> This is not exactly what I proposed but is a separate, perhaps
> overlapping, idea. What I was suggesting was that we move systematically
> through Marx's CAPITAL (after we have considered the "plans") and explore
> what we see as problems (gaps, lapses, faulty architectonics, mistakes?)
> there.
> mike lebowitz
I also like this suggestion, though it is one guaranteed to cause
disagreement, particularly with respect to "lapses" and "mistakes."
I also like the word "architectonics."
Gil Skillman