Main Currents of Marxism: Its Rise, Growth and Dissolution Volume 3: The Breakdown

Główne nurty marksizmu #3

by Leszek Kołakowski, P.S. Falla (Translator)

Libro usado en buenas condiciones, por su antiguedad podria contener señales normales de uso

Genres: Philosophy, History, Politics

560 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1978

About the author

Distinguished 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."

Reviews

[AC · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read the section of Stalinism, 1-116 -- and had my fill. Like vol. II, this section was condensed, highly intelligent, and formidable. The other sections can be read as interest arises. The book is a bit dry, unfortunately, but this is due more to the subject matter (the scholasticism of Marxist debates) than to the author).

[K · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book serves as the last part of a praiseworthy effort by Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski, to present a critical history of Marxism as a sociopolitical, philosophical and economic doctrine. The last volume deals with Marxism's post-Lenin era and highlights the evident disintegration of Marxist literature.

Kolakowski was an ardent Marxist once, but soon became disillusioned when the Stalinist period saw a suppression of sciences, arts, philosophy, civil liberties and pretty much every aspect of human activity, all in the name of a despotic leader who rose to power through a system which had an authoritarian basis to begin with. Kolakowski's main argument is that Stalinism is a direct continuation of Leninism while the latter's roots can certainly be found in an interpretation of some of Marx's ambiguous works.

The author's main advantage is that he knows Marxist theory better than most and he's offering a ton of philosophical criticism to its most prominent thinkers. Bukharin and Trotsky are ridiculed, Stalin is addressed with a cynical attitude that pinpoints his obviously limited intellectual capabilities, the Frankfurt school is presented as an abstract, elitist and detached from Marxism think tank, while Maoism is referred as a childish theoretical attempt which has little or no philosophical value at all.

From all the thinkers presented, I found Marcuse's and Lukacs's chapters the most interesting since they're criticized to the extent that any effort to debate on the validity of their ideas seems pointless. While Kolakowski recognizes Lukacs's interepretation of the Hegelian relationship between subject and object as the most valid interpretation of Marx's own doctrine, he titles his chapter as ''Reason in the service of dogma''. He presents Lukacs as an intellectual coward, one who found a convenient theory to solve all problems of philosophy and history and went along with it without the slight criticism on its premises. On the other hand, Marcuse is shown to be a crypto-authoritarian and pretentious ideologue who can only be taken seriously by the ignorant youth or some academics who don't have any connection at all with empirical reality.

Gramsci and to a lesser extend Bloch (besides his pretentious verbalism and utopianist delusions) and Habermas, are given a free pass. Gramsci's ideas are in fact more interesting than Lenin's crude theory of reflection and his criticism of bureaucracy is definitely worth noticing at least within the confines of Marxist dogma.

While Kolakowski's work sounds as a polemic (or perhaps Lenin-style) attempt at debunking Marxian theory, this isn't the case at all. It's actually a very balanced, just and logical deconstruction that elevates philosophical and humanistic literature to new heights.

[Cengiz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Since in the last volume the author focuses on the politics of the 20th century, honestly it did not pay my attention that much. This volume did not meet my expectations about especially Gramsci.
However, he gives important knowledge about Frankfurt school, Stalinization and De-Stalinizaiton
and Trotsky.
While reading with the conscious of today we might be bored because our interpretation with regard to the cold war and the political thought it had produced have changed a lot since then.

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kolakowski finishes his history of ideas in the Marxist tradition in a singular style. At turns embittered and cutting, but always analytical and erudite; full of flowing prose punchlines and shade.

Leftists would better themselves by contending with Kolakowski's analyses. He has been forgotten due to his damning takes on the intellectual trends of the day, but time has borne out his assertions about the vapid vanity of Marcuse, the New Left and much of what passed for Marxism after Stalin's ascension.

The first paragraph of his Epilogue:

"Marxism has been the greatest fantasy of our century. It was a dream offering the prospect of a society of perfect unity, in which all human aspirations would be fulfilled and all values reconciled. It took over Hegel's theory of the 'contradictions of progress', but also the liberal-evolutionist belief that 'in the last resort' the course of history was inevitably for the better, and that man's increasing command over nature would, after an interval, be matched by increasing freedom. It owed much of its success to the combination of Messianic fantasies with a specific and genuine social cause, the struggle of the European working class against poverty and exploitation. This combination was expressed in a coherent doctrine with the absurd name (derived from Proudhon) of 'scientific socialism'-- absurd because the means of attaining an end may be scientific, but not the choice of the end itself. The name, however, reflected more than the mere cult of science which Marx shared with the rest of his generation. It expressed the belief, discussed critically more than once in the course of the present work, that human knowledge and human practice, directed by the will, must ultimately coincide and become inseparable in perfect unity: so that the choice of ends would indeed become identical with the cognitive and practical means of attaining them. The natural consequence of this confusion was the idea that the success of a particular social movement was a proof that it was scientifically 'true', or in effect, that whoever proved to be strong must have 'science' on his side. This idea is largely responsible for all the anti-scientific and anti-intellectual features of Marxism in its particular guise as the ideology of Communism."

Kolakowski continues, "To say that Marxism is a fantasy does not mean that it is nothing else. Marxism as an interpretation of past history must be distinguished from Marxism as a political ideology. No reasonable person would deny that the doctrine of historical materialism has been a valuable addition to our intellectual equipment and has enriched our understanding of the past. True, it has been argued that in a strict form the doctrine is nonsense and in a loose form it is a commonplace; but, if it has become a commonplace, this is largely thanks to Marx's originality."

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

Of the three books, this is the least successful. That is not to say it is a bad book. Far from it. However, the limitations and biases of Kolakowski come to the fore, particularly in the middle part of the book in his discussions of the Frankfurt school. First, what is there to commend the book? The half on the Soviet Union, the rise of Stalinism,the evaluation of Trotsky, and the decimation of the Communist movement in Europe by Orthodox Soviet Communism shines. Rather than being an aberration or deviation from some true Marxism, Kolakowski clearly sees and forcefully argues that the Bolshevik revolution emerged from the intellectual and political milieu of the European communist movements of the late 19th century. Though I agree with the premise that Leninism-Stalinism is a manifestation consistent with the philosophies of Marx and Engels, I am skeptical that it is the only possible solution. He rightly concludes that by treating Marx and Engels as infallible, the Bolshevik totalitarian regime inevitably followed. But this is not unique of Marxism. Any fundamentalist movement is inherently totalitarian and dependent upon terror for its legitimization. That is true whether the regime is communist, fascist or religious. The shortcomings of his approach are more pronounced in his treatment of the Frankfurt school. He focuses his attention on the critique of positivism, but he misses the strategic approach to the culture industry and the development of reificaiton as an existential threat to human emancipation. Overall, the book works even within the limitations of his approach. It is highly readable. And well worth the time.

[Wendelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

dnf. however, what I read of it suffices to recognize that the intellect at work here is of near heavenly power. book is magisterial. it is written for mere mortal understanding, yet there is never a superfluous sentence or concept. the author never shies away from meeting head-on the weight of some of the greatest and most influential thinkers of our time, and deconstructing them and their errors. Lenin and Trotsky and Bakunin's thought are examined succinctly, then dealt with thoroughly. the author undertook rigorous intellectual labors to equip himself with the capacities to wear the different academic hats necessary to examine the thinkers and social activists that defined and spread Marxism- ie. he becomes historian when necessary, metaphysical philosopher when necessary, etc.

[Luke Echo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rather enjoyable summary of Marxist tendiencies last century. I quite enjoyed the sections on Gramsci, Lukacs and the Frankfurt School.

This volume did seem more biased than the previous volumes. Kołakowski seems to have a certain disdain for the overly theoretical writers. But I think its clear in these sections that it is a position with a certain personal bias.

[Oolalaa · Rating 5 out of 5]

17/20

[Frederick · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned about the origins of the current political communism being pushed so hard in the United States today by studying its origins in Billington's Fire in the Minds of Men. I studied how socialist countries behave in The Black Book of Communism. I learned about how it started to play out here by reading Herbert Marcuse's works, and various works by Critical Race theorists, transgender Marxists, Feminists, Gay and Civil Rights Activists, Islamic fundamentalists, and radical environmentalists. I learned about how the Democratic Party's 'New Left' wing thinks. But this book is a clear revelation of what it means to be a Marxist and all of its varieties of thinking and expression. It is a clear presentation of Marxism's noteworthy 20th century philosophers. This is one of those books you have to read a couple of times to let it sink in. Our political and academic thought is becoming so much clearer to me now.

[Rudolph · Rating 3 out of 5]

alright, still learning a lot, but i think i'm starting to realize that leszek's personal gripe with the soviet union gets in the way of the facts. for example, he calls the soviets' contention that america used germ warfare in korea a "fantastical invention," which kind of stopped me in my tracks--here in 2021, most mainstream historians recognize this as a pretty plausible claim. this is part of a larger issue with kolakowski's analysis: he doesn't see western imperialism as a big deal, and therefore he frequently dismisses communist attempts to resist it as motivated by cynical self-interest on the part of the intelligentsia. (rather than collective interest on the part of countries who didn't want their resources bled dry by oligarchic multinationals.)

[Dreary · Rating 3 out of 5]

as the preface states this is a more evaluative personal account than the first two, which there is nothing inherently wrong with; it just so happens that his personality kinda sucks and that the commentary is a bit more sloppy and awkward this time.

[Differengenera · Rating 3 out of 5]

once the critiques of Stalinism and Trotskyism are dispensed with it's effectively useless, Sartre gets one page, Mao less. would have liked to read the book he could have written if he had equipped himself

[laurentiu]

0

[ItsReallyOliver · Rating 4 out of 5]

1500+ pages later and I'm thinking "damn I wish there were more"

[Harry Vincent · Rating 4 out of 5]

7/10

[Bernard English · Rating 4 out of 5]

After taking apart the Marxist thinkers for over 500 pages, why would any one even bother reading the original texts? Kolakowski does give one reason: that "as often happens with humanistic theories, the element of absurdity was effective in transmitting their rational content."

[Anna · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a third and the last volume of Main currents of marxism. Great ending of a trilogy on marxism. This volume explains the fall of marxism. Good lecture for everyone interested in philosophy.