absolute general law of capitalist accumulation

[Charles Brown <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

by Devine, James

just one point, since I'm busy:

CB writes >On this, I take the position that Marx actually believed that
dialectics
is valid and therefore necessary as part of his conception ( not merely the
word forms to be coquetted with, despite Marx's own description). In other
words, we can't dispense with dialectics and still understand _Capital_.<

I don't reject dialectical thinking. I just don't like Hegelian jargon. I
think
that all of CAPITAL could be translated in relatively simple language
without
dropping Marx's dialectical method, mode of presentation, or understanding
of
the world.

jim

^^^^^

CB: I'm quite open to Hegel in relatively simple language compared to the
original.  From my experience, the translation to  simpler language would be
a complicated project itself though.  Are you saying someone has put Hegel (
or dialectics) into simpler language ?