The first book to offer a comprehensive exploration of Marx’s relationship to republicanism, arguing that it is essential to understanding his thought In Citizen Marx, Bruno Leipold argues that, contrary to certain interpretive commonplaces, Karl Marx’s thinking was deeply informed by republicanism. Marx’s relation to republicanism changed over the course of his life, but its complex influence on his thought cannot be reduced to wholesale adoption or rejection. Challenging common depictions of Marx that downplay or ignore his commitment to politics, democracy, and freedom, Leipold shows that Marx viewed democratic political institutions as crucial to overcoming the social unfreedom and domination of capitalism. One of Marx’s principal political values, Leipold contends, was a republican conception of freedom, according to which one is unfree when subjected to arbitrary power. Placing Marx’s republican communism in its historical context—but not consigning him to that context—Leipold traces Marx’s shifting relationship to republicanism across three broad periods. First, Marx began his political life as a republican committed to a democratic republic in which citizens held active popular sovereignty. Second, he transitioned to communism, criticizing republicanism but incorporating the republican opposition to arbitrary power into his social critiques. He argued that although a democratic republic was not sufficient for emancipation, it was necessary for it. Third, spurred by the events of the Paris Commune of 1871, he came to view popular control in representation and public administration as essential to the realization of communism. Leipold shows how Marx positioned his republican communism to displace both antipolitical socialism and anticommunist republicanism. One of Marx’s great contributions, Leipold suggests, was to place politics (and especially democratic politics) at the heart of socialism.

Karl Marx was the first theorist of global capitalism and remains perhaps its most trenchant critic. This clear and innovative book, from one of the leading contemporary experts on Marx's thought, gives us a fresh overview of his ideas by framing them within concepts that remain topical and alive today, from class struggle and progress to democracy and exploitation. Taking Marx's work in his pamphleteering, journalism, speeches, correspondence and published books as central to a renewed understanding of the man and his politics, this book brings both his life experience and our contemporary political engagements vividly to life. It shows us the many ways that a nineteenth-century thinker has been made into the 'Marx' we know today, beginning with his own self-presentations before moving on to the successive different "Marxes" that were later constructed: an icon of communist revolution, a demonic figure in the Cold War, a 'humanist' philosopher, and a spectre haunting Occupy Wall Street. Carver's accessible and lively book unpacks the historical, intellectual and political difficulties that make Marx sometimes difficult to read and understand, while also highlighting the distinct areas where his challenging writings speak directly to the twenty-first-century world. It will be essential reading for students and scholars throughout the social sciences and anyone interested in the contemporary legacy of his revolutionary ideas.

If fundamental political categories were represented as geometric shapes, citizenship would be one of those rotating polyhedrons with reflective surfaces that together create effects of light and shade. With extraordinarily acute discernment, the leading philosopher Étienne Balibar examines one by one the various faces of this object, more numerous - and far more fissured - than one would imagine. The question of what it means to be a citizen has, from the dawn of Western politics, been anything but clear and straightforward; and modernity has shown it to be even more enigmatic and contested. Inseparable from democracy, and the demands for equality and liberty from which democracy draws its origins, citizenship is constantly being redefined within the unresolved contradiction between universal principles and the discriminatory mechanisms that regulate membership of a political community. Not everyone is a citizen, even within one nation-state. It has been said that ?certain persons are in society without being of society?. The dynamics of inclusion and exclusion continue to generate dramatic asymmetries and create openings and closures, especially today in a time of particular fragility and when national sovereignty is in flux. So are there too many antinomies within citizenship? Balibar does not shy away from these antimonies, but he knows that to renounce citizenship would be to abandon the chance to create new modes of collective autonomy, in short, to democratize democracy.

“On The Jewish Question” (OTJQ) was written by Karl Marx and exposes his anti-Semitism. The complete work is here in its entirety for your analysis. It was an inspiration to Adolf Hitler. OTJQ and other work (e.g. the term “Aryan” used by Marx repeatedly in his “Ethnological Notebooks”) were the same ideas that motivated Hitler to gain power in Germany. Top mind-blowing discoveries of the 21st Century were revealed by Marx and his OTJQ (thanks to the academic critique of Professor Rex Curry). Many revelations came to light years after Marx’s death. Some are enumerated in the following paragraphs. For example, the following facts (with credit to Dr. Curry) will be news to most readers: 1. Marx’s anti-Semitism (and his Christian background) inspired Hitler’s anti-Semitism and Hitler’s use of Christian cross symbolism including the SWASTIKA (the Hakenkreuz or “hooked cross”); Iron Cross; Balkenkreuz; Krückenkreuz; and the common Christian cross. The symbols signified commonality with Marx’s opposition to Judaism, and they promoted Christianity as the “alternative” thereto. The Swastika was also used to represent “S” letter shapes for “SOCIALISM” (Marx’s underlying dogma). 2. NEW SWASTIKA DISCOVERY: Hitler’s symbol is the reason why Hitler renamed his political party from DAP to NSDAP - "National Socialist German Workers Party" - because he needed the word "Socialist" in his party's name so that Hitler could use swastikas as "S"-letter shaped logos for "SOCIALIST" as the party's emblem. The party's name had to fit in Hitler's socialist branding campaign that used the swastika and many other similar alphabetical symbols, including the “NSV" and "SA” and “SS” and “VW” etc. 3. NEW LENIN’S SWASTIKA REVELATION: Vladimir Lenin’s swastika is exposed herein. The impact of Lenin’s swastikas was reinforced at that time with additional swastikas on ruble money (paper currency) under Soviet socialism. The swastika became a symbol of socialism under Lenin. It’s influence upon Adolf Hitler is explained in this book. Lenin’s Christian background was similar to Marx’s. Marx’s anti-Semitism (and his religious upbringing) inspired Lenin’s anti-Semitism and the use of the SWASTIKA as Christian cross symbolism after 1917. The swastika symbol signified commonality with Marx’s opposition to Judaism. Judaism was banned by Soviet socialists. Under Lenin, the Russian Orthodox Church remained powerful (then Stalin became tyrant in 1922). The Swastika was also used to represent “S” letter shapes for “SOCIALISM” (Marx’s underlying dogma). 4. Marx, Hitler and their supporters self-identified as “socialists” by the very word in voluminous speeches and writings. The term "Socialist" appears throughout Mein Kampf as a self-description by Hitler. (Marx also used the term “Communist”). 5. Hitler was heavily influenced by Marx. Many socialists in the USA were also shaped by Marx. Two famous American socialists (the cousins Edward Bellamy and Francis Bellamy) were heavily influenced by Marx. The American socialists returned the favor: Francis Bellamy created the “Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag” that produced Nazi salutes and Nazi behavior. The Bellamy cousins were American national socialists. 6. Hitler never called himself a "Nazi." There was no “Nazi Germany.” There was no “Nazi Party.” 7. Hitler never called himself a “Fascist.” Modern socialists use “Nazi” and “Fascist” to hide how Hitler and his comrades self-identified: SOCIALIST. 9. The term “Nazi” isn’t in "Mein Kampf" nor in "Triumph of the Will." 10. The term “Fascist” never appears in Mein Kampf as a self-description by Hitler. 11. The term “swastika” never appears in the original Mein Kampf. 12. There is no evidence that Hitler ever used the word “swastika.” 13. The symbol that Hitler did use was intended to represent “S”-letter shapes for “socialist.” 14. Hitler altered his own signature to show his “S-shapes for socialism” logo branding.

This major biography fundamentally reshapes our understanding of a towering historical figure.

What can the universals of political philosophy offer to those who experience "the living paradox of an inegalitarian construction of egalitarian citizenship"? Citizen Subject is the summation of Étienne Balibar’s career-long project to think the necessary and necessarily antagonistic relation between the categories of citizen and subject. In this magnum opus, the question of modernity is framed anew with special attention to the self-enunciation of the subject (in Descartes, Locke, Rousseau, and Derrida), the constitution of the community as “we” (in Hegel, Marx, and Tolstoy), and the aporia of the judgment of self and others (in Foucualt, Freud, Kelsen, and Blanchot). After the “humanist controversy” that preoccupied twentieth-century philosophy, Citizen Subject proposes foundations for philosophical anthropology today, in terms of two contrary movements: the becoming-citizen of the subject and the becoming-subject of the citizen. The citizen-subject who is constituted in the claim to a “right to have rights” (Arendt) cannot exist without an underside that contests and defies it. He—or she, because Balibar is concerned throughout this volume with questions of sexual difference—figures not only the social relation but also the discontent or the uneasiness at the heart of this relation. The human can be instituted only if it betrays itself by upholding “anthropological differences” that impose normality and identity as conditions of belonging to the community. The violence of “civil” bourgeois universality, Balibar argues, is greater (and less legitimate, therefore less stable) than that of theological or cosmological universality. Right is thus founded on insubordination, and emancipation derives its force from otherness. Ultimately, Citizen Subject offers a revolutionary rewriting of the dialectic of universality and differences in the bourgeois epoch, revealing in the relationship between the common and the universal a political gap at the heart of the universal itself.

In this groundbreaking work, Ellen Meiksins Wood rewrites the history of political theory. She traces the development of the Western tradition from classical antiquity through to the Middle Ages in the perspective of social history-a significant departure not only from the standard abstract history of ideas but also from other contextual methods. Treating canonical thinkers as passionately engaged human beings, Wood examines their ideas not simply in the context of political languages but as creative responses to the social relations and conflicts of their time and place. She identifies a distinctive relation between property and state in Western history and shows how the canon, while largely the work of members or clients of dominant classes, was shaped by complex interactions among proprietors, labourers and states. Western political theory, Wodd argues, owes much of its vigour, and also many ambiguities, to these complex and often contradictory relations. From the Ancient Greek polis of Plato, Aristotle, Aeschylus and Sophocles, through the Roman Republic of Cicero and the Empire of St Paul and St Augustine, to the medieval world of Averroes, Thomas Aquinas and William of Ockham, Citizens to Lords offers a rich, dynamic exploration of thinkers and ideas that have indelibly stamped our modern world.