What do you think?
Rate this book
Sócrates Encontra Marx
Utilizando a forma de diálogos filosóficos, Peter Kreeft analisa uma série de filósofos modernos e suas filosofias, num divertido e estranho encontro com Sócrates no mundo do além, na eternidade.
Neste primeiro volume, Sócrates confronta Marx, o fundador do comunismo. Com humor e inteligência, este livro desafia o leitor a entrar no mundo da filosofia, agarrando o que é certo e se livrando do que é errado. Muitos problemas são discutidos neste livro, como a propriedade privada, o valor do indivíduo e o individualismo, o materialismo, a questão da mulher e da família, as "três filosofias do homem" e muito mais.
Neste primeiro volume, Sócrates confronta Marx, o fundador do comunismo. Com humor e inteligência, este livro desafia o leitor a entrar no mundo da filosofia, agarrando o que é certo e se livrando do que é errado. Muitos problemas são discutidos neste livro, como a propriedade privada, o valor do indivíduo e o individualismo, o materialismo, a questão da mulher e da família, as "três filosofias do homem" e muito mais.
180 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2003
24 people are currently reading
308 people want to read
About the author
Peter Kreeft
189 books1,049 followersPeter Kreeft is an American philosopher and prolific author of over eighty books on Christian theology, philosophy, and apologetics. A convert from Protestantism to Catholicism, his journey was shaped by his study of Church history, Gothic architecture, and Thomistic thought. He earned his BA from Calvin College, an MA and PhD from Fordham University, and pursued further studies at Yale. Since 1965, he has taught philosophy at Boston College and also at The King’s College. Kreeft is known for formulating “Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God” with Ronald K. Tacelli, featured in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics. A strong advocate for unity among Christians, he emphasizes shared belief in Christ over denominational differences.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
June 18, 2014
Peter Kreeft, Socrates Meets Jesus: The Father of Philosophy Cross-examines the Founder of Communism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003). Paperback / Kindle
The setting for all the books in Peter Kreeft’s Socrates Meets _____ series is Purgatory, where Socrates engages a famous philosopher in dialogue about one of the latter’s best-known books. Inspired by both Plato’s dialogues and Dante’s Divine Comedy, this setting gives Kreeft the opportunity to unpack—and even unwind—a philosopher’s arguments by use of close, but often humorous reasoning. Philosophers examined in this series include Descartes, Hume, Kant, Machiavelli, and Sartre.
This volume examines Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. The juxtaposition of Socrates and Marx allows for a theme that runs through the entirety of the dialogue, namely, the opposition between Socrates’ idealism and Marx’s materialism. Can ideas be universal and absolute, as Socrates maintains, or are they relative to the material forms of life that give rise to them, as Marx maintains? For example, is logic the same in every age, or does it change over time, resulting in a feudal logic, a bourgeois logic, and a proletarian logic, among others?
As post-Cold War readers, we know—at least, we should know—that Marx’s communist project is an abysmal failure, a historical tragedy that slaved millions rather than liberating anyone. And Socrates makes sure Marx understands this failure. (Evidently, in Purgatory, the past, present, and future are equally present to Socrates—a helpful literary device.)
This historical criticism of Communism, however important, does not occupy more space than it needs to in the dialogue. Far greater and closer attention is paid to Marx’s ideas themselves, not simply the consequences of those ideas. Where Kreeft’s Socratic dialogue succeeds brilliantly is in showing the self-contradictions of Marx’s philosophy, its lack of empirical evidence, and its incredibly dour picture of the human race, one not supported by the reality of actual humans.
Socrates Meets Marx is well written, clearly argued, and humorously entertaining. I’d recommend reading a contemporary English translation of The Communist Manifesto, then picking up Kreeft’s little book as its constant companion. Highly recommended to students of philosophy!
P.S. If this review was helpful to you, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
The setting for all the books in Peter Kreeft’s Socrates Meets _____ series is Purgatory, where Socrates engages a famous philosopher in dialogue about one of the latter’s best-known books. Inspired by both Plato’s dialogues and Dante’s Divine Comedy, this setting gives Kreeft the opportunity to unpack—and even unwind—a philosopher’s arguments by use of close, but often humorous reasoning. Philosophers examined in this series include Descartes, Hume, Kant, Machiavelli, and Sartre.
This volume examines Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. The juxtaposition of Socrates and Marx allows for a theme that runs through the entirety of the dialogue, namely, the opposition between Socrates’ idealism and Marx’s materialism. Can ideas be universal and absolute, as Socrates maintains, or are they relative to the material forms of life that give rise to them, as Marx maintains? For example, is logic the same in every age, or does it change over time, resulting in a feudal logic, a bourgeois logic, and a proletarian logic, among others?
As post-Cold War readers, we know—at least, we should know—that Marx’s communist project is an abysmal failure, a historical tragedy that slaved millions rather than liberating anyone. And Socrates makes sure Marx understands this failure. (Evidently, in Purgatory, the past, present, and future are equally present to Socrates—a helpful literary device.)
This historical criticism of Communism, however important, does not occupy more space than it needs to in the dialogue. Far greater and closer attention is paid to Marx’s ideas themselves, not simply the consequences of those ideas. Where Kreeft’s Socratic dialogue succeeds brilliantly is in showing the self-contradictions of Marx’s philosophy, its lack of empirical evidence, and its incredibly dour picture of the human race, one not supported by the reality of actual humans.
Socrates Meets Marx is well written, clearly argued, and humorously entertaining. I’d recommend reading a contemporary English translation of The Communist Manifesto, then picking up Kreeft’s little book as its constant companion. Highly recommended to students of philosophy!
P.S. If this review was helpful to you, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
August 5, 2011
Two books that should be read together are The Communist Manifesto and Socrates Meets Marx and they will be if you read the latter. In Socrates Meets Marx, Marx wakes up in Purgatory only to find Socrates there to question him and make him see himself as he really is. This is Hell for Marx and Heaven for Socrates who is still pursuing his life's mandate to "know thyself" by cross examination even after death. In Purgatory you cannot lie and thus you cannot evade yourself. Socrates goes line by line (almost) through Marx's Communist Manifesto (and using incidents in the life of Marx and some of his other writings) questioning the father of Communism and revealing him to be the hater of mankind that he really was. Since they are out of time and are in Eternity, Socrates shows Marx the horror his ideas have wrought in the twentieth century. I especially love the ending:
MARX: Am I in Hell?
SOCRATES: You are in yourself forever. Whether that is Heaven or Hell is up to you.
MARX: I have a choice then?
SOCRATES: On earth you had the choice each moment to open or close your eyes to the truth. No oppression or prison could remove that freedom. Here, you no longer have that choice; here, no eye can close. The only choices here are the ones we made on earth, but now seen with total clarity and confronted. That seeing is the purgatorial process you have begun with me. But even there, in the first world, you had no freedom really to escape from yourself, only your self-consciousness. The eye remains even when it closes. For there really is a self, and you yourself are the one person you can never escape, in life or in death.
MARX: Am I in an eternal prison, then? Will I never have my freedom?
SOCRATES: You will never have the freedom that everyone else who ever lived has had: the freedom from being Karl Marx.
The author of Socrates Meets Marx is Peter Kreeft Professor of Philosophy at Boston College. He has kept Socrates very busy after death with a whole series of Socrates meets various philosophers books. Socrates Meets Jesus is one of my favorites where Socrates goes to a modern, liberal university and takes some religious classes. The Unaborted Socrates is also great where he gets into it with an abortionist and abortion supporters. May the Father of Philosophy keep happily asking questions and helping all of us to "know ourselves" better in the process.
MARX: Am I in Hell?
SOCRATES: You are in yourself forever. Whether that is Heaven or Hell is up to you.
MARX: I have a choice then?
SOCRATES: On earth you had the choice each moment to open or close your eyes to the truth. No oppression or prison could remove that freedom. Here, you no longer have that choice; here, no eye can close. The only choices here are the ones we made on earth, but now seen with total clarity and confronted. That seeing is the purgatorial process you have begun with me. But even there, in the first world, you had no freedom really to escape from yourself, only your self-consciousness. The eye remains even when it closes. For there really is a self, and you yourself are the one person you can never escape, in life or in death.
MARX: Am I in an eternal prison, then? Will I never have my freedom?
SOCRATES: You will never have the freedom that everyone else who ever lived has had: the freedom from being Karl Marx.
The author of Socrates Meets Marx is Peter Kreeft Professor of Philosophy at Boston College. He has kept Socrates very busy after death with a whole series of Socrates meets various philosophers books. Socrates Meets Jesus is one of my favorites where Socrates goes to a modern, liberal university and takes some religious classes. The Unaborted Socrates is also great where he gets into it with an abortionist and abortion supporters. May the Father of Philosophy keep happily asking questions and helping all of us to "know ourselves" better in the process.
January 28, 2021
Um exercício dialético entre Sócrates e Karl Marx [num registo de «encontros improváveis.»]
As ideias de Marx são dissecadas de forma sarcástica e desafiadora pelo famoso método dialético de Sócrates; contudo, este livro não pretende ser imparcial.
De uma forma breve, mas crítica, a viabilidade do pensamento marxista é posta à prova: a revolução do proletariado, a educação, o desaparecimento da família burguesa, a abolição da propriedade privada, as discordâncias com o pensamento hegeliano, etc.
É uma leitura interessante para quem procura uma contraposição forte ao marxismo mas os argumentos não são desenvolvidos exaustivamente. O livro precisava de uma complexificação mais sólida. Contudo, o autor escreve de forma bem-humorada e concisa.
As ideias de Marx são dissecadas de forma sarcástica e desafiadora pelo famoso método dialético de Sócrates; contudo, este livro não pretende ser imparcial.
De uma forma breve, mas crítica, a viabilidade do pensamento marxista é posta à prova: a revolução do proletariado, a educação, o desaparecimento da família burguesa, a abolição da propriedade privada, as discordâncias com o pensamento hegeliano, etc.
É uma leitura interessante para quem procura uma contraposição forte ao marxismo mas os argumentos não são desenvolvidos exaustivamente. O livro precisava de uma complexificação mais sólida. Contudo, o autor escreve de forma bem-humorada e concisa.
September 8, 2016
O livro é ruim e chato de ler. Sócrates é desenhado como Soberbo e arrogante, enquanto Marx é detalhado como impulsivo, agressivo e mimado nas argumentações. O autor, como todos, claramente tem um ponto de vista católico para a história que inventa. Mas, o livro não é de todo ruim e inútil: serve ainda de mal exemplo de livro.
December 25, 2017
Original review: "A useful book for thinking about how to direct an argument (Socrates is good at avoiding misdirection) and for understanding the personality of Marx."
I reread this book three years later, after becoming more familiar with Marx, and discovered that it was not nearly as convincing as I had remembered. The most meaningful part of the book is Socrates' attack on materialism, but here I discover that the book begs the question of epistemology -- something it is evident that Kreeft is fond of, due to his setting the book in Catholic Purgatory, and I am sure the other books in his "Socrates meets such-and-such" series exhibit similar logic.
Other major parts of the book, (1) the reading of the Communist Manifesto and (2) the analysis of Communism In Practice, are both based heavily on straw men. There is a plodding conversation about the meaning of history, in which "history" is assumed to include "every thing that ever happened." There are also some outright misinterpretations which could have been resolved with some in-person conversations, even with professors at Kreeft's own Boston College.
All in all, a terrible gift for a left-winger. Good if you don't actually care about Marx.
I reread this book three years later, after becoming more familiar with Marx, and discovered that it was not nearly as convincing as I had remembered. The most meaningful part of the book is Socrates' attack on materialism, but here I discover that the book begs the question of epistemology -- something it is evident that Kreeft is fond of, due to his setting the book in Catholic Purgatory, and I am sure the other books in his "Socrates meets such-and-such" series exhibit similar logic.
Other major parts of the book, (1) the reading of the Communist Manifesto and (2) the analysis of Communism In Practice, are both based heavily on straw men. There is a plodding conversation about the meaning of history, in which "history" is assumed to include "every thing that ever happened." There are also some outright misinterpretations which could have been resolved with some in-person conversations, even with professors at Kreeft's own Boston College.
All in all, a terrible gift for a left-winger. Good if you don't actually care about Marx.
January 17, 2009
Very sweet book in this series. I love Kreeft.
Read
November 21, 2010Socrates, "There are scientist who do not believe in natural selection". That is Kreeft's take on things. Kreeft's Socrates celebrates the unexamined life. Very strange.
Nice concept, wrong author.
Nice concept, wrong author.
January 10, 2015
It is fun to watch a fictional Socrates rhetorically destroy Karl Marx. I haven't read any Marx or Socrates and still found it very interesting and entertaining.
March 25, 2015
This might be the worst book I've ever read. Kreeft's Socrates is inexplicably a Christian capitalist, and even more perplexing, a homophobe. Marx on the other hand, has the grasp on Marxism that you may expect from a student assigned to do a report on The Communist Manifesto. Frequently the discussion focuses on Marx's personal life, and Kreeft's bizarre insistence on Marx's shabby appearance and smell are dangerously reminiscent of certain antisemitic views held during Marx's lifetime.
February 6, 2018
The way the book is written is interesting. A fictitious dialogue between Marx and Socrates. The problem is that it contains intellectually dishonest content. The author does not know the Marxist philosophy and tries through a comic form refutes it. The problem is that anyone who knows the minimum of philosophy will know that it is shallow ideology, and that "criticism" is very similar to those texts of Facebook thinkers.
March 19, 2019
This book cross-examines Communism and gives it a very sound thrashing. Socrates not only points out the historical consequences of Communism, but also its logical inconsistencies. It started side-splittingly hilarious, but as I continued reading, the tone got more serious.
So the next time you read the Communist Manifesto, get THIS book... you're going to need it.
So the next time you read the Communist Manifesto, get THIS book... you're going to need it.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 7, 2017
Um simples livro que proporciona uma reflexão do desvirtuoso e mesquinho pensamento de Marx.
July 31, 2022
This text gravely misrepresents both Socrates and Marx. The author, a philosophy professor, apparently is unable to complete one of the central tasks of philosophy- fairly represent a philosophical opponent. He also ventriloquizes Socrates- who knew he was a free market capitalist Christian who opposes evolution! Additionally, the work would benefit from cited sources for its assertions about Marx’s life. Finally, the author frequently relies on ventriloquizing Marx as as a childish man who refuses to engage in logical argument and devolves into name-calling opponents— and as a man who is ultimately unequivocally refuted by the end of the work, by his own admission. Choosing to represent Marx with this type of character is a choice the author has the right to make, certainly, but it does not lend credibility to a philosophy professor’s work.
As someone who does not completely agree with Marx but has read quite a bit of his work, there are many places where the author (through Socrates) provides an objection to Marx which is answered by his work, or relies on a misinterpretation of his work, but Marx is unable to answer the objection. Alternately, Marx is ventriloquized in this text as saying something which is contradicted by his writings. Various topics of misrepresentation are below, although there are many others.
DID MARX CREATE COMMUNISM? WERE THERE COMMUNISTS BESIDES MARX?— The author repeatedly makes the claim that Marx and Engels were the only communists in Europe during the time Marx was writing, or that Marx created communism (page 34, 37, but also elsewhere). This is frankly a ludicrous claim only justifiable if “communism” is defined as “Marxism”. In fact, Victor d’Hupay, writing in the 1700s, was the first to use the word “communism” in print in its modern sense (http://www.colonialsense.com/Society-...). A famous example of someone who would be considered a “communist” before Marx is Phillippe Buonarroti, who wrote Babe’s Conspiracy for Equality which contains the idea that social “burdens, productions, and advantages ought to be equally divided,”. Some others who theorized communist ideas before before Marx include Charles Fourier, Gabriel Bonnet de Mably, and Sylvain Maréchal. Thus, it is clear that the author’s claims of Marx creating communism are also unfounded.
FREE WILL- On page 83, the author ventriloquizes Marx as saying “[f]ree will is an illusion”, instead arguing that Marx believed people were completely shaped by their circumstances. A corollary objection to Marx, then, that the author proposes is questioning how Marx could have thought of communist ideas if he lived in a capitalist society and was supposedly entirely shaped by his material circumstances. In fact, this is a gross mischaracterization and misunderstanding of Marx; he writes in the third thesis of Theses on Feueurbach that “[t]he materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances”. Thus, Marx himself disagrees with the materialist idea that people are entirely shaped by their circumstances and instead allows for the idea that people can have ideas counter to the material conditions of their time.
SPECIES AND SPECIES-BEING- The author claims that Marx believed ““there is no such thing as an unchanging human nature, or “species-being””, and that ““there are no real species”. Frankly I’m not sure how the author made this large of an error; Marx used the word species-being to describe his conception of human nature. He argues that the unique attribute of the human species (i.e., “species-being”) is “free, conscious activity” (Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Estranged Labor 29-30). Whereas non-human animals are “immediately one with [their] life activity”- that is, they are not conscious of their actions, they simply do them unconsciously, humans “make [their] life activity the object of [their] will and of [their] consciousness”. So, whereas non-human animals don’t have the capacity to reflect on their actions, they simply do them, humans have their actions and also their conscious reflections on their actions. Humans have a “self” besides their actions- their conscious reflections. Marx concludes this idea, “[c]onscious life activity distinguishes man immediately from animal… it is just because of this that he is a species-being”. Therefore, it is clear Marx does not repudiate the idea of “species-being”, but upholds it and upholds differences between species.
EVOLUTION- apparently Socrates has adopted various Christian beliefs since his lifetime in the 400s BCE! For example, Socrates states in this book that based on flaws in the theory of evolution, “[Marx] must either give up evolution, or give up atheism and admit a God to explain it”, and that “[a] [g]od would totally undermine [Marx’s] whole scientific materialism… And… evolution [is] the only alternative to divine design in explaining the order in nature. It is science’s trump card in its ongoing battle against religion and superstition.” (107-8). This argument is problematic for all sorts of reasons, from the theorization of evolution as mutually exclusive with a religious belief, the arguments presented against evolution, and even the fact that this argument is in this book. Marx’s thoughts on natural evolution are barely mentioned in his works and not relevant to his political and economic philosophy. It is unclear why this work includes this argument about evolution which Marx did not write intensively about— unless one sees “Marxism” as a synonym for a conservative Christian “culture war” boogeyman encompassing progressive social ideologies, atheism, evolution, science, anti-theism, and other similar ideas.
TRUTH- For example, on page 16 in my text, Socrates asks ““Oh, just one little thing: Is [the Communist Manifesto] true?”. Marx replies ““True? Of course it’s true! It changed the world, didn’t it? Didn’t you say that? It succeeded.” Socrates responds with the objection that Marx would not call Christianity true although it is believed by many people. Marx frequently brings up how widely believed Christianity is in his works (for example, in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right), and also how he doesn’t believe in it. How, then, is this objection presented as something that Socrates poses to stump Marx?
THE SELF- On page 10, Socrates asserts that Marx does not believe in a “self”, which Marx apparently agrees with according to the author. In Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, under the section called “Estranged Labour”, Marx describes “the relation of the worker to his own activity as… not belonging to him”, “the worker’s own physical and mental energy, his personal life”, and “self-estrangement”. It seems clear from these passages that Marx believes in a ‘self’ which can be alienated from his own labor, who can have his own activity, energy, and personal life.
FOUCAULT- On page 37, Socrates asks Marx, “Then you do not agree with those disciples of yours who say that truth is only the hypocritical mask on the face of political power?”, implying Foucault as this ‘disciple’. Foucault is widely considered not to be a Marxist at all. In fact, he’s categorized as a postmodernist, which means quite a few things but broadly that he doesn’t believe in metanarratives, or large narratives about history. Marxism is a metanarrative, so by definition Foucault cannot be both a postmodernist and a Marxist according to the definitions presented here.
IS ALL HISTORY CLASS CONFLICT?- On page 39, Socrates suggests that some history is not class conflict because ““Surely classes have sometimes cooperated—for instance, against foreign enemies or for religious purposes.” In fact, Marx’s theories incorporate this type of ‘cooperation’- the petty bourgeoisie class is in fact a part of the proletariat which will ally with the bourgeoisie during the revolution. It is obvious, then, that when Marx argues that history is class conflict, he does not mean that no opposing classes can ever cooperate for any reason. Therefore, Socrates’ argument is not an effective point against Marx.
CAN PEOPLE ACT OUT OF GENEROSITY?- On page 43-44, Socrates characterizes Marx as believing that people “act out of charity… none of the time”. This viewpoint is called psychological egoism, a belief that people cannot act out of genuine good will towards each other and can only act out of self-interest. Even a simple google search for “Marx psychological egoism” gives no indication that anything Marx wrote argued for this viewpoint.
SYSTEMIC RACISM- This book also primes the individual not to believe in things like systemic racism; on page 45, Socrates seems to argue that “oppression is caused by… wicked individuals and wicked choices” rather than systems, as Marx suggests. Using the same argument, it would follow that systemic racism does not exist, only racist people.
Also, the book would benefit from citations- Socrates frequently makes assertions about Marx, other communists, and other figures which are difficult to verify without a credible source. See the claims made about Marx keeping his housekeeper enslaved, or fathering his housekeeper’s child, or that ““every Communist of [Marx’s] day, came from the bourgeoisie” (83), or that there was no communist party in Marx’s time before the Manifesto was published.
As someone who does not completely agree with Marx but has read quite a bit of his work, there are many places where the author (through Socrates) provides an objection to Marx which is answered by his work, or relies on a misinterpretation of his work, but Marx is unable to answer the objection. Alternately, Marx is ventriloquized in this text as saying something which is contradicted by his writings. Various topics of misrepresentation are below, although there are many others.
DID MARX CREATE COMMUNISM? WERE THERE COMMUNISTS BESIDES MARX?— The author repeatedly makes the claim that Marx and Engels were the only communists in Europe during the time Marx was writing, or that Marx created communism (page 34, 37, but also elsewhere). This is frankly a ludicrous claim only justifiable if “communism” is defined as “Marxism”. In fact, Victor d’Hupay, writing in the 1700s, was the first to use the word “communism” in print in its modern sense (http://www.colonialsense.com/Society-...). A famous example of someone who would be considered a “communist” before Marx is Phillippe Buonarroti, who wrote Babe’s Conspiracy for Equality which contains the idea that social “burdens, productions, and advantages ought to be equally divided,”. Some others who theorized communist ideas before before Marx include Charles Fourier, Gabriel Bonnet de Mably, and Sylvain Maréchal. Thus, it is clear that the author’s claims of Marx creating communism are also unfounded.
FREE WILL- On page 83, the author ventriloquizes Marx as saying “[f]ree will is an illusion”, instead arguing that Marx believed people were completely shaped by their circumstances. A corollary objection to Marx, then, that the author proposes is questioning how Marx could have thought of communist ideas if he lived in a capitalist society and was supposedly entirely shaped by his material circumstances. In fact, this is a gross mischaracterization and misunderstanding of Marx; he writes in the third thesis of Theses on Feueurbach that “[t]he materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances”. Thus, Marx himself disagrees with the materialist idea that people are entirely shaped by their circumstances and instead allows for the idea that people can have ideas counter to the material conditions of their time.
SPECIES AND SPECIES-BEING- The author claims that Marx believed ““there is no such thing as an unchanging human nature, or “species-being””, and that ““there are no real species”. Frankly I’m not sure how the author made this large of an error; Marx used the word species-being to describe his conception of human nature. He argues that the unique attribute of the human species (i.e., “species-being”) is “free, conscious activity” (Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Estranged Labor 29-30). Whereas non-human animals are “immediately one with [their] life activity”- that is, they are not conscious of their actions, they simply do them unconsciously, humans “make [their] life activity the object of [their] will and of [their] consciousness”. So, whereas non-human animals don’t have the capacity to reflect on their actions, they simply do them, humans have their actions and also their conscious reflections on their actions. Humans have a “self” besides their actions- their conscious reflections. Marx concludes this idea, “[c]onscious life activity distinguishes man immediately from animal… it is just because of this that he is a species-being”. Therefore, it is clear Marx does not repudiate the idea of “species-being”, but upholds it and upholds differences between species.
EVOLUTION- apparently Socrates has adopted various Christian beliefs since his lifetime in the 400s BCE! For example, Socrates states in this book that based on flaws in the theory of evolution, “[Marx] must either give up evolution, or give up atheism and admit a God to explain it”, and that “[a] [g]od would totally undermine [Marx’s] whole scientific materialism… And… evolution [is] the only alternative to divine design in explaining the order in nature. It is science’s trump card in its ongoing battle against religion and superstition.” (107-8). This argument is problematic for all sorts of reasons, from the theorization of evolution as mutually exclusive with a religious belief, the arguments presented against evolution, and even the fact that this argument is in this book. Marx’s thoughts on natural evolution are barely mentioned in his works and not relevant to his political and economic philosophy. It is unclear why this work includes this argument about evolution which Marx did not write intensively about— unless one sees “Marxism” as a synonym for a conservative Christian “culture war” boogeyman encompassing progressive social ideologies, atheism, evolution, science, anti-theism, and other similar ideas.
TRUTH- For example, on page 16 in my text, Socrates asks ““Oh, just one little thing: Is [the Communist Manifesto] true?”. Marx replies ““True? Of course it’s true! It changed the world, didn’t it? Didn’t you say that? It succeeded.” Socrates responds with the objection that Marx would not call Christianity true although it is believed by many people. Marx frequently brings up how widely believed Christianity is in his works (for example, in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right), and also how he doesn’t believe in it. How, then, is this objection presented as something that Socrates poses to stump Marx?
THE SELF- On page 10, Socrates asserts that Marx does not believe in a “self”, which Marx apparently agrees with according to the author. In Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, under the section called “Estranged Labour”, Marx describes “the relation of the worker to his own activity as… not belonging to him”, “the worker’s own physical and mental energy, his personal life”, and “self-estrangement”. It seems clear from these passages that Marx believes in a ‘self’ which can be alienated from his own labor, who can have his own activity, energy, and personal life.
FOUCAULT- On page 37, Socrates asks Marx, “Then you do not agree with those disciples of yours who say that truth is only the hypocritical mask on the face of political power?”, implying Foucault as this ‘disciple’. Foucault is widely considered not to be a Marxist at all. In fact, he’s categorized as a postmodernist, which means quite a few things but broadly that he doesn’t believe in metanarratives, or large narratives about history. Marxism is a metanarrative, so by definition Foucault cannot be both a postmodernist and a Marxist according to the definitions presented here.
IS ALL HISTORY CLASS CONFLICT?- On page 39, Socrates suggests that some history is not class conflict because ““Surely classes have sometimes cooperated—for instance, against foreign enemies or for religious purposes.” In fact, Marx’s theories incorporate this type of ‘cooperation’- the petty bourgeoisie class is in fact a part of the proletariat which will ally with the bourgeoisie during the revolution. It is obvious, then, that when Marx argues that history is class conflict, he does not mean that no opposing classes can ever cooperate for any reason. Therefore, Socrates’ argument is not an effective point against Marx.
CAN PEOPLE ACT OUT OF GENEROSITY?- On page 43-44, Socrates characterizes Marx as believing that people “act out of charity… none of the time”. This viewpoint is called psychological egoism, a belief that people cannot act out of genuine good will towards each other and can only act out of self-interest. Even a simple google search for “Marx psychological egoism” gives no indication that anything Marx wrote argued for this viewpoint.
SYSTEMIC RACISM- This book also primes the individual not to believe in things like systemic racism; on page 45, Socrates seems to argue that “oppression is caused by… wicked individuals and wicked choices” rather than systems, as Marx suggests. Using the same argument, it would follow that systemic racism does not exist, only racist people.
Also, the book would benefit from citations- Socrates frequently makes assertions about Marx, other communists, and other figures which are difficult to verify without a credible source. See the claims made about Marx keeping his housekeeper enslaved, or fathering his housekeeper’s child, or that ““every Communist of [Marx’s] day, came from the bourgeoisie” (83), or that there was no communist party in Marx’s time before the Manifesto was published.
April 30, 2010
This was an interesting book. I found it on Amazon while looking for a book to help me understand Marxism. Since I recognized the author I was interested. Kreeft sets up the book as a conversation between Socrates and Marx during the afterlife. I like how logical Kreeft is in his arguments.
An excerpt from pg 109: "The objection could be summarized as follows, I think: Communism abolishes private property. But private property is a good thing. Therefore Communism abolishes a good thing. But whatever abolishes a good thing is a bad thing. Therefore Communism is a bad thing."
He continues: "The argument is locially valid, so if you want to tanswer it, you must either find a false premise or an ambiguous term. And you do agree with its first premise --- that Communism abolishes private property -- but not with its conclusion -- that communism is a bad thing. Is this correct?"
Marx then goes on to argue the ambiguous term "property"...
There were some parts that seemed to get logically technical but I just kept reading whether I understood it or not, figuring I was gaining information of sorts along the way anyhow. I'd be curious to read some of his other books in the "Socrates meets..." series, but not yet. Too many others on my "to read" list. And this one takes too much brain power from me to read while kids are running around the house.
An excerpt from pg 109: "The objection could be summarized as follows, I think: Communism abolishes private property. But private property is a good thing. Therefore Communism abolishes a good thing. But whatever abolishes a good thing is a bad thing. Therefore Communism is a bad thing."
He continues: "The argument is locially valid, so if you want to tanswer it, you must either find a false premise or an ambiguous term. And you do agree with its first premise --- that Communism abolishes private property -- but not with its conclusion -- that communism is a bad thing. Is this correct?"
Marx then goes on to argue the ambiguous term "property"...
There were some parts that seemed to get logically technical but I just kept reading whether I understood it or not, figuring I was gaining information of sorts along the way anyhow. I'd be curious to read some of his other books in the "Socrates meets..." series, but not yet. Too many others on my "to read" list. And this one takes too much brain power from me to read while kids are running around the house.
February 4, 2008
Can't say yet, it is a secret.
October 11, 2024
למי הספר הזה? כי מי שמבין קצת במרקס, יימצא אותו מיושן פשטני, וחסר התמקדות בעיקר, אבל בתור מבוא למרקס, זה גם לא עובד, צריך לדעת דבר או שניים, אז כנראה שהספר מיועד בעיקר לשונאי קומוניזם, (כלומר קומוניזם כפי שהם מבינים אותו מסין וברית המועצות) שרוצים לשמוע איך הם צודקים, ככה לפחות נשמע שהמחבר חש.
כמי שהרים את הספר הזה כדי ללמוד עוד קצת על שתי דמויות היסטוריות שמעניינות אותי במיוחד שאני רוצה בעצמי עוד לכתוב עליהם יכולתי להגיד "ככה בדיוק לא, ככה בדיוק אסור שיקרה לי", להתיימר להיכנס לנעליים של סוקרטס, אתה חייב להגיד על זה משהו! איזו הקדמה שקצת תצניע את עצמך, קריצת מטא קטנה לקוראים, משהו.
ואז, וזו דעתי בלבד כמובן, תכתוב דמויות בכלל, ודמויות היסטוריות שלא באמת הכרת בפרט, עם אמפטיה, כי אחרת, מאוד קשה להתחבר, אחרת יש לך שני בבונים אידיוטים שרבים עם עצמם בצורה תינוקית, ומתיימרים גם להיות שני הוגי דעות מהמשפיעים שידעה ההיסטוריה, אני הרגשתי שאני קורא בחילול הקודש.
המחבר החליט לנתח את המניפסט, לא הקפיטל, זה בסדר, זו החלטה קלה יותר, אבל אז, למה לקרוא לקפיטל גיבוב שטויות חסרת פשר? סתם, כי המחבר באופן אישי לא מצא בו עניין. התנועה היא בלתי נסבלת בין הניסיון של הסופר להיות אובייקטיבי ולטעון טיעונים לוגים מנעליו של סוקרטס (שבכל כתביו של אפלטון לא דיבר כ"כ הרבה) לבין עקיצות שאמורות כאילו להיות מצחיקות, אבל הן בעיקר מציקות ולא רלוונטיות.
המחבר כן אמר את זה, שהמניפסט הוא לא בדיוק ספר פילוסופיה, זה מניפסט, הוא נועד לתת השראה, ובכל זאת, הוא בחר בספר הזה לנתח ניתוח מעמיק מילה במילה, בעיניי זה לא מה שאמורים לעשות בו.
כמובן, שמארקס אמר הרבה שטויות שלא פוגשות את הקרקע או את טבע האדם, להגיד שקומוניזם כפי שמרקס הגה זה מיושן זו לא אמירה פורצת דרך, ובכל זאת נראה שהמחבר חושב שכן. נראה גם שהוא לא ממש מבין את הבעיה שיש עם קפיטליזם, הוא מתייחס לטיעונים באופן שטחי בלבד, לא זה לא שאנו מתייחסים לכל האנשים סביבנו במונחים של מסחר ותועלת, לא באופן מודע, אבל כסף שולט בנו ביותר מדי מובנים, אנחנו מטפלים ברגשות שלנו בעזרת צריכה מסוגים שונים, ובהחלט רואים את האחר עם שאלות כמו מה הוא יכול לתת לי, ועם זה נראה שהסופר לא מסכים או לא מבין.
גם האנשים שלא מסכימים עם קומוניזם היום, עדיין מבינים שהקומוניזם של ברית המועצות הוא לא הקומוניזם של מארקס, לא הסופר הזה, מבחינתו מרקס עומד מאחורי מה שנעשה שם, וחושב שהם כן ניסו להוציא את החזון שלו לפועל. הוא מדבר כאילו מרקס פושע, מה הוא עשה? הוא כתב ספרים שהוא השפיעו הרבנ בתקופתו ושאחר כך הגיעו אנשים ועיוותו אותם. בקיצור זה לא מאוד רלוונטי לחברה היום שכן זקוקה למהפכה, והניתוח התיאורטי הזה של משהו שהוא חי שהוא ראליסטי שהוא רוצה לשנות את העולם כמו הקומוניזם פשוט לא ממש עובד.
כמי שהרים את הספר הזה כדי ללמוד עוד קצת על שתי דמויות היסטוריות שמעניינות אותי במיוחד שאני רוצה בעצמי עוד לכתוב עליהם יכולתי להגיד "ככה בדיוק לא, ככה בדיוק אסור שיקרה לי", להתיימר להיכנס לנעליים של סוקרטס, אתה חייב להגיד על זה משהו! איזו הקדמה שקצת תצניע את עצמך, קריצת מטא קטנה לקוראים, משהו.
ואז, וזו דעתי בלבד כמובן, תכתוב דמויות בכלל, ודמויות היסטוריות שלא באמת הכרת בפרט, עם אמפטיה, כי אחרת, מאוד קשה להתחבר, אחרת יש לך שני בבונים אידיוטים שרבים עם עצמם בצורה תינוקית, ומתיימרים גם להיות שני הוגי דעות מהמשפיעים שידעה ההיסטוריה, אני הרגשתי שאני קורא בחילול הקודש.
המחבר החליט לנתח את המניפסט, לא הקפיטל, זה בסדר, זו החלטה קלה יותר, אבל אז, למה לקרוא לקפיטל גיבוב שטויות חסרת פשר? סתם, כי המחבר באופן אישי לא מצא בו עניין. התנועה היא בלתי נסבלת בין הניסיון של הסופר להיות אובייקטיבי ולטעון טיעונים לוגים מנעליו של סוקרטס (שבכל כתביו של אפלטון לא דיבר כ"כ הרבה) לבין עקיצות שאמורות כאילו להיות מצחיקות, אבל הן בעיקר מציקות ולא רלוונטיות.
המחבר כן אמר את זה, שהמניפסט הוא לא בדיוק ספר פילוסופיה, זה מניפסט, הוא נועד לתת השראה, ובכל זאת, הוא בחר בספר הזה לנתח ניתוח מעמיק מילה במילה, בעיניי זה לא מה שאמורים לעשות בו.
כמובן, שמארקס אמר הרבה שטויות שלא פוגשות את הקרקע או את טבע האדם, להגיד שקומוניזם כפי שמרקס הגה זה מיושן זו לא אמירה פורצת דרך, ובכל זאת נראה שהמחבר חושב שכן. נראה גם שהוא לא ממש מבין את הבעיה שיש עם קפיטליזם, הוא מתייחס לטיעונים באופן שטחי בלבד, לא זה לא שאנו מתייחסים לכל האנשים סביבנו במונחים של מסחר ותועלת, לא באופן מודע, אבל כסף שולט בנו ביותר מדי מובנים, אנחנו מטפלים ברגשות שלנו בעזרת צריכה מסוגים שונים, ובהחלט רואים את האחר עם שאלות כמו מה הוא יכול לתת לי, ועם זה נראה שהסופר לא מסכים או לא מבין.
גם האנשים שלא מסכימים עם קומוניזם היום, עדיין מבינים שהקומוניזם של ברית המועצות הוא לא הקומוניזם של מארקס, לא הסופר הזה, מבחינתו מרקס עומד מאחורי מה שנעשה שם, וחושב שהם כן ניסו להוציא את החזון שלו לפועל. הוא מדבר כאילו מרקס פושע, מה הוא עשה? הוא כתב ספרים שהוא השפיעו הרבנ בתקופתו ושאחר כך הגיעו אנשים ועיוותו אותם. בקיצור זה לא מאוד רלוונטי לחברה היום שכן זקוקה למהפכה, והניתוח התיאורטי הזה של משהו שהוא חי שהוא ראליסטי שהוא רוצה לשנות את העולם כמו הקומוניזם פשוט לא ממש עובד.
October 22, 2017
Dette er en veldig god bok faktisk. Sokrates bryter Marx "filosofi" og syn på en logisk, men forståelig måte. Konfliktene mellom ideologi, idealisme, marxisme og virkelighet, kommunismens farce fra dens oppfattelse, samt marxismens resultater ... Alt dette blir vist veldig kristallklart. Det bør leses sammen med "The Capital", av Marx, for å styrke egne konklusjoner.
October 26, 2017
Marxism is the most dangerous religious system the world has ever known.
June 5, 2024
Socrates shows all the holes and contradictions in the Communist Manifesto
August 2, 2025
Kreeft dismantles Marx's puerile ideology like a knife goes through butter.
September 18, 2021
Another fun Socrates-meets-a-great-thinker book by Kreeft. An entertaining and enlightening exposition through The Communist Manifesto using a Socratic dialogue between Marx and Socrates. It would be a useful commentary for the Manifesto to teach beginning philosophy students. Also some funny anecdotes thrown in about Marx's life.
Some of the funniest dialogues include if communism is a bourgeois idea given that everyone is imprisoned in his social class and Marx himself was from a bourgeois class; if Marx oppressed his wife and kid if bourgeois family is oppressive; if the historical dialectic is deterministic, why Marx bothers to call anyone to join the communist cause.
Parts of the book digress to mind-body dualism and freedom of the will which are less central to the theme of the Manifesto. But, it is ok for portraying Socrates wandering mind in the story.
The whole book highlights the defence communists use for abolishing private property, family, and, individuality because those notions under the bourgeois society did not work and were already destroyed by the bourgeois themselves. Marx's solution to all things is to kill the sickness of each institution by killing the patient, the institution. But such strategy which destroys what is known but still with some redeeming characters for an unknown communist utopia seems the most idealistic from Marx who claimed to be empirical, materialistic, and historical. Kreeft is successful to show many contradictory ideas in the Manifesto in an entertaining way.
Some of the funniest dialogues include if communism is a bourgeois idea given that everyone is imprisoned in his social class and Marx himself was from a bourgeois class; if Marx oppressed his wife and kid if bourgeois family is oppressive; if the historical dialectic is deterministic, why Marx bothers to call anyone to join the communist cause.
Parts of the book digress to mind-body dualism and freedom of the will which are less central to the theme of the Manifesto. But, it is ok for portraying Socrates wandering mind in the story.
The whole book highlights the defence communists use for abolishing private property, family, and, individuality because those notions under the bourgeois society did not work and were already destroyed by the bourgeois themselves. Marx's solution to all things is to kill the sickness of each institution by killing the patient, the institution. But such strategy which destroys what is known but still with some redeeming characters for an unknown communist utopia seems the most idealistic from Marx who claimed to be empirical, materialistic, and historical. Kreeft is successful to show many contradictory ideas in the Manifesto in an entertaining way.
July 30, 2025
What an indictment on Kreefts minimal understanding of not only Marx & communism, but of history and materialism.
Way to take a great idea and completely ruin it.
Easy to argue against a dead guy, but I'm sure Marx would've knocked you upside the head. Kreeft is an utter fool. What he lacks in creativity, he makes up for with dogmatic catholic takes and American capital jerking...propagandized nonsense. Don't buy this book, you will only suffer through.
Way to take a great idea and completely ruin it.
Easy to argue against a dead guy, but I'm sure Marx would've knocked you upside the head. Kreeft is an utter fool. What he lacks in creativity, he makes up for with dogmatic catholic takes and American capital jerking...propagandized nonsense. Don't buy this book, you will only suffer through.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews