Most of those things don’t make Marx unclear, IMO. Using philosophical jargon is not unclear, it only makes it less accessible — there’s a difference.
The way Marx uses words like valorize and realize are not unclear nor unreasonable. In fact their usage is exactly accurate, in the full sense of the words rather than the typical partial sense. And really some of that just comes down to translation, so you can’t fully blame Marx for the particular words used.
I don’t think he actually talks about dialectical sublation in Capital or the Manifesto or any of his “layman” texts.
The problem is not at all clarity, it’s just exacting and dense, like reading a textbook. If I handed someone a calculus textbook, they probably wouldn’t be able to grasp all of it in an afternoon. It’s about managing expectations, the text is fine. Repetitive might be a valid critique, but then again one has to decide if it was necessary — I would say so.
Okay, so, that explains your response. The joke is that Marx can write in a way that's accessible to modern laymen, but didn't in texts like Wage, Price and Profit, but no one in communist spaces tells to read his letters about life in London, people only tell me to read his economic lectures.
The joke is that I'm angry at Marx for being hard for me to read (a common experience) and expect him to write the same way in his economic lectures (which is funny because it's an unrealistic expectation on multiple levels.) The joke is also that I'm mad at this website for telling me to read the economic stuff instead of the fluffy stuff, as though the fluffy stuff has just as much utility as the economics. The joke is that I've misunderstood the utility of reading Marx.
Most of those things don’t make Marx unclear, IMO. Using philosophical jargon is not unclear, it only makes it less accessible — there’s a difference.
The way Marx uses words like valorize and realize are not unclear nor unreasonable. In fact their usage is exactly accurate, in the full sense of the words rather than the typical partial sense. And really some of that just comes down to translation, so you can’t fully blame Marx for the particular words used.
I don’t think he actually talks about dialectical sublation in Capital or the Manifesto or any of his “layman” texts.
The problem is not at all clarity, it’s just exacting and dense, like reading a textbook. If I handed someone a calculus textbook, they probably wouldn’t be able to grasp all of it in an afternoon. It’s about managing expectations, the text is fine. Repetitive might be a valid critique, but then again one has to decide if it was necessary — I would say so.
Hey, before I engage in an argument over semantics, did you get the joke?
nope, not seeing a joke in there.
Okay, so, that explains your response. The joke is that Marx can write in a way that's accessible to modern laymen, but didn't in texts like Wage, Price and Profit, but no one in communist spaces tells to read his letters about life in London, people only tell me to read his economic lectures.
The joke is that I'm angry at Marx for being hard for me to read (a common experience) and expect him to write the same way in his economic lectures (which is funny because it's an unrealistic expectation on multiple levels.) The joke is also that I'm mad at this website for telling me to read the economic stuff instead of the fluffy stuff, as though the fluffy stuff has just as much utility as the economics. The joke is that I've misunderstood the utility of reading Marx.