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
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?
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
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
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
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. It was
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 which
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
