I'm skeptical about the "working through CAPITAL" idea, but willing to give
it a try. (I've just begun to teach Vol. I and the two discussions might
blend in nicely.)
My skepticism comes from the fact that a discussion of the very opening
pages of Vol. I earlier this year, on pen-l I believe, generated a real
division, among Gil, Alfredo, John Rosenthal, myself (Kliman) and others.
That's not bad in itself, but the ways of reading the text were so
different, the questions posed to it, the kind of answers sought, etc.
But I'm for trying--so long as people engage others' way of approaching
the text instead of demanding answers on their own ground only. Doing
the former might indeed help to see the extent to which Marx is
"incomplete"--maybe the extent to, or way in which, he's "incomplete"
is dependent on how you read the book and what you want it to do, rather
than there being a theory- and methodology-independent, "neutral"
incompleteness in it per se.
Andrew