This is about as good as any understanding of Marx's critique that I have encountered in the English language. I have not read much of the work which is derisively referred to as "pomo", but I think if people are capable of misreading Marx as they have done for the past century and a half, then it should not wonder that other thinkers might be similarly difficult to understand.
^^^ CB; Are you really claiming something like most of the famous readers of Marx don't understand him , but now , you do understand him ? A bit nervy, don't you think ?
^^^^
One question that I constantly ask myself is how much of the misunderstanding of certain thinkers arises from problems of translation. For example, I am of the opinion that many of the thinkers that more-or-less "get" Marx are those writing in the same language that Marx wrote in: Rosdolsky, Backhaus, Reichelt, Heinrich, Kurz, or those who read that language: Postone, Holloway.
In the English speaking world, there is a tendency to read Marx as a successor to the political economy of Smith and Ricardo, and to reject him on that basis. And perhaps it's because in English translation (or the Aveling translation, I should say), Marx really does read like classical English political economy. But then again, this would not account for historicist readings of Marx by individuals who should really know better (Ernest Mandel, Wolfgang Fritz Haug).
I don't know if Jerry can read French. I myself do not read it or speak it well at all. Could it be that the "difficulty" of Derrida might be attributable to real problems of conveying ideas across languages, rather than saying that this or that thinker is really a charlatan, or dressing up trivial ideas with complex language?