> 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!
I think the point by Jim Holstun on Marx's published and/or unpublished work having a certain degree of incoherence is a fair one, not to say obvious. Whose mind is completely coherent? However, unless one thinks of Engels as a perfect clone of Marx, then adding him can definitely make their joint body of work more coherent than Marx's own. It is not always the case that adding others will reduce incoherence, but the possibility shouldn't surprise anybody. Furthermore: Marxism, however one may wish to define its precise boundaries, is certainly more likely to be coherent than the work of a single individual Marxist author. This is what the law of large numbers is about. It's an effect similar to the one claimed in finance by portfolio diversification.