In message Wed, 13 Sep 1995 10:41:31 -0700,
Gilbert Skillman <gskillman@mail.wesleyan.edu> writes:
>>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."
>
>
All the more reason to do it (although we should invoke a time/space
limit on anything in relation to Ch. 5)! For those who weren't on Pen a few
years back, oldtimers still gather and talk about the famous "Ch.5 Debate"
which involved among others Gil, Jim and me. Gil emulated a chess master
and carried on about 10 simultaneous dialogues... and got an article out of
it, too.
> I also like the word "architectonics."
Me, too. Wish I knew what it meant. Well, Marx chided Ricardo for his
faulty architectonics (which are much more serious than fallen arches).
cheers,
mike
---------------------------
Michael A. Lebowitz
Economics Department, Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944
Home: (604) 255-0382
Lasqueti Island (current location): (604) 333-8810
e-mail: mlebowit@sfu.ca