The Tyranny of Theory: A Contribution to the Anarchist Critique of Marxism

by Ronald D. Tabor

Does Marxism equal totalitarianism? Are the ideas of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels somehow responsible for the horrors of Communism? Or were Communist societies simply an aberration - the result of a profound misreading of Marxian concepts, the unfortunate outcome of objective conditions, or the work of perverse, power-hungry individuals?
In this volume, Tabor argues that, despite the apparently libertarian vision of Marx and Engels, the roots of totalitarianism lie within Marxism itself. Focusing on central facets of Marxist theory – its conception of the state; the notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat; the analysis of capital; the materialist conception of history; and dialectical materialism — Tabor argues that the sources of despotism can be traced in all of these.
However, Tabor contends, Marxism’s totalitarian logic is especially apparent in two of Marxism’s most fundamental notions: (1) the belief that the state, in the form of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” can be utilized to establish a free society; (2) a philosophical outlook that insists that human society, history, and the cosmos as a whole can be convincingly explained by, and subsumed under, one logically consistent world view, its own. Seen philosophically, then, Marxism must be understood as a form of totalizing rationalism that seeks to impose itself on humanity (and the Earth) by means of a monolithic state.

Genres: Politics

358 pages, Paperback

First published December 15, 2013

Reviews

[C. Varn · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I do think Tabor's reading of Soviet-era Marxism seriously and his prediction about the failure of Occupy leading to a resurgence of kinds of Marxism that seemed priorly discredited has come to pass, I think that Tabor's reading of ambiguity in Marxism necessarily leads to the worse outcomes is an over-reductive reading. The critique of historical materialist schemas involves a close reading of Marx and Engels but one that ignores nuances and mitigations that have been discovered within the entirety of the Marx and Engels corpus which was not available in its entirety and not completely translated for most of the 20th century. That said, some of the critiques do hit hard, as Tabor's interrogations of the modes of production (while such adjustments and criticism are common in Marxist historiography as Tabor's mention of Samir Amin alludes) in ways that do stand-up. If you are inclined to agree with Tabor you will find this convincing and if you are not, you may find the book to be more of a mixed bag.

[Hemani · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tabor's recounting of Marxist theory tends toward a reductionist and overly simplified perspective -- his critique is well behind the more thoughtful and nuanced critiques by neo-Marxists like Gramsci and Althusser. I do not recommend anyone read this book UNTIL they've read Marx and Engels' primary works. Tabor also doesn't account for the value of Marxist theory as a tool for dialectical analysis. I appreciate the ways Tabor pushes forward traditional anarchist views.

[Twilight O. ☭ · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very wrong, but very serious. Worth considering in-depth. Full review forthcoming.