The problem with this is that, unlike physics books, any books written to modernize for example Marx's works are heavily based on interpretations of his works. It's not a matter of simple equations, those works have to be interpreted to be modernized, and historically, his works have multiple conflicting interpretations. Of course, not everyone needs to read Capital, but a lot more people inside the movements should read it than currently have.
To me, it seems absurd to suggest the left focuses too much on reading old books, when it feels like only a small minority of leftists could explain even simple concepts like use and exchange value.
How does reading theory vs watching video essays or David Harvey lectures, solve the interpretation problem? If more people read the book directly, would there be fewer interpretations? I’m just not following the argument here.
The problem with this is that, unlike physics books, any books written to modernize for example Marx's works are heavily based on interpretations of his works. It's not a matter of simple equations, those works have to be interpreted to be modernized, and historically, his works have multiple conflicting interpretations. Of course, not everyone needs to read Capital, but a lot more people inside the movements should read it than currently have.
To me, it seems absurd to suggest the left focuses too much on reading old books, when it feels like only a small minority of leftists could explain even simple concepts like use and exchange value.
How does reading theory vs watching video essays or David Harvey lectures, solve the interpretation problem? If more people read the book directly, would there be fewer interpretations? I’m just not following the argument here.