On Jul 9, 2007, at 12:59 AM, Carl Remick wrote:
> Yes, but I think a lot of his research was hit-and-miss, based on
> his own
> inadequate resources and the primitive state of data gathering in
> the 19th
> century.
I'm sure he would have written differently if he had our data gathering and processing capabilities, but for all our mastery of data, we still can't think as well as the Grundrisse. But that aside, you've got to be kidding. Marx knew the business world of his day, from the details of factory life to the thinking of bankers. When's the last time you looked at Capital?
> But what really puts Marx in the category of preacher not scientist
> is his
> incandescent outrage.
It's not incandescent, it's much more subtle than that. Robert Paul Wolff wrote a whole book - it's a little one but it's still a book - on Marx's use of irony. You make him sound like Lewis Black.
Doug