>No, it wouldn't throw it out the window, it would just reduce it
>from a "religious" text or a "scientific" text...to a text that
>helps us critique capitalism in an interesting and useful way. I
>teaches us how to recognize the social and historical layers upon
>which certain apparent "common sense" notions -- like labor, money,
>property -- are built. What makes "Capital" hard is not the jargon,
>but the depth of the analysis and the intricacy of the relationships
>it seeks to describe.
Well, yeah. I've never treated the thing as a religious text, but it's still profound as hell - and it's not simple or transparent or any of those things that the "truth is self-evident, or should be" school would like.