You're kidding about Marx, right? Marx has no systematic presentation of hsi total view. His magnum opus, Capital, was unfinished, and addresses only the critique of political erconomy. He never even really started the other five parts of the projected six- part analysis of the universe of knwoledge he sketched ina na unpublished early manuscript. As for being a philosopher, Marx early and decisively turned his back on philosophy. Instead he did sociology, economics, political science -- what he called in The German Ideology -- another unfinished and unpublished work -- "real positive science" as opposed to "ideology," a catefory in which he included "philosophy." Ideas of philosophical interest can be extracted from amrx;s work. But a philosophical system -- "dialecticala nd hsitocial materialis," or something like that? I am afraid that you confuse Marx with Plekhanov or Bukharin -- at best.
Actually, Nietzsche was in many ways a far more conventional philosopher than Marx. He expressly discissed ideas like free will and determinism, materialism and idealism. moral responsibility, the Meaning of Life, moral psychology, appearance and reality, truth and falsity, nominalism and realism. You will barely find Marx addressing these toipics. His approach to free will and determinism is to talk about the interplay between historical structures and individual agency ("Man makes his own history, but not just as he pleases") and almost always in a concrete explantory context (The Eighteenth Brumaire, Class Struggles in France, etc.) He blows off traditional philosophical cocerns about, e.g. justice as "the old shit," literally not worth discussing.
So I think you are quite mistaken here about these writers. Of course Nietzsche did write more in aphorisms and Marx in narrative or argumenattive prose. But even there, Nietzsche wrote a whole book pf philosophy in argumentative and narrative prose -- Towoards the Genealogy of Morals -- and Marx never did. So far as we know he never tried.
Charles: Nietzsche is a genuinely wonderful philosopher. He is a great master of the German language, something that comes across a bit in English translations. I think Kaufmann's are very accurate and pretty poetic. He is funny, psychologically deep, caustic, insightful, and brave. His politics,s o far as he has them, is opposed to left wing politics, but mainly he is the opposite of Marx -- he is not a political writer. He is not even interested in politics, much less economics. However in the Genealogy he does present a kind of class analysis of the history of morality --a nd you must not read him as approving the master morality at the expesnse of the slave morality, that would be a big mistake -- that actually can be treated as a contribution to historical materialism. N is a hardboiled materialist. Very much worth your while any anyone's here.
jks