[Marxism] On Marx and 'Marxism'

james pitman marinercarpentry at gmail.com
Tue May 14 15:05:43 MDT 2013


I agree Daniel - supplemented by the British Library maybe - but yeah,
Engels's collaboration no doubt enriched Marx's writings no end. It's
the political implications of some of Engels's writings that I'm
interested in. If I sound overly critical, it's only as a foil to some
of the sanctification's that have followed, which I think can, in some
circumstances, lead to non-Marxist politics.

On 14 May 2013 18:57, Daniel Rocha <danieldiniz at gmail.com> wrote:
> ======================================================================
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ======================================================================
>
>
> And Marx did not have experience with real world industrial and financial
> capitalism. How can you expect the greatest possible criticism without the
> help of someone who actually knew business?
>
>
> 2013/5/14 james pitman <marinercarpentry at gmail.com>
>
>> ======================================================================
>> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
>> ======================================================================
>>
>>
>> Amongst other things, Engels managed to add evolutionism, incorrect
>> hisctoricisation of value, oversaw a very dubious translation of
>> Capital [Aveling/ Moore] and over-emphasised the Marx-Hegel
>> relationship in order to capitalise on the erstwhile philosophers
>> larger reputation to help Marx's books sell.
>>
>> Jamie.
>>
>> On 14 May 2013 14:34, Angelus Novus <fuerdenkommunismus at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > ======================================================================
>> > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
>> > ======================================================================
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Shane Mage wrote:
>> >
>> >> To which I reply: there is *no* "Marx." There is "*Marx and Engels*"
>> >
>> >
>> > It's cute how you think adding a second person to the equation is
>> supposed to make Marx's oeuvre *less* discontinuous, rather than moreso!
>> >
>> >> Academics squirreling through a pile of unpublished notes
>> >
>> > See, this is the religious attitude I'm talking about.  To you,
>> npublished manuscripts (i.e. those manuscripts known to as today as
>> "Capital Vol. II and III") are perfectly authoritative as long as they're
>> used to justify dubious notions like FROP (or whatever piece of orthodoxy
>> one is defending), but as soon as a manuscript comes along that contradicts
>> orthodoxy, then it's just mere "unpublished notes."
>> >
>> > You can't have it both ways.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________________________
>> > Send list submissions to: Marxism at greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
>> > Set your options at:
>> http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/marinercarpentry%40gmail.com
>>
>> ________________________________________________
>> Send list submissions to: Marxism at greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
>> Set your options at:
>> http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/danieldiniz%40gmail.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldiniz at gmail.com
> ________________________________________________
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
> Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/marinercarpentry%40gmail.com




More information about the Marxism mailing list