Several theorists have argued that there is a difference between the early Marx and the late Marx. Particularly:
* The early Marx was decidedly humanist, while the later Marx either abandoned those humanist concerns or subordinated them to a theory of historical change that does not depend on a teleology or a subject.
* The early Marx was a philosopher positing metaphysical statements that cannot be scientifically tested (proven true or false by checking them against an empirical outcome, either manufactured or witnessed). The later Marx was a social scientist, proposing abstract models and projections that could be tested against the real social conditions and developments in society.
* The early Marx was committed to a Hegelian version of the dialectic. The later Marx abandoned all affinities for Hegel and, at best, preserved a vocabulary of "dialectic" and "contradiction" to discuss historical and social change.

Do you find that Marx's economic writings present us with such a departure from his early work, or is there a continuity here?

Marx's labor theory of value, borrowed from David Ricardo and placed at the center of volume one of _Capital_, has been derided by both Marxists (like John Elster) and bourgeois economists (like Joseph Schumpeter) alike. Many favor a theory of marginal utility for value determination (for a quick explanation, see the wikipedia entry on marginalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility. For a more detailed explanation, see Elster's _Introduction to Karl Marx_ pp. 63-69). Having read Marx's work on economics, do you think we can have a Marxian theory of exploitation or capital's contradictions without a labor theory of value?

Ettiene Balibar has argued that Marx's theory of commodity fetishism is among his two most important contributions to the hermeneutic sciences (his theory of ideology is the other contribution). What does the discussion of commodity fetishism help us to understand re: rhetorical or literary production and reception? Could we call Marx a rhetorical theorist based on his discussion of commodity fetishism? based on his discussion of ideology?