>when you assume that that is literally the only thing I ever read, apparently, as opposed to merely one of the most egregious

You stated your experience, and the conclusion that experience led you to. The conclusion that Marxism is "really that intellectually worthless" on the basis of what you wrote on your site is unwarranted - and yet, considering how most Marxist literature isn't nearly as "bullshitty and obscure" as you paint Empire to be, as the opinions from experts and scholars demonstrate[0], it's a fairly reasonable conclusion for me to draw. All of this is still assuming that Empire really is as "bullshitty and obscure" as you say it is. I'm yet to see anyone else make that claim - despite your claim that "it's not just [you]".

>I don't feel the need to reiterate the many excellent objections, theoretical and practical, which refute Marxism

I suppose that is how the Internet works. You don't need to present or defend a specific claim; instead, you can pick out one example, infer that it is representative of the whole, and claim you're right - but right in what way isn't your job to show.

If Empire is "the most egregious", why is the most egregious example being used to attack the whole and being taken as representative? I'm sure you know about the concept of steelmanning - to take the most charitable interpretation of your opponent's claims.

On your page, you write "[...] concluding the problem was not me [...]", how could you possibly come to that conclusion when scholars in related fields and experts on the topic have no issue navigating the work[1]?

This isn't an issue of Marx[ism] being correct or not. I disagree with a few of Marx's conclusions. This is an issue of Marxist literature being "bulshitty and obscure". That is the claim you have failed to back up. By pointing to "excellent objections", you only strengthen my point that even the harshest critics can navigate Marxism.

When two Nobel prize winning economists consider 20th c. Marxism sufficiently readable and strong to argue against in a series of publications, maybe the problem is you. It appears you even failed to give proper appreciation to the place of Analytical or Mathematical Marxism - the stuff published in economics journals through the latter half of the 20th c. and to this day. You'll find that contrary to your opinion, they're plenty readable even by people who aren't experts of Marx[3].

[0] Pick up any comprehensive book on the history of economics and there'll be a chapter on Marx. It may not be a generous chapter, but the authors clearly were able to navigate through the work in order to write their chapter. Pick up any book on mainstream theories of philosophy, history or sociology and you'll find the same. In a PolEcon book you'll find more than one chapter. Are you sure the problem isn't just you?

[1] Not only that, but there are hundreds of short books, lecture series and pamphlets that explain the topic pretty well[2]. Marx himself wrote a short lecture series. Your post makes it out to be as if the discipline keeps things well hidden in an obscurantist conspiracy.

[2] If you don't care for a sympathetic overview of Marxism, Kolakowski, one of Marxism's harshest critics, wrote The Main Currents of Marxism.

[3] Example: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3468758 and https://econpapers.repec.org/article/fisjournl/19s0102.htm and https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/030981681985277... and http://digamo.free.fr/jefferies15.pdf