this is:

-an attempt at a "new" marxism based exclusively on an interpretation of marx's "grundrisse"
-a critical review of the history of western commentaries on marx
-a justification for the former in light of/in response to the latter, also in light of/in response to the broad historical trends of the 20th c

thing is, postone isn't particularly comprehensive w either of those first two points. oh, he spends a LOT of words on both of the topics, and he certainly mentions in passing at least once all of the relevant issues one would expect, but he only deeply investigates a handful of authors and theoretico-historical concepts. so why is it so fucking long? bc postone is one of the worst writers (at least in english) ive encountered in the postwar western philosophical tradition, rivaling such travesties as talcott parsons or john searle

that is, unfortunately, not the only issue i have w this tome. i should perhaps get out of the way what i liked first--what saved this from a 2/5 rating

postone's articulation of marx's theoretical constructs in the grundrisse is relatively insightful, but his further explanation of how this makes marx's critique truly comparative-historical, not trans-historical, is brilliant; he effectively saves marx's foundational theory from his dreadfully unsuccessful historical forecasting (as seen in capital, the manifesto, and elsewhere)

the way postone uses marx's underlying concepts to examine 20th c changes in production technology is surprising and dazzling, a magisterial demonstration of the theoretico-historical force of postone's reinterpretation of marx

his most central re-conceptualization revolves around "labour," and he elegantly uses this single concept to tear-down the analyses of the entire frankfurt school of critical theory, the marxism of the second internationale, and the entire leninist tradition

while these critiques and his handful of conceptual reworkings r deep and enlightening, they in no way justify the length, unnecessary complexity, and deliberate obscurantism of the text; there are a host of issues tho w postone's overambitious attempt to extend the significance and reach of his arguments

postone's critique of fin de siecle comparative-historical analysts like max weber or georg simmel is hypocritical and ill-founded; he makes some unreasonable assertions (tho common misconceptions) abt weber's argumentation: that his theory of rationalization is linear, evolutionary, deterministic, or that he has no concept of the interplay of different 'social spheres' (has postone literally not heard of elective affinity??). more generally he critiques the neo-kantian historical scheme for failing to grasp deep intrinsic contradictions the way that dialectics can, and on the same count accuses neo-kantians of using "trans-historical categories". i would agree that shitty neo-kantians like habermas r transhistorical in their analyses, but postone is conflating multiple senses of transhistoricity. postone claims that his reinterpreted marxian categories can b applied to any historical moment, but they r not trans-historical bc the exact manifestation of the categories is "historically-determinate". this however is literally the approach of weber and simmel. where postone's marx uses capital and labor, weber uses action-rationale and ideal types, and simmel uses interactional forms. another reviewer pointed out postone's unacknowledged neo-kantian biases, and i think that's exactly what is at work in this hypocrisy. postone attempts to disown his own uses of neo-kantian categorical analysis by criticizing it in other writers.

furthermore i cannot take seriously any writer who claims to b a comparative-historical analyst, criticizes the work of other actual comparative-historical analysts, all while refusing to engage in any history or comparison. postone does examine how his reinterpreted marxian theory can grasp the trajectory of 20th c production technology, but this is vaguely and generally sketched without reference to any particular events, phenomena, or moments. there r in fact many passages where postone dismisses the importance of general history or comparison, stressing instead the paramount importance of the history of ideas. here postone betrays his idealist predilection, while chastising others for alleged idealism

postone's claim to b reinterpreting "marx" as he was meant to b understood, as completely historically relative, is also at times a bit awkward. postone leans exclusively on the grundrisse, still unfinished at the time of marx's death, yet claims this document should b the definitive basis for understanding all of marx's thought. marx engages in VERY strong and VERY explicit historical forecasting in capital, the german ideology, the manifesto, et al, where he takes his analysis of contemporary capitalism and "transhistorically" projects it into the indefinite future! postone seems to completely ignore this when he claims marx's thought was "actually" determined by relative historical moments. i do believe this to b the case abt the grundrisse, but the relentlessly argue that this should characterize our entire understanding of marx's oeuvre is a bit much. hell, postone doesn't even do much to situation the grundrisse within the marxist corpus!

postone claims he is addressing "all" of the notable critiques of marx, that such critiques have all misunderstood marx's deeper theory, and that a reinterpretation of the grundrisse will bring to the fore much-needed theoretical apparatus for critical comparative-historical analysis. however, postone declines to even discuss briefly the contributions of poststructuralist, postmodern, constructivist, and relational/processual thinkers and their contributions to a rich and adequate theoretical apparatus. this undercuts his claim of conducting a sufficiently thorough review of responses to marx, but also is embarrassingly evident in several of his missteps. this review is already too long, so briefly:
-postone clings to the duality of individual and society, and fetishizes the concept of "the social" which is a screen for positivism and philosophically incoherent (cf latour, deleuze)
-related, postone retains marx's brutal anthropocentrism and refuses to confront it, retaining the duality of humanity and nature, and fetishizes the concept of "nature", which is a screen for politico-economic domination and also philosophically incoherent (cf latour, lovelock, bookchin)
-undervalues, underrates, or does not acknowledge brilliant theoretical contributions from the likes of norbert elias, michel foucault, pierre bourdieu, et al

finally, postone seems to have no ethical backbone. he keeps talking abt emancipation, but nowhere does he actually discuss or support any real praxis in the world. he is the worst stereotype of a theory-obsessed ivory tower marxist. one could generously suggest that he supports anti-authoritarian movements in "actually existing socialist countries", but even that is a stretch ( )