Allen Wood is a world-famous authority on nineteenth-century German idealism, and his books on Kant, Fichte, and Hegel are well worth careful study. He combines the skills of an analytic philosopher in assessing arguments with deep sympathy for philosophers outside the mainstream of the analytic tradition, and he is often able to show that what these philosophers said makes sense and is insightful. His skills are on full display in Karl Marx (Routledge [1981] 2nd edition 2004), and he teases out what Marx means by alienation, dialectics, and exploitation. He is less successful in showing that there is much philosophical value in Marx’s thought, but readers of his book can judge for themselves.
Unfortunately, he tries to assess Marx as an economist, and here his lack of knowledge is apparent. He is also very leftwing and loathes capitalism. Although he is aware of some of the problems with Marx’s labor theory of value—the basis of Marx’s claim that capitalists exploit workers—he argues that these difficulties are beside the point.
The author of this review of Karl Marx is somewhat bereft of knowledge of economic theory and uses the progressive/lefty/Marxist/socialist/communist/murderer‘s point of view on the labor theory of Marx. The labor theory of economics has been disproved, even Marx acknowledged that it was not workable. There has been the subjectivist-marginalist revolution in economics that has since disproved the labor theory, also. This review is, I imagine, a good review of the book, but I have no interest in reading the book. It points out areas of difference between Marxists and Austrians.
Sorry, I accidentally posted this in the wrong territory. It should be in books and articles.