I'm amazed that the literary qualities of even chap. 1 of Capital are being called into question. Section 4 is one of Marx's most deservedly famous passages, the analysis of commodity fetishism, which blends political economy, pyschology, philosophy, and cultural analysis in dazzling ways. As much as I admire Keynes as a stylist, nothing he wrote holds a candle to this.
Doug
The Yale Humanities Major speaks: §4 may be dazzling to you literati but 'tain't hardly accessible to the toiling masses...
Brad DeLong
- RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature, (continued)
- RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature, Eric Nilsson Mon 11 Sep 2000, 16:19 GMT
- Re: Economics and Literature, Timework Web Mon 11 Sep 2000, 15:09 GMT
- Re: Re: Economics and Literature, Doug Henwood Mon 11 Sep 2000, 16:29 GMT
- Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature, Carrol Cox Mon 11 Sep 2000, 16:42 GMT
- Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature, Brad DeLong Mon 11 Sep 2000, 17:44 GMT
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature, Carrol Cox Mon 11 Sep 2000, 18:04 GMT
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature, michael Mon 11 Sep 2000, 18:15 GMT
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature, Jim Devine Mon 11 Sep 2000, 18:23 GMT
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature, Doug Henwood Mon 11 Sep 2000, 18:45 GMT