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
> Dear Sir, - I thank you for your friendly letter and the enclosure. The
> publication of your observations on my writings, in whatever form they may
> appear, really does not need any consent on my part, and it would be
> ridiculous for me to grant my permission for something which does not
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 Darw
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
soc
15 matches
Mail list logo
