What do you think?
Rate this book
Główne nurty marksizmu #1-3
Main Currents Of Marxism: The Founders, The Golden Age, The Breakdown
A single-volume edition of the three-part study of Marxism provides a comprehensive history of the origins, structure, and posthumous development of the Marxist thought system, tracing its intellectual foundations from Plotonius through the philosophies of such figures as Lenin, Sarte, and Mao, in an publication complemented by a new preface and epilogue.
1284 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1976
About the author
Leszek Kołakowski
133 books241 followersDistinguished Polish philosopher and historian of ideas. He is best known for his critical analysis of Marxist thought, especially his acclaimed three-volume history, Main Currents of Marxism. In his later work, Kolakowski increasingly focused on religious questions. In his 1986 Jefferson Lecture, he asserted that "We learn history not in order to know how to behave or how to succeed, but to know who we are.”
In Poland, Kołakowski is not only revered as a philosopher and historian of ideas, but also as an icon for opponents of communism. Adam Michnik has called Kołakowski "one of the most prominent creators of contemporary Polish culture".
Kołakowski died on 17 July 2009, aged 81, in Oxford, England. In his obituary, philosopher Roger Scruton said Kolakowski was a "thinker for our time" and that regarding Kolakowski's debates with intellectual opponents, "even if ... nothing remained of the subversive orthodoxies, nobody felt damaged in their ego or defeated in their life's project, by arguments which from any other source would have inspired the greatest indignation."
In Poland, Kołakowski is not only revered as a philosopher and historian of ideas, but also as an icon for opponents of communism. Adam Michnik has called Kołakowski "one of the most prominent creators of contemporary Polish culture".
Kołakowski died on 17 July 2009, aged 81, in Oxford, England. In his obituary, philosopher Roger Scruton said Kolakowski was a "thinker for our time" and that regarding Kolakowski's debates with intellectual opponents, "even if ... nothing remained of the subversive orthodoxies, nobody felt damaged in their ego or defeated in their life's project, by arguments which from any other source would have inspired the greatest indignation."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews
December 28, 2009
Review of the First Book of Three, The Founders:
It is easy to understand the allure of Marxism: at a time when Western Europe was groaning under the weight of social disparity, injustice, and poverty, when the few had so much and the rest so little, when an increase in the output of production meant a lowering of worker's wages and the regular capitalist cycles of boom and bust were wreaking havoc on national economies, Marx and Engels put forward a series of philosophical and economic works - seemingly scientifically and statistically based - that pointed towards a socialist utopia that lay just around the corner. Indeed, capitalism itself was deemed a crucial and irreplaceable component of this historical inevitability, a necessary system that rapidly increased the technological level and material composition of society and yet was riven by contradictions, social and economical, that would result in the proletariat becoming conscious of its historical identity and overthrowing the decadent capitalist-liberal order, replacing it with a communist panacea. Man, no longer alienated from the objects of his labour and achieving the symbiosis of subject and object in himself and nature, would work purely for the joy of working, of creating that which needed to be created, doing that which needed to be done; and eventually the very superstructure of government and state would melt away, redundant anachronisms from the prehistoric travails of a now enlightened race. With the God of the Christians under assault from all sides, here was a rational religion that could be embraced with the fervor of the true believer, all the while backed by the impressive edifice of evidentiary support generated by the towering intellect of Marx and the deft and nuanced calculations of Engels.
Leszek Kolakowski, a former professor of philosophy from Poland, began working on The Founders, the first book of his omnibus Main Currents of Marxism, after being dismissed from the University of Warsaw in 1968, prior to his acclaimed academic career in England and the United States. In 344 dense pages he outlines the philosophical lineage that led through Neoplatonism, Empiricism and Idealism to Hegel - the prime influence on Marx's thought - and then explicates all of the main thrusts and tenets of Marx and Engels vast philosophical output. It is not so much a history of these men or their times, but that of their thought. Towards the end Kolakowski performs an exegesis that postulates how the rather nebulous political underpinnings of Marxism would allow an adherent to steer the socialist ship towards a despotic berth; that its reliance on Hegelian dialectic and the negation of negations would allow future scholars to create their own symbiosis of the Marxist tenets, taking them in unanticipated - but entirely foreseeable - and disastrous directions.
The Founders is erudite, penetrating, and brilliant - in addition to thoroughly covering the output of Marx and Engels, it includes perhaps the best explanation of Hegel's Phenomenology of the Spirit that I have come across. It is a tome to be digested slowly, and parts of it are fairly heavy going - I'll be needing a break between books in order to let Kolakowski's analysis settle - but it is indispensable for those who wish to know more about the intellectual structure and origins of one of the most important and influential political philosophies of the twentieth century.
It is easy to understand the allure of Marxism: at a time when Western Europe was groaning under the weight of social disparity, injustice, and poverty, when the few had so much and the rest so little, when an increase in the output of production meant a lowering of worker's wages and the regular capitalist cycles of boom and bust were wreaking havoc on national economies, Marx and Engels put forward a series of philosophical and economic works - seemingly scientifically and statistically based - that pointed towards a socialist utopia that lay just around the corner. Indeed, capitalism itself was deemed a crucial and irreplaceable component of this historical inevitability, a necessary system that rapidly increased the technological level and material composition of society and yet was riven by contradictions, social and economical, that would result in the proletariat becoming conscious of its historical identity and overthrowing the decadent capitalist-liberal order, replacing it with a communist panacea. Man, no longer alienated from the objects of his labour and achieving the symbiosis of subject and object in himself and nature, would work purely for the joy of working, of creating that which needed to be created, doing that which needed to be done; and eventually the very superstructure of government and state would melt away, redundant anachronisms from the prehistoric travails of a now enlightened race. With the God of the Christians under assault from all sides, here was a rational religion that could be embraced with the fervor of the true believer, all the while backed by the impressive edifice of evidentiary support generated by the towering intellect of Marx and the deft and nuanced calculations of Engels.
Leszek Kolakowski, a former professor of philosophy from Poland, began working on The Founders, the first book of his omnibus Main Currents of Marxism, after being dismissed from the University of Warsaw in 1968, prior to his acclaimed academic career in England and the United States. In 344 dense pages he outlines the philosophical lineage that led through Neoplatonism, Empiricism and Idealism to Hegel - the prime influence on Marx's thought - and then explicates all of the main thrusts and tenets of Marx and Engels vast philosophical output. It is not so much a history of these men or their times, but that of their thought. Towards the end Kolakowski performs an exegesis that postulates how the rather nebulous political underpinnings of Marxism would allow an adherent to steer the socialist ship towards a despotic berth; that its reliance on Hegelian dialectic and the negation of negations would allow future scholars to create their own symbiosis of the Marxist tenets, taking them in unanticipated - but entirely foreseeable - and disastrous directions.
The Founders is erudite, penetrating, and brilliant - in addition to thoroughly covering the output of Marx and Engels, it includes perhaps the best explanation of Hegel's Phenomenology of the Spirit that I have come across. It is a tome to be digested slowly, and parts of it are fairly heavy going - I'll be needing a break between books in order to let Kolakowski's analysis settle - but it is indispensable for those who wish to know more about the intellectual structure and origins of one of the most important and influential political philosophies of the twentieth century.
April 10, 2017
Edited review from April 10, 2017
"[...] we may safely predict that Marx himself will become more and more what he already is: a chapter from a textbook of the history of ideas, a figure that no longer evokes any emotions, simply the author of one of the 'great books' of the nineteenth century - one of those books that very few bother to read but whose titles are known to the educated public. As for my three newly combined volumes, [...] they may perhaps be useful to the dwindling number of people still interested in the subject
This book is fantastic in its scope, and very impressive in its erudition, but it is let down by Kolakowski's bitterness and dismissiveness of some of his subjects. Whilst this book is certainly well worth reading for an history of Marxist philosophy (despite it skipping over much of the later Soviet and non-European canon), the reader should be very careful before swallowing wholesale all of the author's opinions. This problem becomes very obvious in the final volume where Kolakowski dismisses Marxists like Herbert Marcuse and Mao Zedong with little effort or charity. I wonder if this was because Kolakowski was fuelled more by his anger at having seemingly wasted his time as a reform communist in the 1960s, or whether he was actually inspired by scholarly interest. I strongly suspect that the former pushed him more than the latter.
However, despite these faults this book is useful for its hitherto unrivalled scope. Even the bibliographies alone are worth checking out, as all 3 volumes display the most expansive and disciplined reading I have ever seen, perhaps of any book. How this volume was written before the invention of the internet is beyond me, as the author seems to have read every Marxist from Bukharin to Brus, Lukács to Labriola, Zhdanov to Zitta, all whilst seamlessly hopping from French and German to Polish and English. I cannot imagine another history matching Kolakowski's, but perhaps history will prove me wrong...
"[...] we may safely predict that Marx himself will become more and more what he already is: a chapter from a textbook of the history of ideas, a figure that no longer evokes any emotions, simply the author of one of the 'great books' of the nineteenth century - one of those books that very few bother to read but whose titles are known to the educated public. As for my three newly combined volumes, [...] they may perhaps be useful to the dwindling number of people still interested in the subject
This book is fantastic in its scope, and very impressive in its erudition, but it is let down by Kolakowski's bitterness and dismissiveness of some of his subjects. Whilst this book is certainly well worth reading for an history of Marxist philosophy (despite it skipping over much of the later Soviet and non-European canon), the reader should be very careful before swallowing wholesale all of the author's opinions. This problem becomes very obvious in the final volume where Kolakowski dismisses Marxists like Herbert Marcuse and Mao Zedong with little effort or charity. I wonder if this was because Kolakowski was fuelled more by his anger at having seemingly wasted his time as a reform communist in the 1960s, or whether he was actually inspired by scholarly interest. I strongly suspect that the former pushed him more than the latter.
However, despite these faults this book is useful for its hitherto unrivalled scope. Even the bibliographies alone are worth checking out, as all 3 volumes display the most expansive and disciplined reading I have ever seen, perhaps of any book. How this volume was written before the invention of the internet is beyond me, as the author seems to have read every Marxist from Bukharin to Brus, Lukács to Labriola, Zhdanov to Zitta, all whilst seamlessly hopping from French and German to Polish and English. I cannot imagine another history matching Kolakowski's, but perhaps history will prove me wrong...
January 11, 2018
How can I begin to review a book like this? The reviewer of the last edition put out noted that the book is 1500 pages, but written by anyone else it would have been ten times as long. And that is exactly right. This books is encyclopedic in the volume of information it conveys, and yet it strings it all together so that you're following more or less chronologically, enriching each period as you go with greater and greater knowledge of all the key players.
This is a book about the history of Marxist doctrine, from its pre-history (which Kolakowski traces all the way back to ideas in Plotinus and the neo-Platonists) right on down to when the first edition of the book came out in 1976. Though he continually stresses that he is interested only in the variations of the doctrine, the connection between political ideas and political practice is particularly hard to disentangle in this case, especially once Lenin and Stalin and the USSR enter the picture (quite late in the book, I might add!) Among the book's many virtues is covering in outline the history of several political movements, as a result of this connection.
Really, I cannot recommend this book enough to anyone who wishes to understand the history of the 20th century. It won't give you that history, but it will fill in one of the most important background components of that history, and in richer detail than you would think possible for a single book. I personally feel as though a great deal has been brought into sharp focus that had remained just in my peripheral vision for years.
Of course, a 1500 book on Marxism is not for everyone. Though I got a great deal out of it, I admit I'm relieved to finally be able to be able to move on to the next book. But if you want to read *the* definitive history of this subject, by one who was not a Marxist himself at the time he wrote it, then look no further than this book.
This is a book about the history of Marxist doctrine, from its pre-history (which Kolakowski traces all the way back to ideas in Plotinus and the neo-Platonists) right on down to when the first edition of the book came out in 1976. Though he continually stresses that he is interested only in the variations of the doctrine, the connection between political ideas and political practice is particularly hard to disentangle in this case, especially once Lenin and Stalin and the USSR enter the picture (quite late in the book, I might add!) Among the book's many virtues is covering in outline the history of several political movements, as a result of this connection.
Really, I cannot recommend this book enough to anyone who wishes to understand the history of the 20th century. It won't give you that history, but it will fill in one of the most important background components of that history, and in richer detail than you would think possible for a single book. I personally feel as though a great deal has been brought into sharp focus that had remained just in my peripheral vision for years.
Of course, a 1500 book on Marxism is not for everyone. Though I got a great deal out of it, I admit I'm relieved to finally be able to be able to move on to the next book. But if you want to read *the* definitive history of this subject, by one who was not a Marxist himself at the time he wrote it, then look no further than this book.
January 23, 2014
I am not exaggerating when I state that this may very well be one of the best books I have ever read. Indeed, I am tempted to re-rate previous works I have placed within the five star category as it almost seems a disservice to Kolakowski's impressive (does that even capture it?) text.
This three volume masterpiece is not for those interested in a brief synopsis of the subject matter. Instead, it is a laborious, meticulous, most detailed account of the economic, political, and philosophical system initiated in the halls of the British Museum Reading Room by Karl Marx.
Each volume that Kolakowski disseminates has its place and its purpose. In linear fashion, he takes us through the thoughts and background of the "founders", then on to the "golden age" (prior to the October Revolution), and finally to the "breakdown" as embodied by the most well known atrocities of communism carried out by the Bolsheviks and others flying the banner of Marx.
Without rewriting the book - I would like to point out some crucial components of his thesis as best I can. First and foremost, while not laying the blame for all that was done in his name at Marx's feet, Koloakowski does as fantastic job of tracing the kernel of 20th century communism, and especially Leninism theory to the notion of "scientific socialism" which infused many with the deistic belief that they had found the magic potion of all of human history and that their aims and policies were that of historical necessity.
Secondly, Koloakowski puts forth a passionate and brilliant expose by which he not only places Stalinism as an outgrowth of Leninism but as its rightful heir. One would be hard pressed to separate the two as somehow counter-posed to one another after reading volume two. Indeed, I have never read such a crisp, logical, and absolute synopsis dedicated to exposing that, as Trotsky himself prophesied in 1903, Bolshevism itself was rotten to the core going back to the very foundation of the party itself.
The countless examples of not only Lenin, but also Trotsky celebrating the stifling and dismantling of democracy both outside and within the party are a tough but necessary read for any who believe that all was fine from '17-'23 and only went wrong with Stalin's consolidation of power. Indeed, Kolakowski, with both wit and brilliancy, diligently takes apart the mythology of those who idealize the ascension of the Bolsheviks and forces one to ask - how exactly was Stalinism different from Leninism is any tangible form. Furthermore, while most difficult for any who sympathizes with Trotsky, it is important to note that the Lev Davidovich of post 1917 had little in common with the man who presided of the Pretrograd Soviet in both 1905 and 1917.
Again, it would be hard to wrap of 1300 pages in a review of this format. Suffice to say, whether you are interested in philosophy, the history of Marxism, Russian history, or any aspect of a theory that hed sway over millions, many of which whom longed for a more just society while participating in its exact opposite, I would encourage you to read this book. Hopefully it will not produce cynicism, but will certainly temper any sympathy for the crushing of the democratic spirit. If anything is proved by this work, it is a twofold truth that there is no secret code unlocking the mystery of all of human history and that no utopia will be brought about when its designers are soiled in the blood of tyranny.
This three volume masterpiece is not for those interested in a brief synopsis of the subject matter. Instead, it is a laborious, meticulous, most detailed account of the economic, political, and philosophical system initiated in the halls of the British Museum Reading Room by Karl Marx.
Each volume that Kolakowski disseminates has its place and its purpose. In linear fashion, he takes us through the thoughts and background of the "founders", then on to the "golden age" (prior to the October Revolution), and finally to the "breakdown" as embodied by the most well known atrocities of communism carried out by the Bolsheviks and others flying the banner of Marx.
Without rewriting the book - I would like to point out some crucial components of his thesis as best I can. First and foremost, while not laying the blame for all that was done in his name at Marx's feet, Koloakowski does as fantastic job of tracing the kernel of 20th century communism, and especially Leninism theory to the notion of "scientific socialism" which infused many with the deistic belief that they had found the magic potion of all of human history and that their aims and policies were that of historical necessity.
Secondly, Koloakowski puts forth a passionate and brilliant expose by which he not only places Stalinism as an outgrowth of Leninism but as its rightful heir. One would be hard pressed to separate the two as somehow counter-posed to one another after reading volume two. Indeed, I have never read such a crisp, logical, and absolute synopsis dedicated to exposing that, as Trotsky himself prophesied in 1903, Bolshevism itself was rotten to the core going back to the very foundation of the party itself.
The countless examples of not only Lenin, but also Trotsky celebrating the stifling and dismantling of democracy both outside and within the party are a tough but necessary read for any who believe that all was fine from '17-'23 and only went wrong with Stalin's consolidation of power. Indeed, Kolakowski, with both wit and brilliancy, diligently takes apart the mythology of those who idealize the ascension of the Bolsheviks and forces one to ask - how exactly was Stalinism different from Leninism is any tangible form. Furthermore, while most difficult for any who sympathizes with Trotsky, it is important to note that the Lev Davidovich of post 1917 had little in common with the man who presided of the Pretrograd Soviet in both 1905 and 1917.
Again, it would be hard to wrap of 1300 pages in a review of this format. Suffice to say, whether you are interested in philosophy, the history of Marxism, Russian history, or any aspect of a theory that hed sway over millions, many of which whom longed for a more just society while participating in its exact opposite, I would encourage you to read this book. Hopefully it will not produce cynicism, but will certainly temper any sympathy for the crushing of the democratic spirit. If anything is proved by this work, it is a twofold truth that there is no secret code unlocking the mystery of all of human history and that no utopia will be brought about when its designers are soiled in the blood of tyranny.
December 25, 2009
Leszek Kolakowski was to the study of Marxism what Gibbon was to the study of the Roman Empire, what Darwin was to the study of evolutionary biology, and what Einstein was to the study of general relativity. Main Currents of Marxism is a brilliant, dazzling, monumental work, which shows how Marxism came about, from what philosophical schools it was spawned, the nature and impact of concomitant theories of socialism and socialist philosophy, and how Marxism and socialism fared when put into action as government policy in the former Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact states, and China.
If the book were merely a philosophical survey of the works of Marx and Engels, along with a discussion of the sociopolitical impact of Marxism and its attendant philosophies, dayenu. But it is so much more. Not only are Marx’s and Engels’s works explained in great detail, but so are the works of a number of other Marxian/socialist/communist philosophers and political theorists, including, of course, Lenin. Kolakowski’s absolute command of his subject matter, his astonishingly delightful erudition, and his capacity for the understated, but devastatingly wry critique of his subjects is wondrous to behold. Main Currents of Marxism was produced by a writer and thinker who was at the peak of his powers, and who generously shared his gifts to augment scholarship, philosophical studies, and historical analysis. In writing his magnum opus, Kolakowski also helped readers, thinkers, and policymakers figure out how so much of the human race fell prey to Marxism, Marxian thought, and socialist beliefs. We can avoid the mistakes made in the past if we heed Kolakowski’s words.
The book is valuable insofar as it teaches us who is not a Marxist, or a socialist, and however much one may disagree with the policies of the Obama Administration, reading Kolakowski shows why it is silly to call the Administration’s policies “Marxist” or “socialist”; the President and most of the members of his Administration are contemporary American liberals with whom it is possible to have sincere disagreement without confusing them for the subjects of Kolakowski’s work. While it may be rhetorically effective to call the Administration a bunch of Marxists or socialists, intellectually speaking, the practice is misguided and the appellations are utterly inaccurate.
By contrast, the various philosophers and political leaders who get skewered by Kolakowski–in the non-histrionic, but utterly powerful manner in which he skewered them–deserved and deserve the excoriations they got at his hands. Marx and Engels may have been more democratic than the various Marxists/communists/socialists that followed them–Marx and Engels were not, after all, Blanquists–but as Kolakowski wrote, they should have foreseen the possibility that someone like Lenin would come along and put a terrifyingly totalitarian face on their utopian visions for a different and better world. People like Ernst Bloch, and Herbert Marcuse deserve to have been mocked and ridiculed. The naïveté of people like Charles Fourier and Pierre Joseph Proudhon should have been exposed for all to see and to laugh at, and to cause wonderment amongst readers that they and their kind could have ever been taken seriously; at least Marx was a formidable thinker, even if his sociopolitical, economic, and philosophical theories ended up turning out crankish and horrifying consequences. And the likes of Stalin and Mao deserve to have been condemned in Kolakowski’s pages; not just for the sickening brutality that characterized their regimes–though again, dayenu–but also for the poverty of thought and intellectual rigor that characterized their respective runs of despotism (Kolakowski rightly points out that philosophy utterly atrophied in the Soviet Union thanks to Stalin’s intolerance for any ideas other than his own second-rate musings, and reminds readers of Mao’s utterly bizarre anti-intellectualism; among other things, Mao told his followers that they must take care to not read too many books, not even Marxist/communist books. The mind reels).
Equally laudable is Kolakowski’s condemnation of systems and organizations. He points out the fallacy behind Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin; denouncing Stalin was good as far as it went, but it was daft to think that the problems of the Stalinist era were attributable only to the tyranny of one man, and that but for that man, the Soviet system would have worked perfectly and to everyone’s satisfaction. If the system were as good and as effective as its boosters claimed, it would have been beyond Stalin’s power to have wreaked so much havoc on the Soviet Union. Of his native Poland, and its struggles, Kolakowski writes eloquently, and his descriptions of the tragicomic existence of the Warsaw Pact countries and China under communism are must-reads.
I try to refrain from exaggeration, but this is one of the best books I have ever read. It is sweeping in its mastery of the history and ideas behind Marxism, Marxian thought, and socialist/communist beliefs, withering in the accuracy and power of its critiques, and unerringly moral in the thesis it advances. Marxism brought about human depredation on a vast and almost unimaginable scale. Fortunately, Leszek Kolakowski brought his light against Marxism’s darkness.
If the book were merely a philosophical survey of the works of Marx and Engels, along with a discussion of the sociopolitical impact of Marxism and its attendant philosophies, dayenu. But it is so much more. Not only are Marx’s and Engels’s works explained in great detail, but so are the works of a number of other Marxian/socialist/communist philosophers and political theorists, including, of course, Lenin. Kolakowski’s absolute command of his subject matter, his astonishingly delightful erudition, and his capacity for the understated, but devastatingly wry critique of his subjects is wondrous to behold. Main Currents of Marxism was produced by a writer and thinker who was at the peak of his powers, and who generously shared his gifts to augment scholarship, philosophical studies, and historical analysis. In writing his magnum opus, Kolakowski also helped readers, thinkers, and policymakers figure out how so much of the human race fell prey to Marxism, Marxian thought, and socialist beliefs. We can avoid the mistakes made in the past if we heed Kolakowski’s words.
The book is valuable insofar as it teaches us who is not a Marxist, or a socialist, and however much one may disagree with the policies of the Obama Administration, reading Kolakowski shows why it is silly to call the Administration’s policies “Marxist” or “socialist”; the President and most of the members of his Administration are contemporary American liberals with whom it is possible to have sincere disagreement without confusing them for the subjects of Kolakowski’s work. While it may be rhetorically effective to call the Administration a bunch of Marxists or socialists, intellectually speaking, the practice is misguided and the appellations are utterly inaccurate.
By contrast, the various philosophers and political leaders who get skewered by Kolakowski–in the non-histrionic, but utterly powerful manner in which he skewered them–deserved and deserve the excoriations they got at his hands. Marx and Engels may have been more democratic than the various Marxists/communists/socialists that followed them–Marx and Engels were not, after all, Blanquists–but as Kolakowski wrote, they should have foreseen the possibility that someone like Lenin would come along and put a terrifyingly totalitarian face on their utopian visions for a different and better world. People like Ernst Bloch, and Herbert Marcuse deserve to have been mocked and ridiculed. The naïveté of people like Charles Fourier and Pierre Joseph Proudhon should have been exposed for all to see and to laugh at, and to cause wonderment amongst readers that they and their kind could have ever been taken seriously; at least Marx was a formidable thinker, even if his sociopolitical, economic, and philosophical theories ended up turning out crankish and horrifying consequences. And the likes of Stalin and Mao deserve to have been condemned in Kolakowski’s pages; not just for the sickening brutality that characterized their regimes–though again, dayenu–but also for the poverty of thought and intellectual rigor that characterized their respective runs of despotism (Kolakowski rightly points out that philosophy utterly atrophied in the Soviet Union thanks to Stalin’s intolerance for any ideas other than his own second-rate musings, and reminds readers of Mao’s utterly bizarre anti-intellectualism; among other things, Mao told his followers that they must take care to not read too many books, not even Marxist/communist books. The mind reels).
Equally laudable is Kolakowski’s condemnation of systems and organizations. He points out the fallacy behind Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin; denouncing Stalin was good as far as it went, but it was daft to think that the problems of the Stalinist era were attributable only to the tyranny of one man, and that but for that man, the Soviet system would have worked perfectly and to everyone’s satisfaction. If the system were as good and as effective as its boosters claimed, it would have been beyond Stalin’s power to have wreaked so much havoc on the Soviet Union. Of his native Poland, and its struggles, Kolakowski writes eloquently, and his descriptions of the tragicomic existence of the Warsaw Pact countries and China under communism are must-reads.
I try to refrain from exaggeration, but this is one of the best books I have ever read. It is sweeping in its mastery of the history and ideas behind Marxism, Marxian thought, and socialist/communist beliefs, withering in the accuracy and power of its critiques, and unerringly moral in the thesis it advances. Marxism brought about human depredation on a vast and almost unimaginable scale. Fortunately, Leszek Kolakowski brought his light against Marxism’s darkness.
September 23, 2019
This big book deserves a big review, but I ain't got it in me. Reading all >1200 pages was quite a task, but for all the mass and density of the subject matter, it was usually a pleasure to read. Of course occasionally I would reach a chapter or section about some particularly boring intellectual, but these were rare. Kolakowski had a way of making most Marxist thinkers interesting, even vivid. The book is encyclopedic in scope, and I can't imagine getting this much information on this topic anywhere else without either a lot more pain and work.
I read a selected works of Marx and a few other smaller Marxist works before reading Main Currents. Despite turning against Marxism later in life Kolakowski presented the ideas of Marx and early Marxists far more clearly--and persuasively!--than I found in Marx's own writings. Kolakowski's tone does shift between volumes 2 and 3. There's far sharper criticism of Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, and late 20th century variations than there is of the "Golden Age" Marxists. But the apparent sympathy with the founders and early Marxists affords this criticism a good deal of credibility. While Marxists may disagree with Kolakowski, it's clear that Main Currents is nothing like a hatchet job.
If you have the time to devote to it, it's well worth the time of anyone who wants to learn more about the history and ideas of Marxism.
I read a selected works of Marx and a few other smaller Marxist works before reading Main Currents. Despite turning against Marxism later in life Kolakowski presented the ideas of Marx and early Marxists far more clearly--and persuasively!--than I found in Marx's own writings. Kolakowski's tone does shift between volumes 2 and 3. There's far sharper criticism of Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, and late 20th century variations than there is of the "Golden Age" Marxists. But the apparent sympathy with the founders and early Marxists affords this criticism a good deal of credibility. While Marxists may disagree with Kolakowski, it's clear that Main Currents is nothing like a hatchet job.
If you have the time to devote to it, it's well worth the time of anyone who wants to learn more about the history and ideas of Marxism.
March 6, 2017
This book did take a little effort, as well as quite a lot of time, to finish. This is not because Kołakowski is a particularly difficult writer. Indeed, given the subject matter, his lucidity is remarkable. But he doesn't stint on detail. Famously, he begins his discussion on Marx with the Pre-Socratics, and covers Plato, Plotinus, John Scotus Eriugena, Meister Eckhart, Nicholas of Cusa, Böhme, Silesius, Rousseau, Hume, Kant, and Fichte, before he even gets to Hegel and Utopian Socialism. Over the course of 1200 pages, he finds room for Stalin's views on linguistics, amongst other niche topics that can hardly be called 'main currents of Marxism'.
He is not wholly comprehensive, however. He covers Maoism at the very end whilst admitting that he is here out of his field of expertise. Rather surprisingly, he says nothing at all about Che Guevera's concept of the 'New Man', nor anything on Fanon. This is firmly a work on European Marxism, written by a European philosopher. But then perhaps anyone starting a book that begins 'Karl Marx was a German philosopher' should know what to expect.
It's sometimes alleged that this book is a demolition job on Marxism. That's not quite fair. It's a demolition job on Leninism (including Trotskyism), and in this is thoroughly convincing. And I don't think anyone, including diehard Communists, would now quarrel with his characterization of Stalinism as intellectually vapid. Kołakowski also takes some well-aimed shots at Lukács and Marcuse. But his attitude toward the work Marx and Engels themselves might be more fairly described as critical but appreciative. Gramsci also comes out comparatively well, although not unscathed.
He is not wholly comprehensive, however. He covers Maoism at the very end whilst admitting that he is here out of his field of expertise. Rather surprisingly, he says nothing at all about Che Guevera's concept of the 'New Man', nor anything on Fanon. This is firmly a work on European Marxism, written by a European philosopher. But then perhaps anyone starting a book that begins 'Karl Marx was a German philosopher' should know what to expect.
It's sometimes alleged that this book is a demolition job on Marxism. That's not quite fair. It's a demolition job on Leninism (including Trotskyism), and in this is thoroughly convincing. And I don't think anyone, including diehard Communists, would now quarrel with his characterization of Stalinism as intellectually vapid. Kołakowski also takes some well-aimed shots at Lukács and Marcuse. But his attitude toward the work Marx and Engels themselves might be more fairly described as critical but appreciative. Gramsci also comes out comparatively well, although not unscathed.
June 11, 2011
anti-communist attempts to support the thesis that stalinism is intrinsic to marxism.
Want to Read
July 26, 2008Not for the faint of heart. This book summaries the antecedents, expressions of Marxism and Marxist thought in every variation imaginable, and they were legion. The writing is clear, lucid, but the content dense, and technical. Best read by those with at least some elementary knowledge of ancient and modern Western philosophy. I will also note that I have attempted to read this work several times over the last 30 years or so, and haven't succeded in completing all 1300 or so pages, but I've gotten farther along in my current assault than ever before.
November 10, 2026
You can readily see Kolakowski's dissident humanist Marxism even as he moved to his anti-communist years, sees the core of Marxism in identifying the "dehumanization" innate in the capitalist mode of production. I find the first chapter, "The Origin of the Dialectic" to be very fascinating, even though it is very basic; he traces the development of "alienation" as a philosophical category from Aristotle through Christian theology up to Hegel, with a very interesting section on John Scotus Erigena. He makes some absurd attacks on Hegel that are really just the usual vulgarized "Hegel as the philosopher of totalitarianism," but I am so far rather surprised with his fair engagement with Marx and Engels, even in their disputes with Lasalle and Bakunin (and a refreshing willingness to critique them when necessary, while not attempting to vindicate the flaws of either Lasalle or Bakunin). He does retread some of the usual "Engelsism" ground, though it is more restrained than most analysis (at least thus far), just pointing out Engels' more empiricist nature vs. Marx's more abstract kind (which I think Lukacs also got at in Tailism and the Dialectic; the International Friends of Ilyenkov have some interesting works that defends Engels on this point, and I think it is likely his positivism is overstated, both by his critics as well as himself).
Kolakowski makes more a compelling case for the "Engelsism" thesis than most, but still cannot deal with the stark contradiction that Marx was alive while Engels wrote much of his philosophical "innovation," and did not object either in private or public works. His refutations of LTV are interesting as a critique. I would like to see more contemporary theorists engage with the more rigorous theoretical objections. Interested in reading GDH Cole's A History of Socialist Thought and Lange's History of Materialism afterwards. There is a book on the SPD Kantians/Marburg School I would also like to crack at, just to refresh on my own critical perspectives..
I don't know about Kolakowski's insistence on "dehumanization," in that verbiage, as the key to Marxist critique of capitalism. He is reading his dissident Marxism (although he had developed past it by then) back into Marxism, and then gearing up for a critique of post-1917 state socialism as bringing back that "dehumanization" under the banner of socialism.
Kolakowski lets his anti-Stalinism get to him in humorous ways. He simultaneously labels the Second International the intellectual "Golden Age of Marxism," while acknowledging that no one (Kautsky, Plekhanov, Luxemburg, Bernstein, etc.) actually had any solid intellectual understandings of philosophy in Marx, Hegel, or the Young Hegelians beyond the more simple philosophical works by Engels (indeed, Kautsky makes incredibly simple mistakes analyzing Kant in his work on ethics), aside from Antonio Labriola or Jean Jaures. The chapter on Labriola is depressingly short, guess he will never get the dedicated analysis he deserves from either scholars or dedicated Marxists lol. His theoretical-practical critique of Luxemburg is harsh but necessary. Her martyrdom has often overshadowed a critical reflection on her conceptual views outside of the realm of political economy.
Impressive level of Russophobic analysis in discussing Russian history and pre-Marxian philosophy; not surprising from a Polish anti-communist I guess. Kolakowski's attitude towards Leninism is not surprising. I find myself agreeing with him on many things, stuff that I anticipated back when I read Plekhanov and Lenin's philosophical works. Kolakowski holds the same views as I in that Plekhanov's simplification of Marxist philosophy is far too positivist and empirical, that he had a very simple understanding of the dialectic and no real knowledge of philosophy in Kant or Hegel aside from what was handed down from Engels in very simple form. He holds the same view with Lenin, though I think his critique is not as solid there as Lenin clearly had more of a background than Plekhanov when he critiqued Empiriocriticism, and I don't think Kolakowski's criticisms of the theory of reflection hold water. I think he brings up interesting points in holding that Plekhanov and Lenin made the same mistakes as Kautsky when attmpting to answer the Kantian Marxist revisionists, in that they tended to dodge Kantian ethical questions instead of answering them because Marxism had no solid answer. But I'm not sure this is the great contradiction he points it out to be. He notes that Lenin attempted to develop the line that Lukacs eventually would puzzle out with extending Marx's proletarian subject-object dialectic that nullified the Kantian critique, but that also seems to be dodging the Kantian question to me.
I find Kolakowski's critique of Leninist anti-dualism to be a little silly, but that is my own materialism/physicalism. Kolakowski does acknowledge that Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks points to a greater comprehension of philosophy and Hegelianism than Materialism and Empiriocriticism does, but he spends so little time there that it ends up as nothing. His political critiques of Lenin are colored by his anti-communism, though he makes interesting observations re:Stalin's continuity with Lenin, Lenin's personal attitudes towards other party members that bordered on impossible standards (re: the infamous "Testament"), as well as Lenin's relationship and critique of Trotsky. I think his weakest contention is his political critique of the various lines and formulations that Lenin went through from 1912 to his death, in that they often contradicted or opposed each other in a matter of weeks or months. It seems absurd to act as though a revolutionary would not modify their attitudes and political directions based upon the course of events. To act as though this is some great discrediting of Leninism when every political-ideological movement acts in the same way is odd.
His anti-communist attitude makes his analysis of the USSR itself muddled, and even many Soviet historians of the West would take issue with his work on these points. Collectivization is such an evil that Soviet agriculture is said to have not recovered even into the 1970s, a pure fiction. Historiography regarding the Terror and Stalin era in general, Arendtian in nature, doesn't hold up to modern academic historiographical scrutiny. He again allows his anti-Stalinism to take precedence over academic rigor asserting no difference between the Deborinites and the "New Philosophy" led by Mitin et al. Both Sheehan's scholarship and Chinese debates of the 1930s provide ample evidence of genuine ideological differences, not just some manifestation of further party control over philosophy.
His analysis of the Trotsky-Stalin split is salient in that it was personal animosity over actual theoretical difference (and his analysis of Trotsky is brutal—Marxist-Leninists would do well to adopt his arguments, but this would mean a more critical attitude towards Stalin than many of us are willing to take); his analysis of the Bukharin-Probranzhensky debate is excellent. Sultan-Galiev, especially considering Kolakowski’s argument that he anticipated Maoist developments, deserved a longer analysis.
Zhdanov did great damage to Soviet Marxist philosophy in his static and vulgar division of "idealism" and materialism, in which Augustine and Bauer or Spinoza and Holbach's philosophies would be considered equivalent based on their underlying ontology, without a real grasp of their historical development. The explanation of the attack on Hegel as a consequence of the war is sound, but bears further investigation—the attacks on Hegel continued thereafter when they theoretically could have been harnessed to support socialist construction. That this didn’t happen when Kolakowski contends Stalinism adjusted Marxism to fit governing conditions whenever it liked suggests, of course, that there was a greater faith and logic to Stalin-era Marxism-Leninism and ideology in actually existing socialism in general that was more than a tool of state legitimization. His discussion of the various pseudo-scientific trends in Soviet science that received state support is tough but fair—that Lysenko, Marr, the anti-physicists and other pseudoscientists had any ground at all is ridiculous and bears very critical self-reflection by Marxist-Leninists—yet his analysis on that front conveniently ends with the Stalin era, and the flourishing of Soviet science afterwards is not approached. It occurs to me that Kolakowski’s attack on dialectical logic does not confront the criticism of formal logic raised by Marxists; his criticism of Marxist unfamiliarity with modern philosophy of logic is sound, but acts as though philosophy of logic is historically a non-problem or Marxists are silly for approaching it despite its very long history. Kolakowski charges of truisms hold some water, but only in that it applies to all logic. Read any of Russell’s early work on logic, the American pragmatists, or Cambridge School, and they all read like truisms—I don’t think anyone would argue they are discredited as a result. Kolakowski also totally ignores some of the most interesting and innovative philosophical streams in the USSR, in activity theory and Ilyenkov, and these cannot be so easily dismissed out of hand as he does for so much of the cruder Soviet intellectual production.
Unsurprisingly, and like many others, Kolakowski detected a contradiction between Gramsci's "philosophy of praxis" and philosophical materialism, but his understanding of materialism in that section is deeply simplified and reductive. He cannot properly prove the contradiction exists other than asserting Gramsci's primacy of historicist human praxis makes it so. I am not convinced by the four pages devoted thereto, and neither are most Gramsci scholars. He was not a vulgar historical materialist nor a simple dialectician, but he was a materialist in the Marxist sense.
Kolakowski's inability to grasp Lukacs' understanding of truth is hampered in that Tailism and the Dialectic was unavailable to him. For Lukacs' social dialectic and natural dialectic are separate; natural/scientific truth is different in its manner than social/political truth found in the class struggle. He is no "species relativist." His out of hand dismissal of The Destruction of Reason is ridiculous. He cannot deny the charges that Lukacs brought forth on idealist and vitalist philosophy and their influence on Fascism, so he must dismiss them as ridiculous and move on. Lukacs is not even adopting a doctrinaire or extreme Marxist position here. Kolakowski mentions but does not analyze Lukacs’ late work on ontology. The ultimate condemnation of Lukacs as a Stalinist puppet is silly, although the criticism of his contradictory attitudes towards literature and ideology are sound. The idea of Lukacs as an anti-rationalist concerned merely with political primacy is simple polemic, without merit of any kind.
The section on Korsch is enlightening, but further proves Kolakowski's subordination of his political views to his scholarship. Were Korsch's views the same but in favor of the USSR, he would be condemned as an absurd obscurantist. Because he is an anti-Sovietist, he is treated gingerly and with respect. The critique of the Frankfurt School, Adorno in particular, is extremely dense and fascinating, and provides good insight into Adorno's work and the non-Marcusian wing. Yet again, however, Kolakowski's analysis is hampered by the ultimate conclusion that this particular branch of thought is obscurantist and full of truisms and thus is to be summarily discarded with no further thought to it. His warm reception of Fromm is not surprising but telling—if he were, for example, analyzing any of the Soviet state-backed ethicists of the 1970s and 1980s who extolled socialist humanism on nearly identical grounds, he would condemn them as harshly as Lukacs. Here, it is Kolakowski who subordinates his analysis to political primacy as he accuses Lukacs.
Kolakowski's critique of Marcuse's Hegelianism in defense of positivism is silly. Obviously Hegelianism had authoritarian aspects, but to pretend positivism was the absolute bastion of democratic thought (I am not denying its liberal wing) when it produced intellectual reactionaries like Taine and Social Darwinism is simply spiting Marcuse instead of reasoned analysis. He is right to treat Marcuse's Freudianism as downright silly, vague and contrary to much of Freudian theory itself. Ironically he treats Fromm much more respectably despite the vague and silly nature of his Freudianism! Another example of Kolakowski picking and choosing his tone based on his personal perception of a theorist as a political threat. The wholesale dismissal of all of Marcuse's critiques of modern capitalism, in forming desires and technological, is very disheartening. By volume 3, he is not even engaging with the ideas he critiques except on a very basic philosophical level. The idea of Marcuse as the ultimate totalitarian, even further than Soviet Marxism (both dubious charges), would be funny were he not completely serious.
The section on Bloch is fascinating; he is treated with respect much like Fromm, as Kolakowski does not see him as a political threat. He almost takes Bloch's overcoming of death as a genuine immortality, which is a silly misreading, but reels it back to the Feuerbachian influence, which then means he made that critique for no reason, but to just get a shot in at Bloch. Just being petty here.
The analysis of the New Left probably coincides with that of doctrinaire PCF intellectuals, just gives the impression of an old professor scared of the youth. The analysis of Mao's China ideologically is pure polemical nonsense, and he gets various points completely wrong. On these two phenomena he was writing far too early for an accurate analysis. He makes an odd, uniquely European racist insight into the New Left’s obsession with “violence and black racialism.”
Importantly, Kolakowski’s analysis is restricted entirely to the Main Currents of European Marxism. He mentions Mao briefly in a brief discussion of Sultan-Galiev, as well as a section near the end that bastardizes much of Chinese Marxist thought (and concentrates entirely on Mao), but otherwise nearly every thinker is restricted to the European continent. No Mariategui, no Guevara, no Tan Malaka, nothing in Japanese or Chinese Marxisms or anti-imperialist streams like Fanon. The 2005 epilogue is laughably incoherent. Kolakowski does an "end of history" victory lap talking about how China is a great evil and anti-free trade and anti-war protestors are obscurantists opposed to progress while also acknowledging (but not conceding) that there is "great danger" to the rapid advance of technology that modern capitalism has proved unable to cope with socially. He sounds like Fukuyama did in 1992, but he was writing in 2005 when the neoconservative project had already thrown the world back into disorder with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which conveniently receive no mention.
This work is deeply flawed, but it is comprehensive. There are questions which I have not grappled with that Kolakowski has forced me to confront, especially concerning the Kantian ethical critique of Marxism. But every unique and thoughtful insight is countered by one which is either outright wrong, or simply a strange insult towards this or that figure Kolakowski is analyzing. His historical analysis of socialism is not accurate, based as it is on the philosophical-totalitarian school rather than genuine historical analysis. There have been Marxist responses to Kolakowski, but they have been in essay form. They do not deal with the genuine breadth or depth of his analysis. This is a grave mistake. Marxists must read Kolakowski, and they must respond comprehensively, just as was done to Karl Popper throughout the 1950s and 1960s.
Kolakowski makes more a compelling case for the "Engelsism" thesis than most, but still cannot deal with the stark contradiction that Marx was alive while Engels wrote much of his philosophical "innovation," and did not object either in private or public works. His refutations of LTV are interesting as a critique. I would like to see more contemporary theorists engage with the more rigorous theoretical objections. Interested in reading GDH Cole's A History of Socialist Thought and Lange's History of Materialism afterwards. There is a book on the SPD Kantians/Marburg School I would also like to crack at, just to refresh on my own critical perspectives..
I don't know about Kolakowski's insistence on "dehumanization," in that verbiage, as the key to Marxist critique of capitalism. He is reading his dissident Marxism (although he had developed past it by then) back into Marxism, and then gearing up for a critique of post-1917 state socialism as bringing back that "dehumanization" under the banner of socialism.
Kolakowski lets his anti-Stalinism get to him in humorous ways. He simultaneously labels the Second International the intellectual "Golden Age of Marxism," while acknowledging that no one (Kautsky, Plekhanov, Luxemburg, Bernstein, etc.) actually had any solid intellectual understandings of philosophy in Marx, Hegel, or the Young Hegelians beyond the more simple philosophical works by Engels (indeed, Kautsky makes incredibly simple mistakes analyzing Kant in his work on ethics), aside from Antonio Labriola or Jean Jaures. The chapter on Labriola is depressingly short, guess he will never get the dedicated analysis he deserves from either scholars or dedicated Marxists lol. His theoretical-practical critique of Luxemburg is harsh but necessary. Her martyrdom has often overshadowed a critical reflection on her conceptual views outside of the realm of political economy.
Impressive level of Russophobic analysis in discussing Russian history and pre-Marxian philosophy; not surprising from a Polish anti-communist I guess. Kolakowski's attitude towards Leninism is not surprising. I find myself agreeing with him on many things, stuff that I anticipated back when I read Plekhanov and Lenin's philosophical works. Kolakowski holds the same views as I in that Plekhanov's simplification of Marxist philosophy is far too positivist and empirical, that he had a very simple understanding of the dialectic and no real knowledge of philosophy in Kant or Hegel aside from what was handed down from Engels in very simple form. He holds the same view with Lenin, though I think his critique is not as solid there as Lenin clearly had more of a background than Plekhanov when he critiqued Empiriocriticism, and I don't think Kolakowski's criticisms of the theory of reflection hold water. I think he brings up interesting points in holding that Plekhanov and Lenin made the same mistakes as Kautsky when attmpting to answer the Kantian Marxist revisionists, in that they tended to dodge Kantian ethical questions instead of answering them because Marxism had no solid answer. But I'm not sure this is the great contradiction he points it out to be. He notes that Lenin attempted to develop the line that Lukacs eventually would puzzle out with extending Marx's proletarian subject-object dialectic that nullified the Kantian critique, but that also seems to be dodging the Kantian question to me.
I find Kolakowski's critique of Leninist anti-dualism to be a little silly, but that is my own materialism/physicalism. Kolakowski does acknowledge that Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks points to a greater comprehension of philosophy and Hegelianism than Materialism and Empiriocriticism does, but he spends so little time there that it ends up as nothing. His political critiques of Lenin are colored by his anti-communism, though he makes interesting observations re:Stalin's continuity with Lenin, Lenin's personal attitudes towards other party members that bordered on impossible standards (re: the infamous "Testament"), as well as Lenin's relationship and critique of Trotsky. I think his weakest contention is his political critique of the various lines and formulations that Lenin went through from 1912 to his death, in that they often contradicted or opposed each other in a matter of weeks or months. It seems absurd to act as though a revolutionary would not modify their attitudes and political directions based upon the course of events. To act as though this is some great discrediting of Leninism when every political-ideological movement acts in the same way is odd.
His anti-communist attitude makes his analysis of the USSR itself muddled, and even many Soviet historians of the West would take issue with his work on these points. Collectivization is such an evil that Soviet agriculture is said to have not recovered even into the 1970s, a pure fiction. Historiography regarding the Terror and Stalin era in general, Arendtian in nature, doesn't hold up to modern academic historiographical scrutiny. He again allows his anti-Stalinism to take precedence over academic rigor asserting no difference between the Deborinites and the "New Philosophy" led by Mitin et al. Both Sheehan's scholarship and Chinese debates of the 1930s provide ample evidence of genuine ideological differences, not just some manifestation of further party control over philosophy.
His analysis of the Trotsky-Stalin split is salient in that it was personal animosity over actual theoretical difference (and his analysis of Trotsky is brutal—Marxist-Leninists would do well to adopt his arguments, but this would mean a more critical attitude towards Stalin than many of us are willing to take); his analysis of the Bukharin-Probranzhensky debate is excellent. Sultan-Galiev, especially considering Kolakowski’s argument that he anticipated Maoist developments, deserved a longer analysis.
Zhdanov did great damage to Soviet Marxist philosophy in his static and vulgar division of "idealism" and materialism, in which Augustine and Bauer or Spinoza and Holbach's philosophies would be considered equivalent based on their underlying ontology, without a real grasp of their historical development. The explanation of the attack on Hegel as a consequence of the war is sound, but bears further investigation—the attacks on Hegel continued thereafter when they theoretically could have been harnessed to support socialist construction. That this didn’t happen when Kolakowski contends Stalinism adjusted Marxism to fit governing conditions whenever it liked suggests, of course, that there was a greater faith and logic to Stalin-era Marxism-Leninism and ideology in actually existing socialism in general that was more than a tool of state legitimization. His discussion of the various pseudo-scientific trends in Soviet science that received state support is tough but fair—that Lysenko, Marr, the anti-physicists and other pseudoscientists had any ground at all is ridiculous and bears very critical self-reflection by Marxist-Leninists—yet his analysis on that front conveniently ends with the Stalin era, and the flourishing of Soviet science afterwards is not approached. It occurs to me that Kolakowski’s attack on dialectical logic does not confront the criticism of formal logic raised by Marxists; his criticism of Marxist unfamiliarity with modern philosophy of logic is sound, but acts as though philosophy of logic is historically a non-problem or Marxists are silly for approaching it despite its very long history. Kolakowski charges of truisms hold some water, but only in that it applies to all logic. Read any of Russell’s early work on logic, the American pragmatists, or Cambridge School, and they all read like truisms—I don’t think anyone would argue they are discredited as a result. Kolakowski also totally ignores some of the most interesting and innovative philosophical streams in the USSR, in activity theory and Ilyenkov, and these cannot be so easily dismissed out of hand as he does for so much of the cruder Soviet intellectual production.
Unsurprisingly, and like many others, Kolakowski detected a contradiction between Gramsci's "philosophy of praxis" and philosophical materialism, but his understanding of materialism in that section is deeply simplified and reductive. He cannot properly prove the contradiction exists other than asserting Gramsci's primacy of historicist human praxis makes it so. I am not convinced by the four pages devoted thereto, and neither are most Gramsci scholars. He was not a vulgar historical materialist nor a simple dialectician, but he was a materialist in the Marxist sense.
Kolakowski's inability to grasp Lukacs' understanding of truth is hampered in that Tailism and the Dialectic was unavailable to him. For Lukacs' social dialectic and natural dialectic are separate; natural/scientific truth is different in its manner than social/political truth found in the class struggle. He is no "species relativist." His out of hand dismissal of The Destruction of Reason is ridiculous. He cannot deny the charges that Lukacs brought forth on idealist and vitalist philosophy and their influence on Fascism, so he must dismiss them as ridiculous and move on. Lukacs is not even adopting a doctrinaire or extreme Marxist position here. Kolakowski mentions but does not analyze Lukacs’ late work on ontology. The ultimate condemnation of Lukacs as a Stalinist puppet is silly, although the criticism of his contradictory attitudes towards literature and ideology are sound. The idea of Lukacs as an anti-rationalist concerned merely with political primacy is simple polemic, without merit of any kind.
The section on Korsch is enlightening, but further proves Kolakowski's subordination of his political views to his scholarship. Were Korsch's views the same but in favor of the USSR, he would be condemned as an absurd obscurantist. Because he is an anti-Sovietist, he is treated gingerly and with respect. The critique of the Frankfurt School, Adorno in particular, is extremely dense and fascinating, and provides good insight into Adorno's work and the non-Marcusian wing. Yet again, however, Kolakowski's analysis is hampered by the ultimate conclusion that this particular branch of thought is obscurantist and full of truisms and thus is to be summarily discarded with no further thought to it. His warm reception of Fromm is not surprising but telling—if he were, for example, analyzing any of the Soviet state-backed ethicists of the 1970s and 1980s who extolled socialist humanism on nearly identical grounds, he would condemn them as harshly as Lukacs. Here, it is Kolakowski who subordinates his analysis to political primacy as he accuses Lukacs.
Kolakowski's critique of Marcuse's Hegelianism in defense of positivism is silly. Obviously Hegelianism had authoritarian aspects, but to pretend positivism was the absolute bastion of democratic thought (I am not denying its liberal wing) when it produced intellectual reactionaries like Taine and Social Darwinism is simply spiting Marcuse instead of reasoned analysis. He is right to treat Marcuse's Freudianism as downright silly, vague and contrary to much of Freudian theory itself. Ironically he treats Fromm much more respectably despite the vague and silly nature of his Freudianism! Another example of Kolakowski picking and choosing his tone based on his personal perception of a theorist as a political threat. The wholesale dismissal of all of Marcuse's critiques of modern capitalism, in forming desires and technological, is very disheartening. By volume 3, he is not even engaging with the ideas he critiques except on a very basic philosophical level. The idea of Marcuse as the ultimate totalitarian, even further than Soviet Marxism (both dubious charges), would be funny were he not completely serious.
The section on Bloch is fascinating; he is treated with respect much like Fromm, as Kolakowski does not see him as a political threat. He almost takes Bloch's overcoming of death as a genuine immortality, which is a silly misreading, but reels it back to the Feuerbachian influence, which then means he made that critique for no reason, but to just get a shot in at Bloch. Just being petty here.
The analysis of the New Left probably coincides with that of doctrinaire PCF intellectuals, just gives the impression of an old professor scared of the youth. The analysis of Mao's China ideologically is pure polemical nonsense, and he gets various points completely wrong. On these two phenomena he was writing far too early for an accurate analysis. He makes an odd, uniquely European racist insight into the New Left’s obsession with “violence and black racialism.”
Importantly, Kolakowski’s analysis is restricted entirely to the Main Currents of European Marxism. He mentions Mao briefly in a brief discussion of Sultan-Galiev, as well as a section near the end that bastardizes much of Chinese Marxist thought (and concentrates entirely on Mao), but otherwise nearly every thinker is restricted to the European continent. No Mariategui, no Guevara, no Tan Malaka, nothing in Japanese or Chinese Marxisms or anti-imperialist streams like Fanon. The 2005 epilogue is laughably incoherent. Kolakowski does an "end of history" victory lap talking about how China is a great evil and anti-free trade and anti-war protestors are obscurantists opposed to progress while also acknowledging (but not conceding) that there is "great danger" to the rapid advance of technology that modern capitalism has proved unable to cope with socially. He sounds like Fukuyama did in 1992, but he was writing in 2005 when the neoconservative project had already thrown the world back into disorder with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which conveniently receive no mention.
This work is deeply flawed, but it is comprehensive. There are questions which I have not grappled with that Kolakowski has forced me to confront, especially concerning the Kantian ethical critique of Marxism. But every unique and thoughtful insight is countered by one which is either outright wrong, or simply a strange insult towards this or that figure Kolakowski is analyzing. His historical analysis of socialism is not accurate, based as it is on the philosophical-totalitarian school rather than genuine historical analysis. There have been Marxist responses to Kolakowski, but they have been in essay form. They do not deal with the genuine breadth or depth of his analysis. This is a grave mistake. Marxists must read Kolakowski, and they must respond comprehensively, just as was done to Karl Popper throughout the 1950s and 1960s.
January 3, 2021
I first came across this book when it was on the required reading list for my undergraduate political philosophy course 30 years ago. The single volume edition covers what were originally three separate volumes. The first ("The Founders") gives a an introduction to the philosophical background to Marx's thought from neo-Platonism through to Hegel and the new Hegelians. The second ("The Golden Age") covers the period of the Second International through to the development of Bolshevism and the Russian Revolution. The third ("The Breakdown") covers Soviet Marxism, including Stalinism and the aftermath of his death, with a brief chapter on subsequent developments in Marxism into the 1960s.
It is a monumental work of scholarship, giving a summary of the thought of a huge range of more or less significant figures in the Marxist movement. This makes it really valuable starting point for getting a sense of the key points for any given thinker from Marx through to Marcuse and (just) Althusser. The primary focus is on philosophy, and although Marx's economics is covered it is a secondary topic. Kolakowski's approach is generally critical. For Marx and Engels he gives the main lines of criticism. For subsequent thinkers a short and generally critical summary - although he gets noticeably more critical of later thinkers, and particularly the Frankfurt School.
Once he reaches the Russian Revolution and beyond, Kolakowski's narrative becomes intertwined with the history of the Soviet state and particularly Stalinism. He describes the ossification and subsequent ideological collapse of Marxism in the Soviet era, and therefore prefigures (bearing in mind the book was first published in 1976) and essentially predicts the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989-91.
And if history had stopped there it would perhaps all have made a perfectly coherent analysis of the development of a doctrine from beginning through to institutionalisation, ossification, and collapse while capitalism by the 1960s seemed to have worked out how to overcome the contradictions identified by Marx leaving the strand of thinking bearing his name irrelevant. As Kolakowski writes in the new epilogue to the 2005 combined edition:
"we may safely predict that Marx himself will become more and more what he already is: a chapter from a textbook of the history of ideas, a figure that no longer evokes any emotions, simply the author of one of the 'great books' of the nineteenth century. As for my three, newly combined volumes... they may perhaps be useful to the dwindling number of people still interested in the subject."
But by 2008, Marx was in fact looking increasingly relevant again. Not perhaps in the way it was understood by the old Soviet Union, but with the collapse of the post-war consensus and the implementation of neoliberalism the analysis suggested by Marx looks again like a fruitful way of helping us to understand how modern capitalism works. And Marx (and Marxism) remain a bogeyman for the political right - as recently demonstrated by Liz Truss - despite seemingly having neither read nor understood him.
Kolakowski's work can't help with these more recent developments, but remains a critical book for studying Marxism from inception through to the 1960s, particularly as a means of getting a short introduction to the basics of each significant figure in Marxism.
This review can also be found on my blog here: https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...
It is a monumental work of scholarship, giving a summary of the thought of a huge range of more or less significant figures in the Marxist movement. This makes it really valuable starting point for getting a sense of the key points for any given thinker from Marx through to Marcuse and (just) Althusser. The primary focus is on philosophy, and although Marx's economics is covered it is a secondary topic. Kolakowski's approach is generally critical. For Marx and Engels he gives the main lines of criticism. For subsequent thinkers a short and generally critical summary - although he gets noticeably more critical of later thinkers, and particularly the Frankfurt School.
Once he reaches the Russian Revolution and beyond, Kolakowski's narrative becomes intertwined with the history of the Soviet state and particularly Stalinism. He describes the ossification and subsequent ideological collapse of Marxism in the Soviet era, and therefore prefigures (bearing in mind the book was first published in 1976) and essentially predicts the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989-91.
And if history had stopped there it would perhaps all have made a perfectly coherent analysis of the development of a doctrine from beginning through to institutionalisation, ossification, and collapse while capitalism by the 1960s seemed to have worked out how to overcome the contradictions identified by Marx leaving the strand of thinking bearing his name irrelevant. As Kolakowski writes in the new epilogue to the 2005 combined edition:
"we may safely predict that Marx himself will become more and more what he already is: a chapter from a textbook of the history of ideas, a figure that no longer evokes any emotions, simply the author of one of the 'great books' of the nineteenth century. As for my three, newly combined volumes... they may perhaps be useful to the dwindling number of people still interested in the subject."
But by 2008, Marx was in fact looking increasingly relevant again. Not perhaps in the way it was understood by the old Soviet Union, but with the collapse of the post-war consensus and the implementation of neoliberalism the analysis suggested by Marx looks again like a fruitful way of helping us to understand how modern capitalism works. And Marx (and Marxism) remain a bogeyman for the political right - as recently demonstrated by Liz Truss - despite seemingly having neither read nor understood him.
Kolakowski's work can't help with these more recent developments, but remains a critical book for studying Marxism from inception through to the 1960s, particularly as a means of getting a short introduction to the basics of each significant figure in Marxism.
This review can also be found on my blog here: https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...
August 31, 2026
You cannot have an informed opinion on Marxism, positive or negative, without consulting this work. Simply magisterial. Kolakowski was himself once a Polish communist, among the best and brightest of his generation, and like many became steadily disillusioned with the movement's reality. Unlike most, however, he was once not only a "true" believer, but a sincere one. That is to say, he wasn't a blind follower, but was led to Marxism by his own intellectual and moral convictions. Accordingly, when he became disillusioned, he was compelled to take Marxism's considerable intellectual and moral appeals seriously, making his critiques all the more effective. As Francis Spufford notes in his review of the book, it is "one of the few polemics that can be used as a reliable guide to the thing it opposes." Obviously, I am not persuaded by Kolakowski's critique of Marxism, but I don't feel equipped to dismiss it either and will be thinking through it for a while. Brilliant.
May 15, 2020
I believe this is the only time that I've rated a book 5 stars without finishing it!
Magisterial and very impressive; though I'm personally not interested in every historical phase of Marxism (I skipped at least half the book), it's hard to imagine a better single-volume overview for anyone with any interest in this topic.
It is difficult to overstate Kolakowski's completeness here; e.g., he lays the philosophical foundations of Marxism so thoroughly (from Plato to Hegel) that Marx himself doesn't even show up until page 80. Yet Kolakowski doesn't add any more text than needed, you never get a sense of having to wade through filler; in a way you need 10,000 pages to really tell the story of Marxism, but he somehow managed it in 1,300.
Magisterial and very impressive; though I'm personally not interested in every historical phase of Marxism (I skipped at least half the book), it's hard to imagine a better single-volume overview for anyone with any interest in this topic.
It is difficult to overstate Kolakowski's completeness here; e.g., he lays the philosophical foundations of Marxism so thoroughly (from Plato to Hegel) that Marx himself doesn't even show up until page 80. Yet Kolakowski doesn't add any more text than needed, you never get a sense of having to wade through filler; in a way you need 10,000 pages to really tell the story of Marxism, but he somehow managed it in 1,300.
May 9, 2024
Karl Marx was a German philosopher.
In tracing the background, formation, reception, and eventual ossification of Marx and his writings, Kołakowski achieves a history and analysis of Marxism unparalleled in scope, clarity, and rigor.
This book is nothing short of an epic, but it is a merit to his writing that he manages to make 1,300 pages of history, philosophy, and politics breeze past. The table of contents and the organization of the book deserve special mention, as this work was intended as a handbook, and it serves that function remarkably, each chapter giving a general overview, organized in such a way that a reader can find exactly what they're looking for, as well as titles for further reading and reference.
Reading the book cover to cover, though undoubtedly one hell of a task, is also one of the most fulfilling intellectual exercises I've ever had the joy of completing. Marx has left his mark on history, and this book is an entire ocean of background knowledge to the intellectual currents of any and all countries that have been affected by Communism. It is also a case study in the use and abuse of reason, how a set of ideas form into a Doctrine or an otherwise organized body, and how these can be used for political, social, or cultural ends. As Marx argued for the "End of History", it could be argued that Marxism as a discipline found the End(s) of Philosophy, the bounds to what could be accomplished, justified, or rationalized, by mere ideas alone, till philosophy is irrevocably transformed. Perhaps into ideology, perhaps into sheer political force, perhaps into mere commonplace truisms, but definitely not unchanged.
One hell of a book, and one I'll no doubt come back to time and time again, though I'll probably never read it in its entirety again.
In tracing the background, formation, reception, and eventual ossification of Marx and his writings, Kołakowski achieves a history and analysis of Marxism unparalleled in scope, clarity, and rigor.
This book is nothing short of an epic, but it is a merit to his writing that he manages to make 1,300 pages of history, philosophy, and politics breeze past. The table of contents and the organization of the book deserve special mention, as this work was intended as a handbook, and it serves that function remarkably, each chapter giving a general overview, organized in such a way that a reader can find exactly what they're looking for, as well as titles for further reading and reference.
Reading the book cover to cover, though undoubtedly one hell of a task, is also one of the most fulfilling intellectual exercises I've ever had the joy of completing. Marx has left his mark on history, and this book is an entire ocean of background knowledge to the intellectual currents of any and all countries that have been affected by Communism. It is also a case study in the use and abuse of reason, how a set of ideas form into a Doctrine or an otherwise organized body, and how these can be used for political, social, or cultural ends. As Marx argued for the "End of History", it could be argued that Marxism as a discipline found the End(s) of Philosophy, the bounds to what could be accomplished, justified, or rationalized, by mere ideas alone, till philosophy is irrevocably transformed. Perhaps into ideology, perhaps into sheer political force, perhaps into mere commonplace truisms, but definitely not unchanged.
One hell of a book, and one I'll no doubt come back to time and time again, though I'll probably never read it in its entirety again.
September 12, 2010
A brilliant history of Marxism, from its founders through the disintegration of Marxist thought in the early 1980s. Yes--- Marx is getting a second look here in an era of global economic meltdown, and that's a good thing, if only as an antidote to the free-market triumphalist vapourings of the last generation. But Kolakowski reminds us of what Marxism became in the 20th-century and how easily what began as a call for justice became a system that destroyed tens of millions of lives and left eastern Europe and Russia in economic ruins.
There was a time (yes, really) back at the end of the 1970s when Western economies seemed to be failing, when Brezhnev's USSR seemed to winning foreign policy victories everywhere, and Marxism joined with Third World nationalism was desperately chic. Yes--- a time when no self-respecting intellectual in Paris or London or Manhattan would've rejected Marx. Kolakowski was among the first thinkers to subject Marxism to a clear philosophical critique, to point out how easily calls for revolution became excuses for suppressing human rights, to ask exactly what Marxism meant for individuals and societies.
I remain suspicious of Kolakowski's religious influences, but "Main Currents of Marxism" is a woefully-neglected masterpiece--- a magisterial work that's clearly worth reading.
There was a time (yes, really) back at the end of the 1970s when Western economies seemed to be failing, when Brezhnev's USSR seemed to winning foreign policy victories everywhere, and Marxism joined with Third World nationalism was desperately chic. Yes--- a time when no self-respecting intellectual in Paris or London or Manhattan would've rejected Marx. Kolakowski was among the first thinkers to subject Marxism to a clear philosophical critique, to point out how easily calls for revolution became excuses for suppressing human rights, to ask exactly what Marxism meant for individuals and societies.
I remain suspicious of Kolakowski's religious influences, but "Main Currents of Marxism" is a woefully-neglected masterpiece--- a magisterial work that's clearly worth reading.
February 8, 2009
The great value of this book is that despite its title it goes into many smaller currents of Marxist thought beyond the big ones of orthodox Social Democracy, Leninism, and Stalinism. The reason for the disjunction is that the book was originally issued in three volumes, each one being the size of a normal book. That amount of space gives you room to classify things as "Main Currents" that you otherwise wouldn't be able to do. I originally read this in its three volume form at a community college in Florida, mostly skipping over the very beginning and focussing on the later stuff. Now it's back in print and in one volume. Like a lot of other books out there, best to find it used. Kolakowski was a Polish dissident and so gives a relatively neutral point of view. Unfortunately, after he emigrated to the U.S. from his temporary home of England he gradually became more and more conservative, but this book is pretty much straightforward.
September 22, 2013
This excellent survey work traces communism from the early days of the Communist Manifesto and the Paris Commune all the way down to Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnam War. From Rosa Luxembourg to Leon Trotsky, from Gramsci to Castro, and from Marx, Engels to Lenin, this remains the definitive work on Marxism. The work is heavily theoretical, explaining all the ideas of every communist thinker that ever was, even touching on Marx's doctoral dissertation concerning Prometheus and Epicurus. If you want to understand philosophy better and the history of the twentieth century, then you must read Kolakowski.
April 17, 2012
Main Currents in Marxism is a massive guide to Marxism and Marxist history. It's very readable. The author also gives information to help make sense of the dynamics of the various Marxist ideas, how these ideas varied, and the book itself is a valuable resource for major Marxist thinkers to people who are not as familiar as they could be. While this is a book where skipping sections is justifiable, this is the book I'd probably recommend to anybody looking to understand Marxism. (Aside from the primary source documents)
June 19, 2009
Every theistic Marxist in the world should educate themselves with Kolakowski's works. I literally expect to be a religious yet critical person by reading his works. This books comprises his previously separated 3 volumes of The Founder, The Golden Age & the Decline of Marxism. Read Kolakowski and be a Refusenik Christian!
October 16, 2009
I can't read this entire book since it's a huge tome and deeply philosophical which isn't my forte. What I have read was extremely well written and interesting. This author seemed to have covered every possible thinker who influenced it. It might be the ultimate book on Marxism.
October 20, 2014
Read this in Dutch. Interesting introduction to marxism, but a bit heavy. Broad scope.
February 10, 2014
An intricately woven,dense and illuminating tome tracing the threads of the various elaborations, distortions, reworkings and mutations of not only Marxist thought but 'modern' socialism(s) (such as Owens, Fourier and Lassalle) more broadly.
I have a love/hate relationship with these intellectuals (and artists, in some cases) because I see a sweeping change which will burn away the current conceptions of the modern world, wealth, 'progress,' etc. but I also know that most of those dedicated to these forms of socialist thought have become (or would have been) the last century's greatest killers, tyrants and enslavers.
For as much as people think they know about critical theory, it seems they are still unfamiliar with Frankfurt School and the ways in which they (and Gramsci) influenced political thought and action. The critique is not always incorrect, but ultimately, the project of Horkheimer et al. seems doomed to failure and overly reductive in its analysis of power.
I have a love/hate relationship with these intellectuals (and artists, in some cases) because I see a sweeping change which will burn away the current conceptions of the modern world, wealth, 'progress,' etc. but I also know that most of those dedicated to these forms of socialist thought have become (or would have been) the last century's greatest killers, tyrants and enslavers.
For as much as people think they know about critical theory, it seems they are still unfamiliar with Frankfurt School and the ways in which they (and Gramsci) influenced political thought and action. The critique is not always incorrect, but ultimately, the project of Horkheimer et al. seems doomed to failure and overly reductive in its analysis of power.
July 11, 2023
A sprawling and well-written history of Marxist philosophy (primarily western canon). In particular, his treatment of Hegelian Dialectics is succinct and easy to follow.
The exploration of para-Marxist thinkers in the Frankfurt School and others like Gramsci is certainly a bit weaker (as has been well noted) but the scholarship on display here makes this collection well worth the cost of admission.
The exploration of para-Marxist thinkers in the Frankfurt School and others like Gramsci is certainly a bit weaker (as has been well noted) but the scholarship on display here makes this collection well worth the cost of admission.
November 4, 2019
Simply the best objective analysis and evaluation of Marx and Engels I've read by a long shot. I have to emphasize objective because even a great thinker such as Murray Rothbard got totally carried away with his critique of Marx.
September 17, 2017
can't recommend this enough
September 22, 2021
Im dalej tym gorzej
July 3, 2025
5/5 Stars - The Indispensable Masterpiece on Marxism's Grand Trajectory
Leszek Kołakowski's "Main Currents of Marxism: The Founders, The Golden Age, The Breakdown" is not merely a book; it is a monumental, staggering achievement of intellectual history, philosophical analysis, and critical scholarship. Across its three substantial volumes (often presented as a single formidable hardcover), Kołakowski delivers the most comprehensive, incisive, and balanced examination of Marxism ever written. It is, without hyperbole, a definitive five-star work that every serious student of history, philosophy, and political thought simply must engage with.
Kołakowski embarks on an epic journey, tracing the intellectual and historical development of Marxism from its foundational figures like Marx and Engels, through its diverse theoretical flourishing in the "Golden Age" (covering thinkers like Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci, Lukács, and the Frankfurt School), to its eventual "Breakdown" and the disillusionment with its practical applications and theoretical impasses. This is not a partisan screed, nor is it a simplistic historical recount. Instead, Kołakowski offers a profound philosophical critique from the perspective of someone who once deeply engaged with, and later intellectually departed from, Marxism.
What makes this work so utterly brilliant and deserving of a perfect score is its unparalleled depth and integrity. Kołakowski possesses a rare combination of immense erudition, philosophical rigor, and a clear, eloquent prose style (even in translation). He delves into the nuances of each thinker's ideas, meticulously dissecting their arguments, exposing their contradictions, celebrating their intellectual strengths, and unflinchingly pinpointing their fatal flaws. He treats his subjects with fairness, attempting to understand them on their own terms before offering his devastating critiques.
The true power of "Main Currents" lies in its ability to illuminate not just what Marxism was, but why it held such immense intellectual and political appeal, and why it ultimately failed to deliver on its emancipatory promises, often leading to totalitarian outcomes. It's a magisterial exploration of grand ideas, human aspiration, and tragic consequences.
While it is undeniably a challenging and lengthy read, requiring commitment and intellectual stamina, the reward is immeasurable. Kołakowski provides an education not just in Marxism, but in the history of ideas, the nature of ideology, and the complexities of human society. For anyone seeking to genuinely understand the most influential political and philosophical movement of the 19th and 20th centuries, its intellectual landscape, its rise, its fragmentation, and its ultimate decline, "Main Currents of Marxism" remains the ultimate, essential, and indispensable reference. It is a masterpiece that will continue to educate and provoke for generations.
Leszek Kołakowski's "Main Currents of Marxism: The Founders, The Golden Age, The Breakdown" is not merely a book; it is a monumental, staggering achievement of intellectual history, philosophical analysis, and critical scholarship. Across its three substantial volumes (often presented as a single formidable hardcover), Kołakowski delivers the most comprehensive, incisive, and balanced examination of Marxism ever written. It is, without hyperbole, a definitive five-star work that every serious student of history, philosophy, and political thought simply must engage with.
Kołakowski embarks on an epic journey, tracing the intellectual and historical development of Marxism from its foundational figures like Marx and Engels, through its diverse theoretical flourishing in the "Golden Age" (covering thinkers like Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci, Lukács, and the Frankfurt School), to its eventual "Breakdown" and the disillusionment with its practical applications and theoretical impasses. This is not a partisan screed, nor is it a simplistic historical recount. Instead, Kołakowski offers a profound philosophical critique from the perspective of someone who once deeply engaged with, and later intellectually departed from, Marxism.
What makes this work so utterly brilliant and deserving of a perfect score is its unparalleled depth and integrity. Kołakowski possesses a rare combination of immense erudition, philosophical rigor, and a clear, eloquent prose style (even in translation). He delves into the nuances of each thinker's ideas, meticulously dissecting their arguments, exposing their contradictions, celebrating their intellectual strengths, and unflinchingly pinpointing their fatal flaws. He treats his subjects with fairness, attempting to understand them on their own terms before offering his devastating critiques.
The true power of "Main Currents" lies in its ability to illuminate not just what Marxism was, but why it held such immense intellectual and political appeal, and why it ultimately failed to deliver on its emancipatory promises, often leading to totalitarian outcomes. It's a magisterial exploration of grand ideas, human aspiration, and tragic consequences.
While it is undeniably a challenging and lengthy read, requiring commitment and intellectual stamina, the reward is immeasurable. Kołakowski provides an education not just in Marxism, but in the history of ideas, the nature of ideology, and the complexities of human society. For anyone seeking to genuinely understand the most influential political and philosophical movement of the 19th and 20th centuries, its intellectual landscape, its rise, its fragmentation, and its ultimate decline, "Main Currents of Marxism" remains the ultimate, essential, and indispensable reference. It is a masterpiece that will continue to educate and provoke for generations.
March 16, 2017
How to review a classic?
The brick - or rather the breeze block - is finished. And with it crumbles the whole edifice of Marxism like the removal of a 12-angled stone from a Cuzco wall. K nails his colours to the mast in the 2 epilogues, and probably more so in the coruscating analysis of Maoism.
And yet it leaves in my soul a yearning on seeing the fall out from the middle and working classes into the growing under-class as part of the life we now live, whilst the rich get richer - an increasing plutocratic minority whilst the under-class grows and grows. Capitalism as it stands is a busted flush. K through his exposition of the history of Marxist thought tells us that
And finally to put the silver bullet in the corpse of Marx and the stake in the grave he writes
The only thing to do is to start again. The book that is as we cannot start the whole process again.
Expires......................
The brick - or rather the breeze block - is finished. And with it crumbles the whole edifice of Marxism like the removal of a 12-angled stone from a Cuzco wall. K nails his colours to the mast in the 2 epilogues, and probably more so in the coruscating analysis of Maoism.
The apocalyptic belief in the consummation of history, the inevitability of socialism, and the natural sequence of 'social formation'; the 'dictatorship of the proletariat’, the exultation of violence, faith in the automatic efficacy of nationalising industry, fantasies concerning a society without conflict and an economy without money – all these have nothing in common with the idea of democratic socialism. The latter’s purpose is to create institutions which can gradually reduce the subordination of production to profit, do away with poverty, diminish inequality, remove social barriers to educational opportunity, and minimise the threat to democratic liberties from state bureaucracy and the seductions of totalitarianism. All these efforts and attempts are doomed to failure unless they are firmly rooted in the value of freedom – what Marxists stigmatise as ‘negative’ freedom, i.e. the area of decision which society allows to the individual. This is not only because freedom is an intrinsic value requiring no justification beyond itself, but because without it societies are unable to reform themselves: despotic systems, lacking this self-regulating mechanism, can only correct their mistakes when these have lead to disaster.
And yet it leaves in my soul a yearning on seeing the fall out from the middle and working classes into the growing under-class as part of the life we now live, whilst the rich get richer - an increasing plutocratic minority whilst the under-class grows and grows. Capitalism as it stands is a busted flush. K through his exposition of the history of Marxist thought tells us that
Marxism is a doctrine of blind confidence that a paradise of universal satisfaction is awaiting us just round the corner. Almost all the prophecies of Marx and his followers have already proved to be false, but this does not disturb the spiritual certainty of the faithful any more than it did the chiliastic sects: for it is a certainty not based on any empirical premises or supposed ‘historical’ laws, but simply on the psychological need for certainty. In this sense Marxism performs the function of a religion, and its efficacy is of a religious character. But it is a caricature and a bogus form of religion, since it presents its temporal eschatology as a scientific system, which religious mythologies do not purport to be.
And finally to put the silver bullet in the corpse of Marx and the stake in the grave he writes
The anti-capitalist slogans we hear today contain a poorly articulated fear of rapidly growing technology, with it’s possible sinister side effects. No one can be certain whether our civilisation will be able to cope with the ecological, demographic and spiritual dangers it has caused or whether it will fall victim to catastrophe. So we cannot tell whether the present ‘anti-capitalist’, ‘anti-globalist’ and related obscurantist movements and ideas will quietly fade away and one day become to seem as pathetic as the legendary Luddites at the beginning of the nineteenth century, or whether they will maintain their strength and fortify their trenches.So why do we as left wingers and even liberals run around and tear ourselves apart? Might it be because we see capitalism as a failing system, and it's failure is not just about the demise of a system, but it is the death bed of the human race itself in it's constant demand for more and a blind chase to profit before everything, leading not only to the holocaust of humanity but the death of the Earth itself. I want to live fulfilled and for the humanity of the future to be able to live full and fulfilled lives.
The only thing to do is to start again. The book that is as we cannot start the whole process again.
Expires......................
September 13, 2016
Big realization: an article in the conservative German newspaper FAZ employed the exact language Leszek was using to mar Gyögy Lukasz in their article on Adorno. They tried to mar Adorno by association since there is no compromising enough phrasing that's not commonplace on Adorno in this book, but on Lukasz he's being extremely mean. So this can be used to throw poo on everyone who ever came in contact with Lukasz, too!
Leszek is often outspoken and extravagant which makes his opinions somewhat amusing if you know what he's talking about and also extremely easy to spot in people (and their number is legion) who never read anything else on his subjects.
The general judgement on Marxism in this book is drawn from Dostoyevsky's implied opinion on all of his straw liberals and nietzscheans; which is also discussed by the devil and an early Soviet bonze in the very beginning of the Master and Margarita and which also was shared by Solzhenytsin. Apparently this was the most heretic thing one could even think in the Socialist block but in Western Europe it just got him summarized as a christian marxist. Christian Marxists aren't that uncommon here since our two biggest institutions are trade unions and churches.
I read just a couple of the articles. So far my conclusion is: it's not all that bad to have three tomes by a defrocked professor from communist Poland sitting on your book shelf somewhere between Ludwig Feuerbach and Jean Meslier.
Leszek is often outspoken and extravagant which makes his opinions somewhat amusing if you know what he's talking about and also extremely easy to spot in people (and their number is legion) who never read anything else on his subjects.
The general judgement on Marxism in this book is drawn from Dostoyevsky's implied opinion on all of his straw liberals and nietzscheans; which is also discussed by the devil and an early Soviet bonze in the very beginning of the Master and Margarita and which also was shared by Solzhenytsin. Apparently this was the most heretic thing one could even think in the Socialist block but in Western Europe it just got him summarized as a christian marxist. Christian Marxists aren't that uncommon here since our two biggest institutions are trade unions and churches.
I read just a couple of the articles. So far my conclusion is: it's not all that bad to have three tomes by a defrocked professor from communist Poland sitting on your book shelf somewhere between Ludwig Feuerbach and Jean Meslier.
December 5, 2017
I picked up this book in order to gain a better understanding of Marxism and its historical significance. I was not disappointed. Kolakowski brilliantly lays out the various "currents" of Marxism as they passed through generations of intellectuals.
He starts with a chapter on the "Origins of Dialectic" - no doubt the most difficult chapter in the book! - in order to set the stage for the kinds of philosophical problems that the young Marx was grappling with. He then gives an exposition of Marxist thought based on the writings of Marx and Engels. The second part ("Golden Age") focuses on the various interpretations of Marxism present in the late 19th century by people such as Karl Kautsky and Rosa Luxemburg, before settling on Lenin and describing the history of Marxist-Leninism and the Soviet state. His analysis of the Soviet dictatorship is particularly thought-provoking; he argues that "Stalinism" arose as the natural development of Leninism. Finally, Kolakowski describes some of the more recent trends in Marxist/quasi-Marxist thought such as the Frankfurt School (including a whole chapter on Herbert Marcuse) the New Left, the revisionism in the post-Stalin years, and the New Left, before closing with a section on Maoism.
Overall a highly recommended read for anybody who is interested in the history of one of the most influential "ideologies" to come about in recent times.
He starts with a chapter on the "Origins of Dialectic" - no doubt the most difficult chapter in the book! - in order to set the stage for the kinds of philosophical problems that the young Marx was grappling with. He then gives an exposition of Marxist thought based on the writings of Marx and Engels. The second part ("Golden Age") focuses on the various interpretations of Marxism present in the late 19th century by people such as Karl Kautsky and Rosa Luxemburg, before settling on Lenin and describing the history of Marxist-Leninism and the Soviet state. His analysis of the Soviet dictatorship is particularly thought-provoking; he argues that "Stalinism" arose as the natural development of Leninism. Finally, Kolakowski describes some of the more recent trends in Marxist/quasi-Marxist thought such as the Frankfurt School (including a whole chapter on Herbert Marcuse) the New Left, the revisionism in the post-Stalin years, and the New Left, before closing with a section on Maoism.
Overall a highly recommended read for anybody who is interested in the history of one of the most influential "ideologies" to come about in recent times.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews