• TreadOnMe [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Because he has to adhere to German academic writing tradition. Philosophers do the same thing, where the expound pointlessly on a subject for like three to four pages before getting to the point.

    • StalinForTime [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I really strongly disagree with the idea that Marx digresses at all often uselessly on a topic, especially in a work like Capital, his training in the German philosophical tradition enhanced his ability to deepen his conceptual analysis and preempt criticisms. He is also laying out a certain method of analysis in these texts. You might see it as useless, but there is a reason why is has been one of the most intellectually (and politically) fruitful bodies of though in the modern world.

      • lumpiangshawarma [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s mostly the memes that has invented this persona around Marx, by people who have never read Marx and by academics who dislike him.

        Freud(interesting reactionary thinker) is also lambasted the same way.

        Marx is unclear for 99% of people and pretending it’s easy makes you look like a big-brained elitist.

        There are plenty of PhD fucks in the academic institution who cannot figure their way out of Freud and Marx, so no, it’s not because of elitism.

        Grad school media studies read Hegel/Lenin challenge.

      • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I really strongly disagree

        Same, I think Marx can be quite poetic when he wants to be. Hegel or critical theorists like Adorno are far more challenging to read than Marx, in terms of prose.

        • StalinForTime [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          In his letters (I can’t remember where exactly) Marx actually does mention at a point that he also considered Capital to be a work of art. It is definitely very literary, especially in certain sections with their descriptions of the experiences of the working class, but that literary quality definitely doesn’t preclude it being scientific or relatively clear, if difficult, and even he could have been clearer (including by making it less literary, although then perhaps it might not have been quite as successful or moving).

          Adorno imo is an actual example of intellectual masturbation. I tried reading Against Epistemology and I found it pretty impenetrable, even when you’ve read Hegel. Hegel is obviously not easy and I think could be clearer (Force and Understanding in the Phenomenology is something I’ve reread I dont know how many times and I’m still not sure what the argument is in fine-grained detail).