I’ve now read this article in full, which basically recounts some of Marx’s beefs and intellectual disagreements. I’m a big fan of 2Pac and Eminem’s disstracks, so I’m not really discouraged by the use of extreme or violent language. It was cool to recognise quotes from Capital that I remember, such as those made against Carey, but I fail to make sense of the point this paper is trying to make. There are some tenuous links to Freud, but it doesn’t develop anything out of it. What the paper fails to mention is that he uses the unbaked nature of his opponent’s theories to explain his correctness on the matter.

It is right to spell out your theory at the expense of other academics. Marx was not just an author, he was politically active. He had skin in the game and was actively organising workers. When unfounded blabber gets in the way of liberation, a literary shove will be more effective than a tap.

Besides, the personal behaviour of Marx as a person should simply be unrelated to Marxism. Marxism is the most developed, expansive and rigorous of all related to revolution, rebellion and the study of oppression and liberation. It’s been refined for over a century and remains crucial. Despite his achievements, Marxism is greater than what he could express in his time. Even if you come out believing nothing the Marx ever said, it is preferable to gain that insight in the field of Marxism, for it will deliver the most well-founded of all criticisms.