Just some questions:
1) Agreed that Marx has no systematic *presentation*, but don't you think that more that just ideas of philosophical interest can be extracted from Marx's work? Capital V. I is a critique of political economy, but isn't the analysis of commodity fetishism also a philosophical polemic against the metaphysical underpinning of the capitalist mode of production, i.e., the notion that "value" inheres in the commodity? Related to this, isn't his critique of the "Robinsonade" type of economics--lone man appears and begins to trade with other lone men--an attack on subject-based epistemology?
My impression (as an autodidatic, which may be why I'm wrong) is that while Capital V. I is a work of economics, it depends upon and/or implies a philosophical structure that starts with this critique of metaphysics.
2) I know Kaufmann pointed out that the distance between Hegel and Nietzsche on some philosophical points was not as great as N. liked to make out. As a pro on these topics, do you know if anybody's tried to do the same with Marx and Nietzsche? I know, I know, N. would have had nothing to do with economics, let alone socialism, but on at least one topic, the insubstantiality of the subject, they seem to coincide. M never says this in so many words as N does (IIRC in _Gay Science_ where he writes of consciousness as a consequence of the social nature of language), but I feel it's there.
Just wondering, Curtiss
> 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 ina na unpublished early manuscript.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 Ideology -- another unfinished and unpublished work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.