Marxism: For and Against

by Robert L. Heilbroner

"Genuinely open-minded and inquiring. . . .it intelligently summarizes and shrewdly questions four central topics of Marxist thought―the dialectical approach to philosophy, the materialist interpretation of history, the socio-analysis of capitalism and the commitment to socialism." ―Raymond Williams, Cambridge University In the lucid style and engaging manner that have become his trademark, Robert L. Heilbroner explains and explores the central elements of Marxist the meaning of a "dialectical" philosophy, the usefulness and problems of a " materialist" interpretation" of history, the power of Marx's "socioanalytic" penetration of capitalism, and the hopes and disconcerting problems involved in a commitment to socialism. Scholarly without being academic, searching without assuming a prior knowledge of the subject, Dr. Heilbroner enables us to appreciate the greatness of Mark while avoiding an uncritical stance toward his work.

Genres: Economics, Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, History

186 pages, Paperback

First published April 1, 1980

About the author

Robert L. Heilbroner (March 24, 1919 – January 4, 2005) was an American economist and historian of economic thought. The author of some twenty books, Heilbroner was best known for The Worldly Philosophers, a survey of the lives and contributions of famous economists, notably Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and John Maynard Keynes.

Written in 1953, The Worldly Philosophers has sold nearly four million copies—the second-best-selling economics text of all time. The seventh edition of the book, published in 1999, included a new final chapter entitled "The End of Worldly Philosophy?", which included both a grim view on the current state of economics as well as a hopeful vision for a "reborn worldly philosophy" that incorporated social aspects of capitalism.

Although a highly unconventional economist, who regarded himself as more of a social theorist and "worldly philosopher" (philosopher pre-occupied with "worldly" affairs, such as economic structures), and who tended to integrate the disciplines of history, economics and philosophy, Heilbroner was nevertheless recognized by his peers as a prominent economist. He was elected Vice President of the American Economic Association in 1972.

He also came up with a way of classifying economies, as either Traditional (primarily agriculturally-based, perhaps subsistence economy), Command (centrally planned economy, often involving the state), Market (capitalism), or Mixed.

He was a trustee of the Economists for Peace and Security.

Heilbroner died on January 4, 2005 in New York, NY at the age of 85.

Reviews

[Christopher Kanas · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's hard to express how badly this book needs to be in the classes of high school and college political science of today and it's a shame there aren't more books like this, that are so centered in the climate of today's modern politic.

I would consider myself center-right leaning politically, but also one that is increasingly becoming discouraged by the corruption I am witnessing of corporate-sponsored politicians on both sides of the aisle. And if you find yourself along similar lines of thought, you will probably enjoy this book as it takes a fair and deep look into the reasons Marx criticized the capitalist mindset and also what Marxism's weaknesses are.

Heilbroner's writing style takes a bit to adjust to as he writes academically, critically, and intelligently, and several passages I had to slow myself down and reread paragraphs to make sure I was capturing what was being presented, but the reward of enriching my understanding in the area was worth it. I'd also say that as I read along, his phrasing and style became easier as I began to become familiar with his use of wording.

I would disagree slightly with other reviewers that Heilbroner is solely FOR Marxism. He does take the reader through a journey that begins with the attacks on capitalist idealism that Marx had criticized but as the book progresses, there is also a fair look at the idealism that Marx himself is guilty of.

I would say I got both a better appreciation of Marx as well as increased contempt. I must credit Marx for being ahead of his time and essentially prophesying what and where capitalism would lead to. Even in the midst of the 1800's and the prime of the industrial revolution, Marx could clearly see how capitalism, in order to feed itself, would and has led to devastating expansion of property rights, and dehumanizing of the worker.
Where Marx has failed however, is to really put forth a counter-measure that really challenges it without itself becoming it's own beast. It's one thing to be able to point out faults of an existing capitalistic economic society, but it's an entirely another thing to be able to counter those faults without becoming the same faults that one is so trying to escape from.

This is Marx's biggest failure imo.

He, on one hand, wants to restore the worker to feel a personal connection with their trade, rather than just be a "fill-a-need" random body supporting the machine, but on the other hand, he demands that all humans work as a collective and rid themselves of independent thought and goals.

So which is it Karl? I mean, our we going to be a worker for the corporation or a worker for the collective? Why is one bad and the other good? Why is a corporation robbing one of independence worse than a collective doing the same thing?

It's this question that Marx becomes the idealist, and also one he really cannot explain. His assumption that the collective is somehow a better system has had enough of history now to explain that the collective in reality means the state owns all the property and has it's will on the people all in the name of greater good, but really, for who's greater good?

What I was pleased to see Heilbroner admit too, which I've maintained for years, is that Marxism is at heart, a religion. A religion that holds out hope to its believers that someday man will figure this all out and will forever be cooperative and no one will take advantage of another. Yaaaawwwwnnn, spare me Marx. Nice dream with no reality. Marx quipped "Religion is the opiate of the masses" but he essentially is copying the same formula. It might as well be said "Marxism is the opiate of the masses" Castle ideas built of a foundation of sand.

[Cali]

The continuing hope of socialism rests with Marx's conviction that mankind's inescapable labor can be­come the means of its self-expression, not of its self­ imprisonment.

I'm not going to rate this because my main takeaway relates to the ideas Heilbroner raised, rather than his writing style or organization, but I did enjoy my read. I decided to keep my beliefs confusing by listening to Lana Del Rey croon about old money while reading this.

Anyway, I initially picked this up to learn more about Marx's view of dialectics and historical materialism and I'm quite pleased with Heilbroner's analysis, specifically his use of Hegelian theory to contextualize Marx. At times, his discussion was clouded by economic terminology that was largely lost on me, but I did appreciate the focus on socialism as an arm of communism rather than an enemy of capitalism. Heilbroner does a good job of presenting Marx/Engel's words alongside those of folks like Adam Smith to show how these ideologies were not as distinct as modernity presents them to be. Heilbroner seems to be more on the "for" side than the "against," with most of his criticisms focusing on modern problems that Marx did not anticipate. He recognizes that economics cannot be the sole base on which the superstructure of political awareness rests; awareness of racism and feminism is needed to implement socialism. Some of Heilbroner's thoughts seem outdated, namely his focus on Plato and Freud, but that's to be expected with a book published in 1980.

[Rayna · Rating 4 out of 5]

heilbroner needs to talk less about contradictions but other than that it’s a good analysis of marxism

[Ella · Rating 3 out of 5]

dissertation recommended reading - no strong opinion on it but helpful for my final essay

[Keri Swenson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Older book, a bit difficult to understand in parts, but not bad.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A WELL-KNOWN ECONOMIC WRITER LOOKS OBJECTIVELY AT MARXISM

Author and economist Robert Heilbroner wrote in the introduction to this 1980 book, “let me pose a question that may stir my reader’s interest rather than his or her emotions: Why is it that the work of Marx, from which Marxism springs, exerts such fascination after more than a century? … why should we still turn to Marx for insight into contemporary affairs, when the world has changed almost out of recognition from the time in which he wrote? I think it is possible to answer these questions in a way that sheds light on the continued survival of Marxism in the face of a hundred debunkings and ‘disproofs.’ It is that Marx had the good fortune, combined … with the necessary genius, to create a method of inquiry that imposed his stamp indelibly on the world. We turn to Marx… because he is inescapable.” (Pg. 15)

He continues, “This brings me to my own stance, announced in the title of this book: for AND against. This is a stance that will be rejected as inconsistent---worse, as suspicious, even intolerable---by readers drawn to one or another of the great poles of the revolutionary magnet. I shall try to defend it at this point. I ask only that those who scrutinize my words… from the perspective of one pole recognize that these self-same words will be regarded with an identical distrust by those who read them from the other pole.” (Pg. 26)

He outlines, “I believe that a set of premises exists that DEFINES Marxist thought, so that any analysis that contains these premises can be properly classified as ‘Marxist’ even if the writer does not identify it as such himself… The first of these identifying elements is a ‘dialectical approach to knowledge itself’… a view that considers the innermost nature of things to be dynamic and conflictual rather than inert and static… a second element … is its ‘materialist approach to history’… a perspective that highlights the central role played by in history by the productive activities of mankind… A third common element is ‘a general view of capitalism that starts from Marx’s socioanalysis’ … writers in Marx’s tradition accept and begin from … an understanding of what capitalism ‘is’ that derives from Marx’s original insight… Last … is ‘a commitment to socialism.” (Pg. 20-21)

He states, “Because Marxian dialectics maintains that knowledge is not bestowed but won it maintains that there is a … indissoluble, bond between … praxis or action, and theoria or thought---between ‘doing’ and ‘thinking.’ Thus, the unity of theory and practice … finds its roots in the dialectical insistence that ‘philosophizing’ can only be vindicated and validated by some kind of activity; that reality is not merely what ‘is,’ but what we make it.” (Pg. 31)

He observes, “The primary task of the dialectically minded social scientist… is to inform us as to the presence and nature of our systematic misrepresentations, so that we can discern essences where we would otherwise be deceived by appearances… the entire contribution of Marxism to social thought rests ultimately on its effort to penetrate the veil of appearances to discover the hidden essences of things… The target of a dialectical methodology is therefore illusion or delusion, not simple ignorance.” (Pg. 49)

He notes, “Marx … claimed to have stood Hegel on his feet. In Marx’s view, that which gives meaning, intelligibility, thrust and essence to history is the actual engagement of men and women with their material circumstances, above all with the ever-present necessity to recreate the material requirements of their own continuance… ideas are anchored in… the material setting of history.” (Pg. 63)

He asserts, “One last advantage of the Marxist approach to history … is it fusion of theory and practice, contemplation and intervention, observation and interposition. This is perhaps the proudest boast of Marxism in general, as well as of Marxist historiography in particular. Marxism is intended to provide more than an understanding of history. It is intended to serve as a guide for making history.” (Pg. 79-80)

He acknowledges, “A … problem posed by dialectics has to do with … the assumption that the dialectical processes underlying these themes of history would lead to their resolution in a FINAL class struggle, ultimately overcoming the condition of alienated being. At one level… the problem is one of fact. Has the class struggle become simplified and sharpened as the dialectical sequence predicted? Is there, realistically, a prospect of a ‘realm of freedom’ under socialism, whether we define that freedom in social or political terms? The answer to these questions, to date, is clearly No..” (Pg. 85-86)

He continues, “Is there a way of combining theoria and praxis that can utilize the search for scientific insight to inform, but never to dictate, action; and that can create for action the role of validating, but never of dominating, the task of theory? The question is more easily put than answered, and to date the Marxist response has been crude in political life and disappointing in intellectual formulation. Nevertheless, it is here that the political usefulness and the moral validity of the Marxist stance toward history will finally be determined.” (Pg. 88-89)

He says, “Marx’s analysis reveals that it requires a particular set of historic circumstances to bring about a such a peculiarly ‘abstract’ kind of labor. This particular set of circumstances is, of course, the mode of production called capitalism… It… organizes its productive mechanism in such a way as to reduce the costs of production to a minimum… Thus the profit drive itself creates powerful forces to homogenize labor and to simplify its form.” (Pg. 100)

He suggests, “The Marxian identification of the fetishistic element within the humble commodity becomes in miniature a congelation of forces locked in combat, not in cooperation. No conventional explanation of the world of commodities can ever against be accepted at face value. In this way Marx’s dissection of the commodity gives us a truly socioanalytic insight into the system.” (Pg. 105)

He observes, “In capitalism, considerations that lie outside this calculus---for example, the pacing of work to interest the operator, or the design of work to employ the operator’s intelligence---are simply irrelevant, or counterproductive. Such considerations are admitted only to the extent that they do not interfere with, or possibly improve, the performance of PROFITABLE work. Thus capital exists within the capitalist mode of production as a social relation of domination, an expression of the hierarchy of class structure that can be found in all societies. What is overt in other societies, however, is disguised in capitalism.” (Pg. 117)

He summarizes, “Thus the world ‘develops’ or industrializes not according to the exercise of reason or foresight… but the dictates of capital as self-expanding value. The consequence is a world continuously in imbalance… And this imbalance will continue—despite the best efforts of governments to patch up or offset its more dangerous manifestations---as long as the economic unfolding of world history is left to the stimulus of private accumulation. That is the true measure of the anarchy of capital today, the most convincing and the most portentous of all the implications of Marx’s thought.” (Pg. 134)

He concludes, “The test of Marxism thus emerges in its relation to socialism, not to capitalism. Accordingly, it will be a long time before that test has determined whether Marxism is eventually to be relegated to the museum of antiquated or fossilized ideas, or whether it can continue as one of the ever-renewed endowments that mankind has created for itself. Alas, we will all be dead before that determination is made.” (Pg. 173)

This book will be of keen interest to those seeking a reasonably ‘objective’ perspective on Marxism.

[Diane · Rating 4 out of 5]

Heilbroner is right when he says that Marxism is something that we have to contend with for socioanalysis and econmics in the same way that Freud is a force to contend with in psychology. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Marxism, it has influenced the world astronomically and cannot be ignored. As such, it seems greatly remiss that it took me this long to get around to trying to delve into Marxism's foundation.

Heilbroner does an admirable job of trying to take a dense subject and make it accessible, well-rounded, yet succinct. I don't know that he always succeeds. The chapter on dialectics is still confusing; I literally had to read the book out loud to myself to follow along. And the final chapter, in some ways, seems to contradict other values expressed earlier. Whether that is the fault of Heilbroner or is a built in contradiction to Marxism is hard to say without reading other sources. That being said I do feel like I walked away with a good grasp of the bone structure of Marxism and can see the ways that the philosophy has influenced various subjects from economics to social justice.

I appreciate that Heilbroner isn't trying to pretend that there aren't areas of concern with Marxism. He isn't so deep into the purity of an ideology as to have a cult-like devotion to it. Yet he's also not entirely against it either. Knowing that he was friendly towards Marxism while reading this book gave me the confidence that he wouldn't just throw up a straw man or describe it from a place of fear, and knowing that he could criticize made me feel slightly more confident that, at the very least, he was striving to be honest and up-front about where he saw the strengths and weaknesses.

I think society does a disservice in not teaching about Marxism and its influence because, for better or worse, it is influencing people and movements today. I never realized how much it had crept into certain circles until reading this book. Everyone should at least familiarize themselves with this topic so that they are equipped to critically think about and evaluate it when it comes up.

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really, 4.5 stars.
Other reviewers have said it better (above) and this book is to be especially treasured because of its concise, yet trenchant description AND analysis of the philosophical (“Hegelian”) dialectic .
Very, very, very well written, but somewhat dated, especially the last chapter.
Makes the important point that Marxist analysis, esp. of materialism and economic “ society” is a strong “ for (title) ”, but the “ praxis” of theory and socialist implementation is far more problematic (“against”).
To whit, where and how does “ socialism” and socialist society conflict with (individualism)/ adapt/ reform a person’s’ personal freedom”. How is freedom achieved within an economic -social(ist) collective?
Notable in that it references VERY early (1983) on some of the psychological studies that later formed the foundation of behavioral economics.
As an example of the writing:(p.134)
“Thus the world “develops” or industrializes not according to the exercise of reason or foresight-frail reeds though these may be-but by dictates of capital as self -expanding value. The consequence is a world continuously in imbalance-monetary imbalance,trade imbalance, resource imbalance, developmental imbalance. And this imbalance will continue-despite the best efforts of governments to patch up or offset its more dangerous manifestations-as long as the economic unfolding of world history is left to the stimulus of private accumulation.
That is the true measure of the anarchy of capital today, the most convincing and the most portentous of all the implications of Marx’s thought”.

[Magally Miranda · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Marxism For and Against, Robert Heilbroner discusses what he understands as the key elements of Marxist thought: dialectics, materialism, socioanalysis of capitalism and socialism. Heilbroner states at the outset his intention to stir reader’s interests rather than emotions, suggesting that his aim is in part to recuperate a semblance of logical engagement with Marxism from some of its irrational treatment. The book, it should be noted, was published in 1980, a decade prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall which marked the end of the world-historic schism of the globe in the phenomenon known as the Cold War. By this time, for better or worse, Marxism, had come to be associated with those nation states on one side of the Cold War sometimes referred to as “actually existing socialism” (as the author notes, the USSR, China, Cuba, etc.). This is in my opinion a noble task.

I am especially interested, then, in the way Heilbroner treats the question of class struggle and revolutionary violence. According to Heilbroner, what is revolutionary in Marx and what is the role of violence in revolution?

In the first chapter, Heilbroner sets up the Hegelian dialectic and then discusses the Marxist conception of dialectics in relation to it or what he calls the “contradiction-laden idea of change as Hegel sees it, and the idea of a disruptive, yet creative, unfolding central to the Marxist analysis of history” (35-36). From Hegel we get a version of dialectics is a process of self-transcendence that encompasses all nature and history (33); in this schema, each idea is the negation of the other such that “a Master is a being who can only be defined or described by using a concept that is its meaningful opposite or negation” such as Slave (36). This is significant because of the implication that all of the objects in the world exist not only in relation but in a relation which is internally rife with contradictions. Thus, Hegel births one of the foundations of critical theory, the methodology of immanent critique upon which Marx will build.

If revolution is at the heart of Marxist thought, it is not just any revolution but one founded on the principle of immanent critique. It is a revolution in which humankind “transcends not only its thralldom to the social domination of than oppressive minority, but its dehumanization in the quintessentially human act of work” (74). In quick and dirty terms, revolution is the result of class struggle and the capitalist mode of production itself.

The nature of this transcendence, this revolution, is another question entirely. For his part, Heilbroner attempts to overcome what he sees as a challenge to understanding this revolution, which is a common-sense imaginary of class struggle as overt and violent. No doubt again a product of the context of actually existing socialism and Cold War propaganda. One way he resolves this in part by saying that class struggle actually “is usually latent rather than manifest, potential rather than actual” and that “in most societies the inequalities of class positions are obscured or minimized or rationalized” (75). How do we talk about this latent violence of class society, degrees of violence, degrees of banality? What more does Marxism have to say about the legitimizing institutions and systems that hold together an unharmonious class society? How have attitudes or discourses changed about this since 1980?

[Frank Strada · Rating 4 out of 5]

If all you want is a basic primer on Marxism, along with its philosophical underpinnings and its pros and cons, it would be difficult to beat Heilbroner's book. It was published in 1980, which may work to its advantage in this post Cold War era. Heilbroner, as you know, was a well known writer on economics for those of us who really don't have a good grasp of how it works. (One wonders if anyone does, considering the differing opinions by all the so-called experts). He is as objective as it's possible to be under the political and historical circumstances. If he wrote it today, he would have to deal with the hard right wing attack on critical theory, which of course has a Marxist influence.

Marxism, in its original iteration, is not viable, primarily because politics will not allow it to be. Witness the harsh, violent reactions in the 1930s during the Great Depression and recently with efforts to discredit any history that doesn't celebrate the status quo. However, we can learn from Marx, as Heilbroner asserts. Look at Sweden, Denmark and other norther European countries. These are social democracies. In 1980, they were fairly new experiments, but time has shown that social democracies can be very sturdy. They take into consideration the Marxian interpretation of man as a social animal and the capitalist version as an individual and combine these two interpretations in a very workable, fair and equitable governing and economic system.

If you sympathize with social democracies, don't expect the US to become one anytime soon. The current polarized political environment won't even allow for small piecemeal efforts in that direction.

I read this book to get ready for month long discussion group on Marxism. There is, of course, a lot more recent scholarship out there, but unless you're well versed on the topic, I see Heilbroners's book as an excellent starting point.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is great; not just as an exposition to Marxism but how Marx's ideas have fared and been interpreted in the modern (relatively, the book was published sometime in the 1970s) era. Heilbroner explores Marxism through the idea of Marx as a figure on par with Plato and Freud in influence, with regards to his position in political economy and sociology. Marx is understood as a figure that can be argued against, but certainly not dismissed in Heilbroner's analysis.

Each chapter focuses on a few specific core ideas of the Marxist framework. Within them, Heilbroner presents the "for" and "against" with a fair amount of charitability. Moreover, his "against" statements aren't necessarily dead-ends, but the jumping-off point for a broader discussion on how to interpret Marx in the age of modern capitalism.

Ultimately, the book provides a concise discussion of Marxism; both from and for the "against" and "for" crowds with the addition of giving both camps more than a handful of things to think about when evaluating their position.

[Avery · Rating 3 out of 5]

I like this books because it vibes well with my recent conception of Marxism as "smaller" than the way it was understood by the classical Marxisms of the Second and Third Internationals. A very balanced and thoughtful text, but way too short. It gestures at a lot of interesting considerations but then doesn't go into them in much depth. Worth reading or at least skimming for a balanced, if hand-wavy, view of Marxism as a doctrine and an historical practice.

[pawi]

Abandoned. It was meant to be my first introduction to Marx(ism), but for me the book beats around the bush. A lot of words are used to say a little. A whole chapter could be summarized in 5 sentences with clearer use of words.

Made it a few pages into chapter 3 and then abandoned. Trying Peter Singers book next.

[TJ · Rating 4 out of 5]

Illuminating. The most fair and even-handed treatment of Marxism you are likely to find.

[Rose · Rating 2 out of 5]

It is not that Heilbroner is not a fine writer....he uses words that are heavy with the feel of darkened rooms where ideas for restructuring society play through the shadowed corners without the worry of serious exposure to 'truth' or 'reality'. It is good to know someone is using those words and making them feel important. What is most faulty about this particular book by Heilbroner (and it is admittedly the only one of his that I have read so far) is that it is incorrectly titled. It should be titled Marxism: For and NOT Against, because he never brings any of the assumptions of Marxism to any point of serious critical examination. The closest he dares approach critical thinking is noting that it is apparent that the societies that we have seen structured around Marxist principles have tended toward political oppression. He is quick to suggest that perhaps these are ALL exceptions and not the rule. As if every experiment that does not play out as one wishes must therefore Not be counted as proof that our pet theory is wrong....Clearly he embraces the genius of Karl Marx and had no intention of rationally examining his theories on economics or human nature. Rational examination was what I was hoping for, so I have to be honest in saying that I am not the least bit impressed with Robert Heilbroner...even if he did use the word "obfuscation".

[Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Heilbroner's book isn't terrible, but it's not the most compelling book either. It should provide some form of sketch of Marxism, however, it's not the most invigorating read, and the role this book plays is probably somewhat replaceable by other books. Also, many of the author's comments appear bizarre or oddly dated, as his comparisons of Marx's importance to Freud's are deeply ironic.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very thorough and persuasive. Not necessarily to be a Marxist, but just to get more interested in the topic. Detailed and clearly written (thank god!) and worth some study.

[Gary Turner · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed reading this interpretation of the effects of this philosophy. I must read again in a few years.