From: OPE-L Administrator (ope-admin@ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu)
Date: Tue Mar 23 2004 - 09:56:48 EST
Hi Paul Z. > Yours is, frankly, a simplistic use of > materialism, in my opinion. It is "simplistic" to note that Marx's ill health was the reason he chose to expand the historical section on the working day when that is precisely what he wrote to Engels was the reason for the expansion of the presentation of that topic? I think not. Is it "simplistic" to think that when he was writing to Engels that his spouse says every day that she and their children would be better off dead (!!!!!!!!) because of their poverty that this had an impact on his work? I think not. To think otherwize, frankly, is to believe that Marx was not human in the same way that everyone else is. The counter-argument is the one which, I believe, is simplistic since it simply takes the 'finished product' and asserts -- without evidence -- that since Marx obviouusly chose to discuss the historical details re the working day at great length in _Capital_ that therefore he saw it as somehow very important in fullfiling the "aims" of that work. This is directly refuted by his own explanation to Engels. It is indeed simplstic materialism _not_ to believe that his work was affected by contingent and accidental factors such as his health. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 24 2004 - 00:00:01 EST