[Marxism] Rosa L. replies to RL and LK

S. Artesian sartesian at earthlink.net
Mon Oct 5 20:21:49 MDT 2009

Well, I've been having fun over at:


My approach is a little difference, because it isn't philosophy that's at 
stake here, it's historical accuracy as she claims Marx "extirpated" Hegel 
and dialectics in Vol 1 of Capital.

I started out actually trying to be nice, figuring she might actually know 
something, something to break through the over-aggrandizing that goes on 
[sometimes] with proclamations of "dialectical materialism."

But in the end, I think she knows actually very little about Marx, the 
development, method, and content of his work.  I mean I think she probably 
hasn't even read much Marx.  I don't know that to be a fact, can't prove it, 
but just the circular nature of the discussions, the hair-splitting, the 
inaccuracies, the parsing even of commas in Marx's preface to the 2nd 
edition of Volume 1, makes me think she just hasn't expended much time or 
effort on the work itself.

Probably has a great background in philosophy of language, and vice-versa... 
as if that's a  plus.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "XxxxXxxx XxYyXxx" <xxxxxxx99 at xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "David Schanoes" <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 9:57 PM
Subject: [Marxism] Rosa L. replies to RL and LK

Thanks for the heads up Jim,

I started to write a response but it was getting kind of drawn out, so I’ll 
keep it to a single simple CLEAR question, and we’ll see if we can do more 
later, like I said, I’m not in the position to comment on this at any length 
and that’s why I refer to the literature, which, of course, must be read 
critically; speaking of which, Rosa’s ban of Zeleny’s book sounds a li’l 
dogmatic for a Wittgesnteinian-Trotskyist, no?

More information about the Marxism mailing list