Charles Brown:
> Whereas Angelus Novus' version of Marx isn't based
on
> anything whatsoever that Marx wrote
_Capital_ isn't anything Marx wrote? Wow, since when did this become the ML/Diamat orthodoxy? I assume some sort of "ghostwriter" theory is now the correct line?
Engels certainly created a lot of mischief with his editing of the second and third volumes, but I wasn't aware that Marx's authorship was itself at issue!
Carrol Cox:
> it would seem that Marx's "final word" is awfully
> difficult to come by
Absolutely. The best Marxologists can only trace the development of Marx's work and note the continuities and breaks, but creating any sort of "ism" out of all those texts requires some real creativity.