Interesting analysis, and rather important qualification (translation always an issue–especially for German, that damned tongue). The use of “necessary” with any sort of inductive study (whether economics, or a critique of economics), or the copula itself (this IS that, so identity in a sense) should not be accepted blithely (–should it?) The strength of orthodox marxism was due largely to the empiricism, and historical and economic data. When the discussion drifts from data to Dogma, most of us non-Par-tay members have reason to be afraid. However trite the D. word izz at this stage (apres-Popper), the Bolsheviks certainly were willing to dispense with the history and economic discussions of Marx and Engels (as even those shadowy narratives of Makhno indicate). Marx was, I believe, a proto-econometrician, more or less, and certainly aspired to the objectivity of the sciences, and to a quantitative economics: contemporary leftists–and postmods—often seem to lose sight of that objective, descriptive aspect of KM’s writings–though that objectivity is not ALWAYS evident.