dear Jerry Some points off the top: I recall this being a good abridgement. I think the Trotsky angle is accidental. he was a bigger name at the time than Marx so was used to 'sell' it: the dust jacket of my copy calls it "Leon Trotsky presents the living thoughts of Karl marx'. There are two other abridgement in print. MY own - of volume 1 - from Lawrance & Wishart; and a later Oxford one by McLellan - of the three volumes - but strangely his V1 follows mine very closely. MY idea was that students have limited time so I cut it down to the argument itself rather than the illustrations and the footnotes. The cost is most of the jokes go. It is also on the Marx-Engels CD from Electronic books which is weird since they have the full one too. Chris A > At the following site titled "Teach yourself Marx's Capital" you will >find Otto Ruhle's abridgement of Volume 1 of _Capital_ allegedly >prepared in collaboration with Leon Trotsky: >http://www.workersliberty.org/wlmags/wl58/capital1.htm This raises a # >of questions: ===================== 1) what are the pitfalls of >teaching *yourself* _Capital_ rather than being part of a study group >and/or class that jointly reads _Capital_? 2) the presumption is that >you can understand _Capital_ by understanding Volume 1? Isn't this an >unwarranted and misleading presumption? 3) what are the pitfalls of >reading an *abridgement* of Volume 1 rather than the entire work? 4) Of >the various abridgements of Volume 1 which are the better ones and which >are the worst ones? Why? 5) How would you evaluate the Ruhle >abridgement? 6) What role did Trotsky play in the preparation of this >abridgement? Did he only write the introductory essay "Marxism in our >time": http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1939/1939-cri.htm or >did he have a greater role as suggested in the "workersliberty" >introduction? 7) How would you evaluate Trotsky's essay? Did it really >belong in an abridgement of Volume 1? Might it not prejudice an >introductory reader to _Capital_ in terms of interpretations of that >work? If it _had_ to be included, wouldn't it have been be better to >have placed it *after* the abridgement? In solidarity, Jerry 17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EST