Date: 26 Nov 95 02:56:48 EST
From: "Chris, London" <100423.2040-AT-compuserve.com>
Subject: Jim's Long Post


Jim's Long Post:

>>>>>

From: James Miller <jamiller-AT-igc.apc.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 17:37:16 -0800
Subject: The long-post composition of capital

WARNING: LONG POST

   Someone (probably a moderator) recently advised
us not to go over 100 lines per post. Unfortunately
this post is in the vicinity of 200 lines, although
in my opinion the lines are not very long. I wish
I could shorten it, but that would take a lot of
work. 

etc
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Yes it was me that advised. At a guess contributions over
100 lines may be read by only 3 people rather than 20. 

And it was advice: only a suggestion to think about it. Which is 
what Jim did. Thanks.

Jim I like the tone of your debate, your reason and politeness.
I thought in this piece you established a fair case that the 
apparent difference between Marx and Engels in the edited volume 3 of 
Capital, was a difference of emphasis because they were 
approaching different aspects of the dynamic.

May I suggest that in your efforts to avoid sectarianism, and to be
reasoned, it is OK to try to think as precisely as possible what troubles
you about your opponent's position. Providing this is not put in personally
destructive or provocative ways, this may even help your opponent, and 
may certainly help others. It can become the springboard to reach a
shared agreement of the problem.

What is the central problem from your point of view in the way John 
has been approaching this question? 

Chris, London


PS Let me emphasise there is most definitely a place for long articles on
this list. Even longer ones can be placed in the archive, though there
is a danger, as with all good contributions, of being forgotten.                                                                   



     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------