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.
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.
Lol yh I agree that can be annoying, he's also responding to criticisms he preempts in his time, rather than ours, so it's natural some of what he's referring to might not be clear to the modern reader. But this lack of clarity is an extrinsic rather thern an intrinsic issue he can't really be blamed for. That's an issue where the editor should be making clear with footnotes and endnotes what the context is so that the modern reader can understand wtf Marx is talking about.
Yh I mean Freud has his own problems but they're more due to the scientific status of his claims and issues with his methods imo than due to the clarity of his theory.
There's a difference between something being difficult, because it's densely but very systematically written, so that people are likely to not find it completely clear on first reading, and it being unclear due to the writer not making their terms, assumptions and the steps of their arguments clear. The latter is a problem they can be blamed for, while in the first case it is often possible for them to be clearer, but if it's because the content they are discussing is difficult, then it can't really be blamed imo. A text can be difficult and still intrinsically or internally clear imo, as anyone who studies mathematics finds out.
Some works are difficult and its unfair to demand that they make themselves clearer at the cost of not analysing relevant content.
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.
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).
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.
Ruthless critique of all that exists except for German prose.
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.
"Hey this guy makes a lot of sense!" (ghost of Marx interrupts) You might not agree with me, let me go on for a few pages... :agony:
Lol yh I agree that can be annoying, he's also responding to criticisms he preempts in his time, rather than ours, so it's natural some of what he's referring to might not be clear to the modern reader. But this lack of clarity is an extrinsic rather thern an intrinsic issue he can't really be blamed for. That's an issue where the editor should be making clear with footnotes and endnotes what the context is so that the modern reader can understand wtf Marx is talking about.
deleted by creator
Yh I mean Freud has his own problems but they're more due to the scientific status of his claims and issues with his methods imo than due to the clarity of his theory.
There's a difference between something being difficult, because it's densely but very systematically written, so that people are likely to not find it completely clear on first reading, and it being unclear due to the writer not making their terms, assumptions and the steps of their arguments clear. The latter is a problem they can be blamed for, while in the first case it is often possible for them to be clearer, but if it's because the content they are discussing is difficult, then it can't really be blamed imo. A text can be difficult and still intrinsically or internally clear imo, as anyone who studies mathematics finds out.
Some works are difficult and its unfair to demand that they make themselves clearer at the cost of not analysing relevant content.
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.
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).