ABSTRACT
The distinction between “Marxism” and “Post-Marxism” is hotly disputed, and many people of every political and philosophical allegiance would claim that it is redundant. Either, they would assert, one adheres to the fundamental doctrines of Karl Marx, or one does not; the idea of a nebulous intermediary status, such as is implied by the term “Post-Marxist,” is untenable. The major problem with this argument is that there is no general or scholarly consensus regarding Marx’s own opinions. In fact, the historically dominant strain of “orthodox” Marxism rests upon a decidedly tendentious reading of Marx. There is thus a good case, often made by self-proclaimed “Post-Marxists,” for the proposition that it is the deviations from the mainstream Marxist tradition which are actually most faithful to the spirit of Marx’s own works.
