Charles Brown wrote:
> Are you really claiming something like most of the
> famous readers of Marx don't understand him
"Most" and "famous" readers is a bit vague and meaningless. And "understand" is also poorly defined here. I would claim that the canonical reading of Marx in the German Social Democracy and its various offshoots (Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism) is very incomplete. In certain cases, like among people who assume the chapters on simple commodity production are intended to depict a real historical stage of human history, the reading of Marx is outright wrong.
> but now , you do understand him ?
I think the names I cited (Rosdolsky, Backhaus, Reichelt, Kurz, Heinrich, Postone, Holloway) all have, to varying degrees, a very good grasp of Marx's mature critique of political economy. There are differences between these thinkers (I'm not entirely convinced by Kurz's crisis theory) but they get the essentials right, and draw the right conclusions.
> A bit nervy, don't you think ?
Is "nervy" a meaningful criterion for the truth or falsity of a position?
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com