What do you think?
Rate this book
Anti-Nietzsche
Nietzsche, the philosopher seemingly opposed to everyone, has met with remarkably little opposition himself. He remains what he wanted to be— the limit-philosopher of a modernity that never ends. In this provocative, sometimes disturbing book, Bull argues that merely to reject Nietzsche is not to escape his lure. He seduces by appealing to our desire for victory, our creativity, our humanity. Only by ‘reading like a loser’ and failing to live up to his ideals can we move beyond Nietzsche to a still more radical revaluation of all values—a subhumanism that expands the boundaries of society until we are left with less than nothing in common.
Anti-Nietzsche is a subtle and subversive engagement with Nietzsche and his twentieth-century interpreters—Heidegger, Vattimo, Nancy, and Agamben. Written with economy and clarity, it shows how a politics of failure might change what it means to be human.
Anti-Nietzsche is a subtle and subversive engagement with Nietzsche and his twentieth-century interpreters—Heidegger, Vattimo, Nancy, and Agamben. Written with economy and clarity, it shows how a politics of failure might change what it means to be human.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2011
24 people are currently reading
250 people want to read
About the author
Malcolm Bull
27 books11 followersMalcolm Bull is Professor of Art and the History of Ideas at Oxford University and a Senior Associate Research Fellow of Christ Church.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
June 16, 2012
In reading Nietzsche, one would never have thought to find Adorno pitted on the side of Nietzsche, but this is what one sees in the very first section of "Anti-Nietzsche" was a condemnation of the aesthetic as an attempt to defend other privileged but arbitrary notions of value. Anti-Nietscheanism is predicated first on seeing the manifestation of the aesthetic as a means of returning to "value" and defining power as the sovereign value over power. Bull's thesis then proceeds wildly from there, but it is based on four premises that many readers of Nietzsche have wanted to avoid: that the "Will to Power" was a legitimate text despite the editorial hand of Nietzsche's sister, two that we should take Nietzsche at his word at all times (like Italian scholars like Domenico Losurdo do), three that the reason why there are no anti-Nietzscheans is that both the Heideggerian readers of Nietzsche (Luc Nancy, Jacques Derrida, etc) and the other left readers of Nietzsche (who are rarely, if ever mentioned despite their influence such as Foucault, Bataille, Klossowski) apparently miss, and, four, that we need a leveling "negative" ecology that favors the Nietzsche's positive ecology that privileges embracing the sub-human.
While well-written and interestingly, if idiosyncratically argued, Bull can't seem to focus on his thesis long enough to fully develop what it means to read against Nietzsche to read as a sub-human. Not just to reject to Nietzsche's vision of excellence, but to reject the domain of excellence itself. It seems like Bull cannot establish what this would mean except for a quip about letting the animals retake the art museums, or embracing the teaming mass of life under purely extra-utilitarian grounds, embracing the great beast and falling towards humanity. He briefly hints that some of this is implicit in Gramsci, and the idea of passive revolution (which Gramsci saw as tending either fascist or, as Trotskyists would put it, Bonapartist) as a means of embracing the non-heroic. The implications for this Bull doesn't seem to be willing or perhaps able to articulate: What would such a political program look like? Is this a very complex restatement of the idea of the noble savage? Is this embracing a kind of Marxism beyond the proletarian to the bestial? It's hard to say, and Bull doesn't necessarily.
Yet hitting on the relationship between aesthetic value and economic value seems to be an articulation that is stated much more clearly and less abstractly in Pierre Bourdieu idea's around social capital, but Bourdieu's work doesn't have the hints of an nihilistic, philistine, and hyper-egalitarianism with the non-human. Perhaps Peter Singer's idea of the expending circle of empathy to all of life may apply here too, but then there is still a value there, so that isn't as radical as Bull seems to want the negative ecology to be either. Oddly, so sub-humanism seems too demanding for even Bull to completely articulate.
While well-written and interestingly, if idiosyncratically argued, Bull can't seem to focus on his thesis long enough to fully develop what it means to read against Nietzsche to read as a sub-human. Not just to reject to Nietzsche's vision of excellence, but to reject the domain of excellence itself. It seems like Bull cannot establish what this would mean except for a quip about letting the animals retake the art museums, or embracing the teaming mass of life under purely extra-utilitarian grounds, embracing the great beast and falling towards humanity. He briefly hints that some of this is implicit in Gramsci, and the idea of passive revolution (which Gramsci saw as tending either fascist or, as Trotskyists would put it, Bonapartist) as a means of embracing the non-heroic. The implications for this Bull doesn't seem to be willing or perhaps able to articulate: What would such a political program look like? Is this a very complex restatement of the idea of the noble savage? Is this embracing a kind of Marxism beyond the proletarian to the bestial? It's hard to say, and Bull doesn't necessarily.
Yet hitting on the relationship between aesthetic value and economic value seems to be an articulation that is stated much more clearly and less abstractly in Pierre Bourdieu idea's around social capital, but Bourdieu's work doesn't have the hints of an nihilistic, philistine, and hyper-egalitarianism with the non-human. Perhaps Peter Singer's idea of the expending circle of empathy to all of life may apply here too, but then there is still a value there, so that isn't as radical as Bull seems to want the negative ecology to be either. Oddly, so sub-humanism seems too demanding for even Bull to completely articulate.
October 8, 2021
I read a book last night that explores the Far Left's relationship with Nietzsche. It's called Anti-Nietzsche, and its author is a philosopher of aesthetics named Malcolm Bull.
To begin with, Nietzsche's intent as a philosopher and artist needs clearing up: because his putative (and only) ideal was "aesthetic" — life interpreted and affirmed solely as art, or as the space in which art happens — he is on the whole not a dogmatic lebenphilosopher, and certainly not a prescriptive one. He provides the justifications and heuristics by which other thinkers (artists) may devise and codify their particular [aesthetic?] value systems.
Basically, if Nazi Germany or other far right movements can lend animus to their ideology by lionizing Nietzsche, the far left believes it can do the same thing — almost as a sort of "internal revolution against Nietzschean principles through Nietzschean methods." Certain anarchist presses have tried to win an ideological victory for their side by 'reclaiming' Nietzsche from his cult status as an illiberal thinker, interpreting him instead as radically liberal and egalitarian.
Of course, Bull also points out the laughable incompatibility of these thought lines (historically, politically), and notes that almost every attempt by the radical Left to co-opt Nietzsche creates a schizophrenic mess that nobody likes.
To begin with, Nietzsche's intent as a philosopher and artist needs clearing up: because his putative (and only) ideal was "aesthetic" — life interpreted and affirmed solely as art, or as the space in which art happens — he is on the whole not a dogmatic lebenphilosopher, and certainly not a prescriptive one. He provides the justifications and heuristics by which other thinkers (artists) may devise and codify their particular [aesthetic?] value systems.
Basically, if Nazi Germany or other far right movements can lend animus to their ideology by lionizing Nietzsche, the far left believes it can do the same thing — almost as a sort of "internal revolution against Nietzschean principles through Nietzschean methods." Certain anarchist presses have tried to win an ideological victory for their side by 'reclaiming' Nietzsche from his cult status as an illiberal thinker, interpreting him instead as radically liberal and egalitarian.
Of course, Bull also points out the laughable incompatibility of these thought lines (historically, politically), and notes that almost every attempt by the radical Left to co-opt Nietzsche creates a schizophrenic mess that nobody likes.
January 9, 2018
"In their response to nihilism both Nietzsche and Heidegger rely on what is perhaps the central tenet of fascism in all its forms: the idea that particular human ecologies are the ultimate source of meaning."
One can learn from a conservative thinker, even if they draw disgusting political conclusions from their philosophy. But it's another thing to forget that they're conservative, as many did in the wake of brilliant French interpretations of Nietzsche (and even Heidegger). It has been common to proceed from the obvious fact that Nietzsche did not provide a blueprint for Nazism to the idea that he was somehow a better leftist than most. His praise for aristocrats and numerous rants against women, equality, socialism and anarchism were ignored or interpreted as somehow ironic, partial, metaphorical, self-critical. I appreciate this book for rectifying this attitude and taking Nietzsche seriously as a self-conscious reactionary. This results in some interesting reflections on nihilism, a subject that has also been given wild interpretations with little relation to what historical nihilists did or thought.
One can learn from a conservative thinker, even if they draw disgusting political conclusions from their philosophy. But it's another thing to forget that they're conservative, as many did in the wake of brilliant French interpretations of Nietzsche (and even Heidegger). It has been common to proceed from the obvious fact that Nietzsche did not provide a blueprint for Nazism to the idea that he was somehow a better leftist than most. His praise for aristocrats and numerous rants against women, equality, socialism and anarchism were ignored or interpreted as somehow ironic, partial, metaphorical, self-critical. I appreciate this book for rectifying this attitude and taking Nietzsche seriously as a self-conscious reactionary. This results in some interesting reflections on nihilism, a subject that has also been given wild interpretations with little relation to what historical nihilists did or thought.
November 19, 2024
Worth a close read.
I gave it a four because Bull's work is often unnecessarily difficult to read. I think this is because this book-like his other books--is more or less a collection of essays masquerading as a single argument. I know this is common and normal. But there would have been more dialectical clarity if he had presented a case more wholeheartedly in just one or two 100-or-so page essays rather than just putting it out like this.
That being said, it is worth the time and effort. Attentive reading is rewarding.
I gave it a four because Bull's work is often unnecessarily difficult to read. I think this is because this book-like his other books--is more or less a collection of essays masquerading as a single argument. I know this is common and normal. But there would have been more dialectical clarity if he had presented a case more wholeheartedly in just one or two 100-or-so page essays rather than just putting it out like this.
That being said, it is worth the time and effort. Attentive reading is rewarding.
August 18, 2014
It's like 50 years of Nietzsche scholarship never happened.
September 17, 2015
Part of the problem with going against Nietzsche is that he says too much; and is hard to pin down. His books are all over the place, and he leaves you with aphorisms that are as philosophical as they are suggestively poetic.
In this vein, Bull does a pretty good job, even if it is a bit disorganized, at teasing out bits of Nietzsche. Bull's approach is unique. He goes against Nietzsche to see if there's something practical in Nietzsche. And I think that this untraditional approach works well, even if you have to read between a lines a little to see it.
Bull says very clearly that Nietzsche's insight is that values are due to social difference. That hierarchy and social organization give rise to values; the two are the same, but at different levels. The main contention here, is that radical egalitarianism would destroy values. The loss of values leads to nihilism. While egalitarianism and nihilism are not the same thing, "nihilism exceeds egalitarianism" and after equality has been done so that there can no longer be any difference to equalize, we would only be left with nihilism... where everyone could only "listen to Muzak and eat potatoes". The question Bull leaves us rhetorically, is "what value could there be of a society where no one could distinguish themselves" likewise, how could we improve ourselves if there we don't have values to know what better is?
The main thesis, and it's buried in there, is that Nietzsche foresees nihilism approaching... and seeks to stop it with the quest for a Superman. Nietzsche wishes to save us from a life of a diluted, weak society in which we are all forced to be equal to its weakest members. To highlight the importance of this idea, Bull goes to the opposite lengths, to "read like a loser" and become animal: "subhuman". If we want to see the value of Nietzsche's project we have to experience the absence of such a project... we have to fall into the depths of nothingness itself, to be weak ourselves and beg others for compassion and sympathy. We have to induce society to think only of us and baby us for our well being... We have to be as animals, to not have a clearing in the world, only further darkening.
What perhaps, makes Bull difficult, perhaps for some readers, is that he pulls many readers of nihilism and thinkers of the state to task, using their thoughts to give structure to Nietzsche's aphorisms. Bull impressively quotes Nietzsche often, supporting them with the philosophical vocabulary of others to make his argument. He runs circles around some concepts to show their limits, show how others apply them and to show ultimately how Nietzsche is right to approach nihilism the way he does. And in this exciting quest, Bull convinces me of what he sees in Nietzsche.
I find it curious that other reviewers thought Bull confusing and yet praised him as his book as being well-written... I find that there in such reviews, there is a familiarity with many authors but no coherency to be found... an argument against a book as being "well-written".
Nonetheless, I do agree in part, that Bull throws too many people at us, sort of at surprise... and then scrambles to reformulate his argument. The chapters are also split into too many sections. The issue I have with sections is that authors do this sometimes, because it's easier to write in smaller blocks... without having to resort to well formed transitions between them. Perhaps Bull writes all his books this way, but I think it's the fault of the editor for not having encouraged Bull to devote himself to a sustained argument. The first chapter however, is marvelous. The last chapter did end without really clearly articulating the book as conclusions are wont to.
Still, I give him 4 stars for an exciting book that is well worth the reading, even if towards the end he starts to lose focus... but never comes to the conclusion about what kind of society we are to be left with, leaving us at the mercy of the Great Beast, with mediocrity.
In this vein, Bull does a pretty good job, even if it is a bit disorganized, at teasing out bits of Nietzsche. Bull's approach is unique. He goes against Nietzsche to see if there's something practical in Nietzsche. And I think that this untraditional approach works well, even if you have to read between a lines a little to see it.
Bull says very clearly that Nietzsche's insight is that values are due to social difference. That hierarchy and social organization give rise to values; the two are the same, but at different levels. The main contention here, is that radical egalitarianism would destroy values. The loss of values leads to nihilism. While egalitarianism and nihilism are not the same thing, "nihilism exceeds egalitarianism" and after equality has been done so that there can no longer be any difference to equalize, we would only be left with nihilism... where everyone could only "listen to Muzak and eat potatoes". The question Bull leaves us rhetorically, is "what value could there be of a society where no one could distinguish themselves" likewise, how could we improve ourselves if there we don't have values to know what better is?
The main thesis, and it's buried in there, is that Nietzsche foresees nihilism approaching... and seeks to stop it with the quest for a Superman. Nietzsche wishes to save us from a life of a diluted, weak society in which we are all forced to be equal to its weakest members. To highlight the importance of this idea, Bull goes to the opposite lengths, to "read like a loser" and become animal: "subhuman". If we want to see the value of Nietzsche's project we have to experience the absence of such a project... we have to fall into the depths of nothingness itself, to be weak ourselves and beg others for compassion and sympathy. We have to induce society to think only of us and baby us for our well being... We have to be as animals, to not have a clearing in the world, only further darkening.
What perhaps, makes Bull difficult, perhaps for some readers, is that he pulls many readers of nihilism and thinkers of the state to task, using their thoughts to give structure to Nietzsche's aphorisms. Bull impressively quotes Nietzsche often, supporting them with the philosophical vocabulary of others to make his argument. He runs circles around some concepts to show their limits, show how others apply them and to show ultimately how Nietzsche is right to approach nihilism the way he does. And in this exciting quest, Bull convinces me of what he sees in Nietzsche.
I find it curious that other reviewers thought Bull confusing and yet praised him as his book as being well-written... I find that there in such reviews, there is a familiarity with many authors but no coherency to be found... an argument against a book as being "well-written".
Nonetheless, I do agree in part, that Bull throws too many people at us, sort of at surprise... and then scrambles to reformulate his argument. The chapters are also split into too many sections. The issue I have with sections is that authors do this sometimes, because it's easier to write in smaller blocks... without having to resort to well formed transitions between them. Perhaps Bull writes all his books this way, but I think it's the fault of the editor for not having encouraged Bull to devote himself to a sustained argument. The first chapter however, is marvelous. The last chapter did end without really clearly articulating the book as conclusions are wont to.
Still, I give him 4 stars for an exciting book that is well worth the reading, even if towards the end he starts to lose focus... but never comes to the conclusion about what kind of society we are to be left with, leaving us at the mercy of the Great Beast, with mediocrity.
May 12, 2014
sort of strange- has some interesting stuff but as others have said it kind of goes all over the place. he introduces the idea of reading like a loser - which is pretty interesting- and then barely references it again. he talks for a whole chapter about Heidegger but it's very confusing (partially cause Heidegger is ridiculous) and not clearly tied to Nietzsche. it also has a really horrid implication which I feel is probably partially the end point of his ideas- there's a sort of idea that concentration camp inmates had some sort of special human insight because of the torture they were put through and it's not exactly there and hard to explain but it's just ugh and the problem with talking positively about sub humans (to oppose to Nietzsche) - you see things which create supposed sub humans as not so bad because the condition of supposed sub humanism is more acceptable. but I might be being unfair here. the Heidegger chapter is definitely skippable at least (the sub humanism chapter) which is a shame cause it seems like one of the more important ones to his idea.
which is one of the frustrations- he looks at radical egalitarianism and Nietzsche as bad but sort of skirts around putting forward his own philosophy and in the final chapter very much shys away from the implications of egalitarian philosophy. He seems uncomfortable with ideas like philistinism that he promotes in the abstract. it just feels a bit embarrassing because these ideas seem important to me but he presents them as near impossible and never really works out how to put them into action or how to form a coherent philosophy out of them. Like he never really follows through on the promise of the title - sometimes he just repeats ideas from Nietzsche that are vile but says nothing much about them, just lets them lie.
Like I enjoyed most of it, especially the first couple of chapters as the later ones tended to get a bit more wanky, but it sort of ends suddenly at the point where you'd expect him to go further and it goes all over the place so although you get some good ideas it's not very helpful as a Nietzsche critique. I just wanted more anti-Nietzsche. He does provide fertile ground for my own hatred of Nietzsche to grow though - some of these quotes were almost unreadable for the sheer hideousness of them. Unbelievable how popular he is in "leftist" circles.
which is one of the frustrations- he looks at radical egalitarianism and Nietzsche as bad but sort of skirts around putting forward his own philosophy and in the final chapter very much shys away from the implications of egalitarian philosophy. He seems uncomfortable with ideas like philistinism that he promotes in the abstract. it just feels a bit embarrassing because these ideas seem important to me but he presents them as near impossible and never really works out how to put them into action or how to form a coherent philosophy out of them. Like he never really follows through on the promise of the title - sometimes he just repeats ideas from Nietzsche that are vile but says nothing much about them, just lets them lie.
Like I enjoyed most of it, especially the first couple of chapters as the later ones tended to get a bit more wanky, but it sort of ends suddenly at the point where you'd expect him to go further and it goes all over the place so although you get some good ideas it's not very helpful as a Nietzsche critique. I just wanted more anti-Nietzsche. He does provide fertile ground for my own hatred of Nietzsche to grow though - some of these quotes were almost unreadable for the sheer hideousness of them. Unbelievable how popular he is in "leftist" circles.
October 12, 2014
I must admit to having been quite disappointed by this book, but perhaps I was expecting the wrong things from it; alas, it seems to be aimed so much at specialists that it doesn't bother to articulate its perspectives very clearly. The author has managed to have much of New Left Review 86 (Mar/Apr 2014) devoted to discussing it, and that discussion seems to confirm my feeling that Bull simply wanted to pull off a virtuoso performance that would be admired by his mates. I believe it's truly important that the negative, anti-democratic aspects of Nietzsche's influence should be critiqued, preferably leaving us nonetheless with some notion of why we should continue to read him. Bull starts off by itemising many of these negative aspects before positing a form of "reading as a loser", a kind of narrative counter-identification, that seems very promising. Then, however, he drops this and sets about reading Heidegger and the very murky Jean-Luc Nancy, a man who seems incapable of clarity even when writing about his own heart transplant. Bull doesn't make it clear to me why Nancy is indispensable to his reading, nor does he engage thoroughly with the phenomenon of left-wing Nietzscheanism. There's a useful section in which the concept of equality is analysed, but to no ultimately useful purpose. In the end I felt that Nietzsche remained standing by default, as it was quite unclear to me what "reading as a loser" had accomplished. But perhaps I'm to blame, and will respond differently if and when I re-read it...
May 9, 2018
Bull employs a surgical precision in investigating both why it's been difficult to oppose Nietzsche and how one might do it. The early chapters, especially, are impressively subtle and insightful, primarily in showing that Nietzsche inspires his audience to "read for victory," so that even in opposing him, you affirm his "will to power" ideas. Being anti-Nietzsche, then, means accepting the man's criticism of the masses but identifying oneself with those masses -- "reading as a loser," Bull says. Once he got to the Heidegger stuff, though, I got kind of lost. He goes on to recast Nietzsche's ideas on values and equality as being ecological, another surgically subtle unpacking that, at times, becomes almost mathematical -- and thus a little dry in parts. Still, overall, Nietzsche's always at least sort of fun to read about, and the book's core point -- that the anti-everything philosopher has weirdly been little opposed -- is a good insight and well worth considering. The subtlety of the arguments (when not so subtle I couldn't follow them) were what kept me coming back to this work.
January 24, 2013
This starts out promisingly well; then it goes all over the place trying to find something sure for footing and foundation sake.
Well intentioned, and for any serious Nietzsche reader it is worth the investment to read. But the authors thesis is loose and weak, and there are all these diversions and dead-end like tangents....
Well intentioned, and for any serious Nietzsche reader it is worth the investment to read. But the authors thesis is loose and weak, and there are all these diversions and dead-end like tangents....
April 14, 2017
We are promised that "Anti-Nietzsche is a subtle and subversive engagement with Nietzsche and his twentieth-century interpreters—Heidegger, Vattimo, Nancy, and Agamben." Actually, it is an engagement primarily with those elements of Nietzsche most likely to appeal to a fascist and with things written by others - Heidegger in Germany in 1943 for example - which reflect their opinions and not his. I am not in the mood to read Nietzsche that way and this book does not give a fair representation of Nietzsche's work. [As J K Rowling said, a book is like a mirror ...]
The style of the book is also unhelpful. When I discard the verbal gymnastics and sketch out the structure of the apparent arguments, they are thin and weakly supported. Outside of the book - in the academic world perhaps, or in the world of reviews and discussion groups - it may well be that there is a sustained and substantial argument and this can be related back to this book, but I do not accept that this is the case within the book as it stands. Instead I see a succession of disconnected thought bubbles, potentially worth pursuing, but instead allowed to drift away in a haze of words.
The twin ideas of reading for victory and reading like a loser are amusing enough. Reading for victory is the approach of those who imagine Nietzsche is writing for their benefit; reading like a loser is for those who admit we may not be the superhuman genius he had in mind. These ideas would work well in many other contexts. They would be useful weapons in the war against the contemporary clamour for leadership and self improvement. In a world where a chosen few stand to inherit the whole package, most of us recognise that we are almost certainly not chosen and that those who imagine they are ought to be shunned. So "reading like a loser" alerts us to the dangers and perhaps innoculates us against narcissistic delusions of grandeur at the expense of our neighbours. Maybe so. I just don't think the book actually follows through on this conception in the way advertised.
The book relies too much on "thought experiments" which just don't connect with a real world, material or social. For example it explores diverse notions of equality and inequality in a very abstract manner, exploring really the definition of the words rather than their social expression in a real social world, and then pretends this can be used to comment on Gramsci, as though Gramsci too was an academic word merchant rather than a deadly serious political activist writing in a fascist prison. I just don't see that "Marxism" is concerned with making everyone the same or that the social chaos attributable to excessive inequality can be dismissed as trivial because we wish to promote fine works of art. Capitalism does not reward talent: it exploits talent. Individualism does not produce great art - it produces coke sniffing antisocial vandals. Art is a social project in an historical context, not the ahistorical product of solitary genius. Debating abstractions and word definitions is simply not a substitue for serious social commentary.
This book is not philosophy to my taste. It is just verbosity without a purpose. Stripping away the verbosity and focusing on the arguments reveals that the book is just a mess.
The style of the book is also unhelpful. When I discard the verbal gymnastics and sketch out the structure of the apparent arguments, they are thin and weakly supported. Outside of the book - in the academic world perhaps, or in the world of reviews and discussion groups - it may well be that there is a sustained and substantial argument and this can be related back to this book, but I do not accept that this is the case within the book as it stands. Instead I see a succession of disconnected thought bubbles, potentially worth pursuing, but instead allowed to drift away in a haze of words.
The twin ideas of reading for victory and reading like a loser are amusing enough. Reading for victory is the approach of those who imagine Nietzsche is writing for their benefit; reading like a loser is for those who admit we may not be the superhuman genius he had in mind. These ideas would work well in many other contexts. They would be useful weapons in the war against the contemporary clamour for leadership and self improvement. In a world where a chosen few stand to inherit the whole package, most of us recognise that we are almost certainly not chosen and that those who imagine they are ought to be shunned. So "reading like a loser" alerts us to the dangers and perhaps innoculates us against narcissistic delusions of grandeur at the expense of our neighbours. Maybe so. I just don't think the book actually follows through on this conception in the way advertised.
The book relies too much on "thought experiments" which just don't connect with a real world, material or social. For example it explores diverse notions of equality and inequality in a very abstract manner, exploring really the definition of the words rather than their social expression in a real social world, and then pretends this can be used to comment on Gramsci, as though Gramsci too was an academic word merchant rather than a deadly serious political activist writing in a fascist prison. I just don't see that "Marxism" is concerned with making everyone the same or that the social chaos attributable to excessive inequality can be dismissed as trivial because we wish to promote fine works of art. Capitalism does not reward talent: it exploits talent. Individualism does not produce great art - it produces coke sniffing antisocial vandals. Art is a social project in an historical context, not the ahistorical product of solitary genius. Debating abstractions and word definitions is simply not a substitue for serious social commentary.
This book is not philosophy to my taste. It is just verbosity without a purpose. Stripping away the verbosity and focusing on the arguments reveals that the book is just a mess.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews