m**c
发帖数: 7349 | 1 The overriding impression from this book is that Marx’s reputation (at
least in some quarters) as an unrivalled economist-philosopher is wide of
the mark.
Marx had planned to write “Capital” in multiple volumes. He finished the
first. But when it came to writing the second, on realising that he would
face insurmountable intellectual hurdles, he pleaded illness (though seemed
quite able to do other sorts of research).
“Karl” was in the thick of the intellectual developments of the 19th
century. But the myth is more impressive than the reality. | t**x
发帖数: 20965 | 2 你这个诋毁革命导师的小丑。导师从来不缺诋毁他的小人，只不过又多了一两个臭虫而
已。 | m**c
发帖数: 7349 | 3 Mr Stedman Jones is an historian with Marxist leanings. As such the reader
might expect a ringing endorsement of the great man’s ideas.
However, in many parts the author is highly critical. For instance, he
points out that Marx displayed “condescension towards developments in
political economy”, a big mistake given how rapidly the field was changing
at the time.
More damning, the “Grundrisse”, an unfinished manuscript which many neo-
Marxists see as a treasure trove of theory, has “defects [in the] core
arguments”. |
|
