Re: R: [OPE] new book

Roberto,

don't misunderstand me.. I am sure that a final complete edition of all the
works is academically most valuable, especially if it helps to confirm
Engels own editorial choices, and eg helps undo the damage Kautsky did with
the TSV (although this seems to have been cleared up well by the Moscow Inst
previosuly), but unfortunately I don't think this will stop the critics of
Marx who constantly try to divide Marx and Engels, displace and brand
Engels as a lesser thinker ( rather than a communist contributor and
thinker in his own right) as a step to isolating Marx.

Your answer that "The point is that MARX HIMSELF was not able to edit his
own texts (he had almost 20 years to do it, the first drafts of book II and
III date 1863-65). He was completely aware his drafts were not finished and
printable. Nobody could do it in his spirit, because he himself - in body
and spirit - could not do it." .... would suggest that NO one else should!!
It does not deny that Engels was the best person to try.

The introduction to the book doesn't explain what 'Real Socialist' ideology
is, so we don't know (as readers) what you are trying to avoid.... ( the
introductions to the Moscow editions of the TSV's are MUCH better than the
anodine introductions to the English CW...in my view) , and the protest
against the use of 'petty bourgeois' as a description of unamed modern
writers seems to hang in the air... ..unexplained. After all, it IS a fair
characterisation of quite enough writers, describing their narrow view of
capitalism.... their focus on the market, the commodity and money rather
than capital, imperialism and global exploitation.

Cheers

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: <strack@alice.it>
To: "Outline on Political Economy mailing list" <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:41 AM
Subject: R: R: [OPE] new book

Paul,
first of all, thanks for your interest.

-I have the same question... Engels must have been the best of all possible
editors... his introductions are explicit in their determination to put
down what Marx wanted, who knew him better?

The point is that MARX HIMSELF was not able to edit his own texts (he had
almost 20 years to do it, the first drafts of book II and III date 1863-65).
He was completely aware his drafts were not finished and printable. Nobody
could do it in his spirit, because he himself - in body and spirit - could
not do it.

- The introduction to the book is
a bit odd, talking of the treatment of Marx as a thinker and moving away
from 'ideology' and so on when he was first and formost an active
communist!!

Is the fact that he was an active communist a good reason to write the
introductions of the volumes of his CRITICAL EDITION according to the Real
socialism's ideology? I don't see why avoiding this should be odd.

- In terms of some of the notions raised, these are perfectly
well debatable from the existing corpus of work.

Of course, we can debate all the notions on the base of someone else's
edition (better re-arrangement) of the manuscripts they come from. But we
can also debate those on the base of the real thing, which now is
available. Why do not consider that?
All the best
Roberto

Alice Messenger ;-) chatti anche con gli amici di Windows Live Messenger e
tutti i telefonini TIM!
Vai su http://maileservizi.alice.it/alice_messenger/index.html?pmk=footer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Sat Jan 17 17:05:21 2009