lol Adorno & Benjamin are in rare form here

anyway i love the new translation, the ed endnotes (when they’re not abt eg *possible* allusions! really fascinating) are both much more theoretically weak than I would’ve hoped & representative of the new readings without referencing them (we need “possible allusion” endnotes for the endnotes lol)

no preferred translation, but if you’ve been through the Fowkes already absolutely check out the Reitter esp for the first few chapters! (I think about it like the difference b/w the Miller & the Pinkard versions of Hegel’s Phenomenology honestly)

i like this part! but i don’t think that the claim they make about the unequivocal treatment of the category of consciousness is true even of Capital, let alone in Marx’s other works from the same period or later! this is an interpretive argument they’re passing off as a fact without citations lol

to be clear I am having a blast with the new translation! It is exactly what I hoped for: an up-to-date translation to object to lol.

person as personification of economic categories & bearer of determinate class-relations & -interests—that I get! i don’t know who could be a conscious bearer of “the system” without that being a meaningless ascription of totality to oneself but hey maybe I’m just not conscious yet

Adorno & Horkheimer proven right again & again: Marx is constantly getting viciously re-philosophized (in this case as naive structuralist-ish social ontologist) by interpreters trying to save him from philosophy

pretty severe misunderstanding of how the category of consciousness functions even in bourgeois post-Kantian idealism, let alone of the way Marx handles categories (especially as loaded as Bewusstsein/Selbstbewusstsein, which he has too much fun with)

time to wrestle (i did not let her roll in a wad of chewed gum on the ground)

this shit is so sharp i have to drink some warm soup broth afterwards to wind down. the ol one two.