Yh there are also other conditions like the reader's health, whether they're getting enough sleep, eating healthily, and so on. People should ofc not be criticized for not having the time, energy, or inclination to read 3 enormous tomes of polical-economy, sociology and philosophy, which is simultaneously a work of politcal economy and a critique of political economy. My main criticism of Capital actually has to do more with the overall macro-structure of the book. The arguments in themselves, when reflected on, I think are clear, albeit difficult. I've also been in the situation where I am reading it with brain fog and it feels like I'm bashing my head against a wall made of cotton.
You don't need to read Capital to be a Marxist, or to understand the core of Marxism, or even to have a sophisticated Marxism. But it is a key part of Marxism, and it's not fair to demand than something which might be intellectually challenging should be simplified at the cost of the scientist distorting the meaning or argument of what they're saying, or by sacrificing content.
Tbh tho, I think that the core, most important argument of Marx are not difficult for people to understand. It depends on how it's presented and Marx could, I agree have made it easier on us, though that's why we also have popular expositions and simplifications that only present the core arguments in digestable form. This is why it's important to have other political-economists who can produce more streamlined, digestible, popularized versions of the arguments for people to get a decent grip of the main points. If people want to see the arguments in all of their detail, then there are technical expositions by other political-economists or interpreters of Marx, or they can try read the original text.
Another issue is that Capital was unfinished, though this is not a defence for Vol. 1 which had been published during his lifetime.
Yh there are also other conditions like the reader's health, whether they're getting enough sleep, eating healthily, and so on. People should ofc not be criticized for not having the time, energy, or inclination to read 3 enormous tomes of polical-economy, sociology and philosophy, which is simultaneously a work of politcal economy and a critique of political economy. My main criticism of Capital actually has to do more with the overall macro-structure of the book. The arguments in themselves, when reflected on, I think are clear, albeit difficult. I've also been in the situation where I am reading it with brain fog and it feels like I'm bashing my head against a wall made of cotton.
You don't need to read Capital to be a Marxist, or to understand the core of Marxism, or even to have a sophisticated Marxism. But it is a key part of Marxism, and it's not fair to demand than something which might be intellectually challenging should be simplified at the cost of the scientist distorting the meaning or argument of what they're saying, or by sacrificing content.
Tbh tho, I think that the core, most important argument of Marx are not difficult for people to understand. It depends on how it's presented and Marx could, I agree have made it easier on us, though that's why we also have popular expositions and simplifications that only present the core arguments in digestable form. This is why it's important to have other political-economists who can produce more streamlined, digestible, popularized versions of the arguments for people to get a decent grip of the main points. If people want to see the arguments in all of their detail, then there are technical expositions by other political-economists or interpreters of Marx, or they can try read the original text.
Another issue is that Capital was unfinished, though this is not a defence for Vol. 1 which had been published during his lifetime.