From: michael a. lebowitz (mlebowit@SFU.CA)
Date: Wed Jul 27 2005 - 19:27:16 EDT
Hi Jerry,
Of course, it's hard to know what he had in mind, but
clearly it would have been much more than the Intro on method (or he
wouldn't have been talking about needing time). My guess is that he
wanted to engage more directly with Hegel--- in which case maybe the
Intro points would have been a conclusion to the essay. It would be
interesting to know what folks like Chris, Fred and Tony think about
this. I'm just finishing up a collection of old and new stuff for
Brill ('Following Marx') in which several of the new essays explore
these questions.
in solidarity,
michael
At 13:08 27/07/2005, you wrote:
>Hi Michael L:
>
>He could have used his notes on method from the "Introduction"
>to the _Grundrisse_ as the basis for his "sheets" on method,
>couldn't he? That is, he already wrote something which was
>never published (during his lifetime), but could have been
>expanded upon at much greater length. In any event (putting
>that speculative question aside for the moment in order to ask
>another one) why didn't he write more on method in the various
>introductions, prefaces and postfaces of _Capital_?
>
>In solidarity, Jerry
>Boothbay Harbor
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at
Residencias Anauco Suites
Departamento 601
Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1
Caracas, Venezuela
(58-212) 573-4111
fax: (58-212) 573-7724
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 29 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT