Charles Brown wrote:
> Are you really claiming something like most of the
> famous readers of Marx don't understand him
Angelus:"Most" and "famous" readers is a bit vague and meaningless.
^^^^ CB; Well,see the simultaneous thread on deconstruction ( smile).
Anyway, I said "something like" which already says what you said was vague. What I asked is not meaningless. (And I do have a theory, and know I have a theory).
Anyway you said , "but I think if people are capable of misreading Marx as they have done for the past century and a half,"
Was this just a few, obscure people who misread Marx ? No, you obviously mean the "famous" Marxists. ^^^^^^
Angelus:And "understand" is also poorly defined here.
^^^^ CB: You are the one who used "understand" first. You had said:
"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."
^^^^^^
Angelus: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.
^^^^ CB: Prove it. You don't think there were historical societies with barter ?
^^^^^
> 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?
^^^^^ CB: When you first came to the list I challenged something you said about Marx with a specific reference. As I recall , you didn't reply. That dealt more directly with a meaningful criterion for the truth or falsity of a position. Lets take that specific point up again as a test of the validity of your claim to a true understanding of KM.