From: Christopher Arthur (arthurcj@WAITROSE.COM)
Date: Mon Nov 06 2006 - 09:13:13 EST
Thanks for your reply; further comments: You write "I am realy surprised by what you say. On the Capital there is Marx's name. OK. But what about so many letters in which Marx and Engels discuss different aspects of the book and exchange ideas." Personally I find this stuff thin " Before Marx sent volume one to the publisher Engels went through the whole mauscript. " Not true. E saw it only at proof stage "Marx and Engels Discussed the whole book in Manchester." Not the whole book - just some ideas about capital Below there is a misunderstanding. I did not mean a review of the published book. I meant comments on the draft which one gets from publisher's readers etc. The post publication reviews you mention are not very substantial and in any case virtually dictated by Marx. Chris A "You say: 'So Capital was all Marx. he did not even have the benefit of E as a reviewer of the sort we today are very familiar with either from unofficial colleagues or formal comments at conference, journal reviewers, or publishers' readers.' This is not correct I know at least five reviews of Engels' published in German bourgeois papers. (reprinted in Marx-Engels-Werke (MEW), Vol. 16 207-218 and 226-234) He wrote another review for 'Fortnightly Review' (in German translation 22 pages, reprinted in MEW, Vol.16, pp. 288-309). Lastly, I refer to Engels' review for Demokratisches Wochenbaltt (8 pages). (No 12, 21 March 1868, reprinted in MEW, Vol.16, pp. 235-242). Please see Engels' letter of 11 September 1867, in which he asks Marx explicitly whether he should write revies for bourgeois papers, attacking Marx from a bourgeois point of view. And Marx says that this would be the best service to the book (12 September 1867)." Dogan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EST