Abstract
In what follows, I note how two standard contemporary reference works describe Marx and then contrast those to Marx’s “auto-bibliography” which presents a different set of texts as important to the author’s self-conception. I then focus on one of the latter set of texts and suggest an approach to understanding Marx that emphasizes his identity as a revolutionary theorist and which, perhaps helps us better understand why he did not give priority to working out a theory of the state in a traditional theoretical manner. At the very least, I hope that this discussion will draw attention to the priority that Marx gave to his revolutionary commitment, a priority that may become neglected when Marxist thought and scholarship is detached from political practice.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Recommended Citation
Skidmore-Hess, Daniel
(2020)
"How the Academy Looks at Marx is all Wrong, the Point However is to Change It,"
Class, Race and Corporate Power: Vol. 8:
Iss.
1, Article 7.
DOI: 10.25148/CRCP.7.2.008923
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower/vol8/iss1/7