I thought, a few years later, with a better working idea of the topic, this might be better than I remembered it but here were are with the same *** (and tbh, it's more a **1/2)

It's clearly slightly dated but that's not a huge issue outside of it's notion of Marxism as something we'd obviously see as a dubious and discredited line of ideas. It trends, however, toward explaining why figures like Althusser were obviously wrong about Marxism in a very... structuralist sort of manner, it feels like?

It also, in dealing with a difficult subject, can't always find obvious throughlines between it's subjects and shortchanges a few figures worth further coverage in the book.

Ultimately, as someone who now knows broadly about the subject, this actually was maybe slightly worse then when I approached it knowing little. Oh well!