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.
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.
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.
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).