I agree with that but that does not mean as you say that "he argues, should be understood not as turning away from philosophy, but as seeking to make philosophy a practical force in the world".
In Poverty of Philosophy, Marx's interest is in criticizing Proudhon. And so his interest is in the defective 'philosophy' that Proudhon does (the attempt to 'apply' a pre-formed Hegelian schema of concepts). There is not much about Marx's positive stance, except the bits about 'proletarian theory'
He criticises not only Proudhon's philosophy but philosophy in general.
He criticises philosophy which is based on concepts and not on reality itself.
All Proudhon does is to make philosophy out of the history of economic concepts.
Yes, he criticizes all 'self-sufficient' philosophy, certainly not only Proudhon. I think this is probably roughly equivalent to what you mean by 'philosophy which is based on concepts'. Philosophy in its actualization is not that
It is not what I understand, it is literally what Marx says in Poverty of Philosophy and in Wagner's manuscripts: He does not start from concepts as philosophers do but from reality as it is.
This can easily become a semantic issue. Certainly Marx's use of the word 'philosophy' from about 1845 seems to be reserved for the self-sufficient philosophy (the philosophy that has existed) that he rejects
Well, I haven't said anywhere that what I say in OP implies what you quote from the blurb of my book. But I do think what I say in OP is consistent with what is said in the blurb of my book, as follows:
As Marx exhibits philosophy in its actualization, it no longer restricts itself to philosophical theories or doctrines of the kind when philosophy is made to remain (contrary to its concept) 'self-sufficient'. Hence also his materialism is not a philosophical theory
Comments
He criticises philosophy which is based on concepts and not on reality itself.
All Proudhon does is to make philosophy out of the history of economic concepts.