Shane Mage wrote:
> To which I reply: there is *no* "Marx." There is "*Marx and Engels*"
It's cute how you think adding a second person to the equation is supposed to make Marx's oeuvre *less* discontinuous, rather than moreso!
> Academics squirreling through a pile of unpublished notes
See, this is the religious attitude I'm talking about. To you, unpublished manuscripts (i.e. those manuscripts known to us today as "Capital Vol. II and III") are perfectly authoritative as long as they're used to justify dubious notions like FROP (or whatever piece of orthodoxy one is defending), but as soon as a manuscript comes along that contradicts orthodoxy, then it's just mere "unpublished notes."
You can't have it both ways.