[ show plain text ]
Re Paul Z's [OPE-L:2690]
> if we can reach an agreement that one need not read Hegel to understand
> Marx ... we will have [moved] a good step forward.
One need not read Hegel to understand _Capital_, but it helps, imo.
In any event, *if* we were to agree that one need not read Hegel in order
to comprehend Marx, *then* we should also agree that one need not read
Althusser *or any other secondary source* to understand Marx.
Of course, as scholars we wish to acquaint ourselves with both primary and
secondary materials. Moreover, since Hegel (by even an Althusserian
interpretation) had a major impact on the formation of Marx's thought,
then it can be argued that it is *more important* to read Hegel than
most secondary sources. By the same token, it is important to read Smith
and Ricardo (and other influential writers such as Feuerbach and Owen and
the rest of the "Utopian socialists").
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:42 EDT