What do you think?
Rate this book
Marxism: Philosophy and Economics
Sowell leads the listener through the Marxian scheme of ideas, shattering some existing interpretations of Marx which have developed through repetition rather than through scholarship.
281 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1985
106 people are currently reading
3537 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Sowell
88 books5,555 followersThomas Sowell is an American economist, social philosopher, and political commentator. He is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. With widely published commentary and books—and as a guest on TV and radio—he became a well-known voice in the American conservative movement as a prominent black conservative. He was a recipient of the National Humanities Medal from President George W. Bush in 2002.
Sowell was born in Gastonia, North Carolina and grew up in Harlem, New York City. Due to poverty and difficulties at home, he dropped out of Stuyvesant High School and worked various odd jobs, eventually serving in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War. Afterward, he took night classes at Howard University and then attended Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1958. He earned a master's degree in economics from Columbia University the next year and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968. In his academic career, he held professorships at Cornell University, Brandeis University, and the University of California, Los Angeles. He has also worked at think tanks including the Urban Institute. Since 1977, he has worked at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy.
Sowell was an important figure to the conservative movement during the Reagan era, influencing fellow economist Walter E. Williams and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He was offered a position as Federal Trade Commissioner in the Ford administration, and was considered for posts including U.S. Secretary of Education in the Reagan administration, but declined both times.
Sowell is the author of more than 45 books (including revised and new editions) on a variety of subjects including politics, economics, education and race, and he has been a syndicated columnist in more than 150 newspapers. His views are described as conservative, especially on social issues; libertarian, especially on economics; or libertarian-conservative. He has said he may be best labeled as a libertarian, though he disagrees with the "libertarian movement" on some issues, such as national defense.
Sowell was born in Gastonia, North Carolina and grew up in Harlem, New York City. Due to poverty and difficulties at home, he dropped out of Stuyvesant High School and worked various odd jobs, eventually serving in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War. Afterward, he took night classes at Howard University and then attended Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1958. He earned a master's degree in economics from Columbia University the next year and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968. In his academic career, he held professorships at Cornell University, Brandeis University, and the University of California, Los Angeles. He has also worked at think tanks including the Urban Institute. Since 1977, he has worked at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy.
Sowell was an important figure to the conservative movement during the Reagan era, influencing fellow economist Walter E. Williams and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He was offered a position as Federal Trade Commissioner in the Ford administration, and was considered for posts including U.S. Secretary of Education in the Reagan administration, but declined both times.
Sowell is the author of more than 45 books (including revised and new editions) on a variety of subjects including politics, economics, education and race, and he has been a syndicated columnist in more than 150 newspapers. His views are described as conservative, especially on social issues; libertarian, especially on economics; or libertarian-conservative. He has said he may be best labeled as a libertarian, though he disagrees with the "libertarian movement" on some issues, such as national defense.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 170 reviews
May 4, 2013
A subtle paean to Engels. Paints a picture of Engels as the precursor, refiner and ultimately the author of most of what today bears Marx’s name. I exaggerate but it is only because this take amazes me. The book is a great intro to Marxism and takes special care to interpret Marx on his own terms and to stick to all his terminologies and conventions and thus resolve some of the apparent contradictions. This is definitely a work I will keep in mind during my soon-to-begin exploration of Marx’s works and later interpretations.
When the conclusion has a passage like this, it makes the book so worth it! -
The Marxist constituency has remained as narrow as the conception behind it. The Communist Manifesto, written by two bright and articulate young men without responsibility even for their own livelihoods—much less for the social consequences of their vision—has had a special appeal for successive generations of the same kinds of people.
Not to Mention:
Despite the massive intellectual feat that Marx's Capital represents, the Marxian contribution to economics can be readily summarized as virtually zero. Professional economics as it exists today reflects no indication that Karl Marx ever existed. This neither denies nor denigrates Capital as an intellectual achievement, and perhaps in its way the culmination of classical economics. But the development of modern economics had simply ignored Marx. Even economists who are Marxists typically utilize a set of analytical tools to which Marx contributed nothing, and have recourse to Marx only for ideological, political, or historical purposes.
In professional economics, Capital was a detour into a blind alley, however historic it may be as the centerpiece of a worldwide political movement. What is said and done in its name is said and done largely by people who have never read through it, much less followed its labyrinthine reasoning from its arbitrary postulates to its empirically false conclusions. Instead, the massive volumes of Capital have become a quasi-magic touchstone—a source of assurance that somewhere and somehow a genius "proved" capitalism to be wrong and doomed, even if the specifics of this proof are unknown to those who take their certitude from it.
August 22, 2012
You can't get away from the importance of Karl Marx to culture, history and politics. So I decided I'd read Marx's Das Kapital. I tried. It's impenetrable, turgid, truly painful reading. Mind you, I don't mean that in and of itself is a refutation of Marx's claims. Human Action, the magnum opus of Ludwig Von Mises, the economist arguably most revered by free market advocates, is easily as impenetrable and painful to read. Sometimes it's just the case that some subjects (such as the Theory of Relativity) are inherently difficult and not to be understood without a lot of work.
Thus I picked up Sowell's Marxism. I hoped it might either save me from reading Marx or might make him more comprehensible next time I tried. I knew from other books by Sowell that he is an elegant writer, and that though he is now pro-free market, he once was himself a Marxist. It's evident reading this book that Sowell's reading of Marxist literature is exhaustive and that he spent decades thinking through the ideas of Marx. That doesn't mean all the ideas within this book are easy to digest, but that's not the fault of Sowell. Three-quarters of the book are a kind of "Marxism 101 for Dummies" that is free of any sniping or arguments--they're just an attempt to help people understand what Marxism is, and what it isn't, concisely, in lucid prose, with generous quoting from Marx and Engels--duly cited--and with summaries at the end of each chapter. I'm sure some Marxists would disagree with some of his interpretations of text--just as Orthodox, Catholics, Methodists and Baptists would disagree over the Bible despite all being Christians. But I was impressed by Sowell's tone in the explanatory chapters--measured, reasonable, objective. Quite unlike the rather tendentious, even acid Sowell I've found in his political columns. I bet if you gave the text of the explanatory chapters to a Marxist, he might disagree with some points, but he wouldn't guess this was by an opponent of Marx. And Sowell is careful to set before the reader Marx's influences from Hegel to Adam Smith, the differences between Marx and other contemporary socialists and his successors such as Lenin. Plenty of the things I learned about Marx's beliefs surprised me. (For instance, Marx supported religious freedom. He did not support banning religion. By saying religion was the "opium of the people" he meant that people used it to help blunt their pain over their circumstances, but not that it needed to be prohibited the way we prohibit heroin.)
The last two chapters go beyond simple explanation and interpretation. "Marx the Man" is a short biography of Marx, that had its own surprises and ironies, and in the very last chapter, "The Legacy of Marx," Sowell finally unleashes his critique of Marx's system. All well-worth the read.
Thus I picked up Sowell's Marxism. I hoped it might either save me from reading Marx or might make him more comprehensible next time I tried. I knew from other books by Sowell that he is an elegant writer, and that though he is now pro-free market, he once was himself a Marxist. It's evident reading this book that Sowell's reading of Marxist literature is exhaustive and that he spent decades thinking through the ideas of Marx. That doesn't mean all the ideas within this book are easy to digest, but that's not the fault of Sowell. Three-quarters of the book are a kind of "Marxism 101 for Dummies" that is free of any sniping or arguments--they're just an attempt to help people understand what Marxism is, and what it isn't, concisely, in lucid prose, with generous quoting from Marx and Engels--duly cited--and with summaries at the end of each chapter. I'm sure some Marxists would disagree with some of his interpretations of text--just as Orthodox, Catholics, Methodists and Baptists would disagree over the Bible despite all being Christians. But I was impressed by Sowell's tone in the explanatory chapters--measured, reasonable, objective. Quite unlike the rather tendentious, even acid Sowell I've found in his political columns. I bet if you gave the text of the explanatory chapters to a Marxist, he might disagree with some points, but he wouldn't guess this was by an opponent of Marx. And Sowell is careful to set before the reader Marx's influences from Hegel to Adam Smith, the differences between Marx and other contemporary socialists and his successors such as Lenin. Plenty of the things I learned about Marx's beliefs surprised me. (For instance, Marx supported religious freedom. He did not support banning religion. By saying religion was the "opium of the people" he meant that people used it to help blunt their pain over their circumstances, but not that it needed to be prohibited the way we prohibit heroin.)
The last two chapters go beyond simple explanation and interpretation. "Marx the Man" is a short biography of Marx, that had its own surprises and ironies, and in the very last chapter, "The Legacy of Marx," Sowell finally unleashes his critique of Marx's system. All well-worth the read.
January 10, 2009
A thoughtful and concise overview of Marxist thought. If you'd like to learn about Marxism, don't start with Das Kapital or Theories of Surplus Value, start here.
August 28, 2022
A mostly objective analysis.
I've never read Sowell and don't know much about him except he's billed as a conservative economist. Given that this book was written in the 1980s, conservative doesn't quite mean what it does in 21st century so I feel like his take would be very similar to a "liberal economist" of the same era. At any rate, I found 80% of this book to be an objective analysis of what Marxism entails: dialectical materialism, the fatal flaws of demand-supply capitalism, labor value theory, market disproportionately and the distinction of labor surplus from profits. The rest is a brief and scathing biography of Marx followed by an unapologetic polemic how Marxism has been implemented by Lenin, Stalin and Mao and how these attempts just turn into re-branded authoritarianism. On these points, I'm not really going to argue.
Marxist theory, for me, is a valid theoretical critique of how capitalism works and offers very little practicality about implementation other than a vanguard party and revolt. The practice of Marxism and communism has basically been a global abject failure resulting in mass misery, starvation and murder. Yes, we can accurately argue that those regimes didn't practice communism. The point still stands: there has never been a valid form of practiced communism. The CCP is not an exception because it also doesn't really practice communism but rather state capitalism with harsh limits on domestic immigrations , worker's rights and even human rights. The CCP's success come only from a globalized capitalistic order that consumes its hyper financed surplus. Those simply are the facts. I'm certainly no capitalist and actually loathe subscribing to any ideology but the facts are clear.
At any rate, if you're not super knowledgeable about Marxism, which I'm not, I do think this is a good and brief place to start. I recommend if you can tolerate little ad hominem debate fallacy from the author.
I've never read Sowell and don't know much about him except he's billed as a conservative economist. Given that this book was written in the 1980s, conservative doesn't quite mean what it does in 21st century so I feel like his take would be very similar to a "liberal economist" of the same era. At any rate, I found 80% of this book to be an objective analysis of what Marxism entails: dialectical materialism, the fatal flaws of demand-supply capitalism, labor value theory, market disproportionately and the distinction of labor surplus from profits. The rest is a brief and scathing biography of Marx followed by an unapologetic polemic how Marxism has been implemented by Lenin, Stalin and Mao and how these attempts just turn into re-branded authoritarianism. On these points, I'm not really going to argue.
Marxist theory, for me, is a valid theoretical critique of how capitalism works and offers very little practicality about implementation other than a vanguard party and revolt. The practice of Marxism and communism has basically been a global abject failure resulting in mass misery, starvation and murder. Yes, we can accurately argue that those regimes didn't practice communism. The point still stands: there has never been a valid form of practiced communism. The CCP is not an exception because it also doesn't really practice communism but rather state capitalism with harsh limits on domestic immigrations , worker's rights and even human rights. The CCP's success come only from a globalized capitalistic order that consumes its hyper financed surplus. Those simply are the facts. I'm certainly no capitalist and actually loathe subscribing to any ideology but the facts are clear.
At any rate, if you're not super knowledgeable about Marxism, which I'm not, I do think this is a good and brief place to start. I recommend if you can tolerate little ad hominem debate fallacy from the author.
August 30, 2020
Chapters one through nine - 3 stars
Last chapter - 5 stars.
Most of this book is Sowell explaining Marx’s doctrines, philosophy, and economic policies. I listened to instead of read the majority of this part, and I found it fairly difficult to follow. It read much more like a textbook than Sowell’s other books, and was pretty technical and detailed. This section is definitely easier to understand if you have some previous knowledge of communism and economics. I think part of my issue in following it was that I had to do the audio instead of being able to read it. (When we are going to get Sowell’s books back in print??!). Even so, I got a decent understanding of Marx, his beliefs, and how convoluted and ridiculous Marxism and communism really are.
The last chapter of this book is fantastic. While Marx’s ideas are convoluted and twisted and nearly impossible to make sense of, Sowell is a clear thinker and his refutation of Marxism and its related beliefs is brilliant, concise, and to the point. This last chapter made the whole book worth it. I was also finally able to find a print copy of this book to read the last chapter, and it was much easier to follow that way.
I would tell someone to read this, mostly for the last chapter, and would recommend trying to find a print copy. It might cost a pretty penny, but it’s worth it!
Last chapter - 5 stars.
Most of this book is Sowell explaining Marx’s doctrines, philosophy, and economic policies. I listened to instead of read the majority of this part, and I found it fairly difficult to follow. It read much more like a textbook than Sowell’s other books, and was pretty technical and detailed. This section is definitely easier to understand if you have some previous knowledge of communism and economics. I think part of my issue in following it was that I had to do the audio instead of being able to read it. (When we are going to get Sowell’s books back in print??!). Even so, I got a decent understanding of Marx, his beliefs, and how convoluted and ridiculous Marxism and communism really are.
The last chapter of this book is fantastic. While Marx’s ideas are convoluted and twisted and nearly impossible to make sense of, Sowell is a clear thinker and his refutation of Marxism and its related beliefs is brilliant, concise, and to the point. This last chapter made the whole book worth it. I was also finally able to find a print copy of this book to read the last chapter, and it was much easier to follow that way.
I would tell someone to read this, mostly for the last chapter, and would recommend trying to find a print copy. It might cost a pretty penny, but it’s worth it!
February 17, 2021
There is something really odd with this book.
I love the fact that a conservative-libertarian scholar takes Marx ' thinking seriously and deals with it in-depth. If people who call themselves "Marxists" or "anti-Marxists" would actually read Marx, I think we'd live in a more enlightened age.
Sowell does an extremely deep and sobering analysis. He's able to express really complex aspects of Marx' thinking (e.g. dialectics) in very clear terms - highly valuable!
About 80% of the book is dedicated to explaining clearly what Marx' thinking is.
Then there is a weird chapter about "Marx the Man", where Sowell seems to be concerned with the moral failings of the person.
Then there is a last, short chapter where Sowell takes a brushstroke to dismiss Marx outright for reasons that have little to do with his thinking or argument.
It just seems like Sowell thought for 80% of writing this book, "I'm wearing my serious scholar glasses" and then for the rest thinking "oh, I have an audience that is pre-conditioned to hate Marx, so now I must write a few quotable things against Marx".
What a wasted opportunity! I was really looking forward to a critique of Marx (in the style of Schumpeter or Popper) on an equal level of quality that the first 80% of this book have when it comes to showing Marx' thinking, i.e. a level of intellectual depth that Sowell is clearly capable of.
I love the fact that a conservative-libertarian scholar takes Marx ' thinking seriously and deals with it in-depth. If people who call themselves "Marxists" or "anti-Marxists" would actually read Marx, I think we'd live in a more enlightened age.
Sowell does an extremely deep and sobering analysis. He's able to express really complex aspects of Marx' thinking (e.g. dialectics) in very clear terms - highly valuable!
About 80% of the book is dedicated to explaining clearly what Marx' thinking is.
Then there is a weird chapter about "Marx the Man", where Sowell seems to be concerned with the moral failings of the person.
Then there is a last, short chapter where Sowell takes a brushstroke to dismiss Marx outright for reasons that have little to do with his thinking or argument.
It just seems like Sowell thought for 80% of writing this book, "I'm wearing my serious scholar glasses" and then for the rest thinking "oh, I have an audience that is pre-conditioned to hate Marx, so now I must write a few quotable things against Marx".
What a wasted opportunity! I was really looking forward to a critique of Marx (in the style of Schumpeter or Popper) on an equal level of quality that the first 80% of this book have when it comes to showing Marx' thinking, i.e. a level of intellectual depth that Sowell is clearly capable of.
October 14, 2020
Marxism: Philosophy and Economics, by Thomas Sowell, is a collection of essays breaking down Marx and Engels philosophic and economic principles and ideas. The book looks at dialectics, philosophic materialism, theories of history, capitalist economy theory, theories of economic crisis, Marxian value, political systems and revolution, and a short blurb on Marx himself and the legacy of Marx's political theory. Sowell's book looks closely at Engels as one of the main proponents of Marx's thought, even over and above Marx himself in some instances. Engels transcribed and completed many of Marx's works after the latter's death after all, and offered numerous opinions and assistances, as well as critiques, to Marx during his literary life.
This book was interesting, breaking down Marx's theory on the above categories in a concise manner. Sowell posits that much of what Marx has said has been misconstrued by critics (much to blame to Marx himself, who may have deliberately attempted to trap critics in vague theory, while releasing more concise and intricate theories in later volumes of Capital - which did not happen due to Marx's poor health). Marx's adherence to dialectics, and classical economic language that was already out of date when Volume III of Capital was published, was another factor. Finally, the use of Marx and his name in autocratic governments like the USSR and Maoist China has led to a discrediting of Marx's theories, where they may actually be much more attractive to modern social democrats and left leaning politicians in democracies.
This book was interesting, and complex in some ways. Marx's language is not always clear, and this analysis is not written in highly readable language. The opacities of Marx's discourse are present throughout, although Sowell does an admirable job attempting to bring them to bear - something I appreciated on reading. This is a good primer to Marxian thought, and one that would be a good starting book if one wanted to learn, at a high level, the basics of Marx's philosophy and economic thought.
This book was interesting, breaking down Marx's theory on the above categories in a concise manner. Sowell posits that much of what Marx has said has been misconstrued by critics (much to blame to Marx himself, who may have deliberately attempted to trap critics in vague theory, while releasing more concise and intricate theories in later volumes of Capital - which did not happen due to Marx's poor health). Marx's adherence to dialectics, and classical economic language that was already out of date when Volume III of Capital was published, was another factor. Finally, the use of Marx and his name in autocratic governments like the USSR and Maoist China has led to a discrediting of Marx's theories, where they may actually be much more attractive to modern social democrats and left leaning politicians in democracies.
This book was interesting, and complex in some ways. Marx's language is not always clear, and this analysis is not written in highly readable language. The opacities of Marx's discourse are present throughout, although Sowell does an admirable job attempting to bring them to bear - something I appreciated on reading. This is a good primer to Marxian thought, and one that would be a good starting book if one wanted to learn, at a high level, the basics of Marx's philosophy and economic thought.
Read
January 3, 2023
Feelings & Phenomenology
I am an engineer by training. And that is so because things have always interested me more than people. So it is natural that of all the fields in humanities, economics is of most interest to me. Because one of the fundamental assumptions of the discipline is that people are rational beings. A polite way of saying that folks are just automatons: given a certain stimulus they will respond a certain way. Of course it is not true and any such mapping of action and reaction is bound to be false. Which is why economics is not a science. But it does utilise the scientific method to study human behaviour. And I like that. But by no means am I qualified to assess the veracity of economic theories much less the comparative effectiveness of entire economic systems. Still I enjoy reading about it even though formally I have nothing to show except a few courses I passed during my graduation and post-graduation.
Since then I have joined back the workforce. And although I don’t go to office everyday, I like to take the train every time I do go. The intra-city rail network here is called the metro, and what a beauty it is. I personally believe it to be the redeeming quality of the polluted and over-populated urban squalor which is my hometown. During mornings and evenings when I take the train there is an overwhelming rush of office-goers which makes it difficult to even scratch your own ear. And it is during this journey that I read this book on my kindle. There were plenty of moments when I could relate to the predicament of workers described by Karl Marx. Now I know that Marx was writing about factory workers in the early days of the Industrial Age. And I also know that I make fancy PowerPoint slides for a living. But still the weekly commute to the office among several thousand other office goers brought out the poetic truth of what Marx described as “alienation” of the workers. Funny how observations made more than a century ago still hold true in another time and another place.
This book is a brief introduction to the thought, the system and the man for those among us who are keen to know but not enough to plough through Marxist literature. Scholars like Thomas Sowell are able to present to us the distillation of copious volumes recording decades of discourse on topics covering history, sociology and economics. Dr. Sowell is especially fit for this job because I can trust him to separate out the material content from revolutionary ramblings entrenched in the works of Karl Marx. My trust in Dr. Sowell has been built over many years of reading his own books on history and economics. Having worked for the federal government under the Reagan administration he was a bonafide Republican and has been a lifelong avowed conservative. And it doesn’t end there, during his doctorate studies at UIUC he was a student of the great Milton Friedman, and so he has been a fervent proponent of free market capitalism. In writing this short book, he abides by patience and doesn’t resort to rhetorics even though the majority of the source material is flagrantly rhetorical. An honest appraisal of Marxism cannot be accomplished by those whose ideological underpinnings are grounded in Marxist thought. And thus I believe this work to be a valuable addition to understanding Marxism albeit at an introductory level.
I must applaud the tone of this book. Written by someone completely in disagreement with communism as a doctrine, it is natural to expect a combative or complaining style aimed at discrediting Marx at any given opportunity. Thankfully that is not the case. The theory of communism is dissected with utmost professional vigour with any and all criticisms reserved to the final chapter of the book. Following this scheme the book is able to explain the fundamentals of Marxist thought as Marx had intended to convey it. And without the pomp and bluster, it is simplified enough for a layman to understand. Of course there is a chapter dedicated to the economic analysis which involves ratios of time series, but nothing that common algebra cannot explain. Dr. Sowell has a penchant for translating mathematical complexity into verbal elegance. Other than that this book places Marxist thought in its origin in space and time, giving it a lineage in both the disciplines of philosophy and economics. Here any ill-intentioned commentator would have attempted to associate Marxism with villainous figures. But as I have already mentioned this book is an honest appraisal and not a mudslinging pamphlet to rouse the masses. The fact that it is composed by someone ideologically disinclined to Marxism should not hinder a common reader to read this book.
I am an engineer by training. And that is so because things have always interested me more than people. So it is natural that of all the fields in humanities, economics is of most interest to me. Because one of the fundamental assumptions of the discipline is that people are rational beings. A polite way of saying that folks are just automatons: given a certain stimulus they will respond a certain way. Of course it is not true and any such mapping of action and reaction is bound to be false. Which is why economics is not a science. But it does utilise the scientific method to study human behaviour. And I like that. But by no means am I qualified to assess the veracity of economic theories much less the comparative effectiveness of entire economic systems. Still I enjoy reading about it even though formally I have nothing to show except a few courses I passed during my graduation and post-graduation.
Since then I have joined back the workforce. And although I don’t go to office everyday, I like to take the train every time I do go. The intra-city rail network here is called the metro, and what a beauty it is. I personally believe it to be the redeeming quality of the polluted and over-populated urban squalor which is my hometown. During mornings and evenings when I take the train there is an overwhelming rush of office-goers which makes it difficult to even scratch your own ear. And it is during this journey that I read this book on my kindle. There were plenty of moments when I could relate to the predicament of workers described by Karl Marx. Now I know that Marx was writing about factory workers in the early days of the Industrial Age. And I also know that I make fancy PowerPoint slides for a living. But still the weekly commute to the office among several thousand other office goers brought out the poetic truth of what Marx described as “alienation” of the workers. Funny how observations made more than a century ago still hold true in another time and another place.
This book is a brief introduction to the thought, the system and the man for those among us who are keen to know but not enough to plough through Marxist literature. Scholars like Thomas Sowell are able to present to us the distillation of copious volumes recording decades of discourse on topics covering history, sociology and economics. Dr. Sowell is especially fit for this job because I can trust him to separate out the material content from revolutionary ramblings entrenched in the works of Karl Marx. My trust in Dr. Sowell has been built over many years of reading his own books on history and economics. Having worked for the federal government under the Reagan administration he was a bonafide Republican and has been a lifelong avowed conservative. And it doesn’t end there, during his doctorate studies at UIUC he was a student of the great Milton Friedman, and so he has been a fervent proponent of free market capitalism. In writing this short book, he abides by patience and doesn’t resort to rhetorics even though the majority of the source material is flagrantly rhetorical. An honest appraisal of Marxism cannot be accomplished by those whose ideological underpinnings are grounded in Marxist thought. And thus I believe this work to be a valuable addition to understanding Marxism albeit at an introductory level.
I must applaud the tone of this book. Written by someone completely in disagreement with communism as a doctrine, it is natural to expect a combative or complaining style aimed at discrediting Marx at any given opportunity. Thankfully that is not the case. The theory of communism is dissected with utmost professional vigour with any and all criticisms reserved to the final chapter of the book. Following this scheme the book is able to explain the fundamentals of Marxist thought as Marx had intended to convey it. And without the pomp and bluster, it is simplified enough for a layman to understand. Of course there is a chapter dedicated to the economic analysis which involves ratios of time series, but nothing that common algebra cannot explain. Dr. Sowell has a penchant for translating mathematical complexity into verbal elegance. Other than that this book places Marxist thought in its origin in space and time, giving it a lineage in both the disciplines of philosophy and economics. Here any ill-intentioned commentator would have attempted to associate Marxism with villainous figures. But as I have already mentioned this book is an honest appraisal and not a mudslinging pamphlet to rouse the masses. The fact that it is composed by someone ideologically disinclined to Marxism should not hinder a common reader to read this book.
October 12, 2021
I learned much about Marxism and about Karl Marx and appreciated the layout of this book. In the end I’m left with 2 thoughts: 1) people who claim to hold to “Marxist” beliefs probably have no clue what they are saying they believe in and 2) Karl Marx was a dirty (literally) man. He was a leech. He was selfish. He was lost.
I’d only recommend this book of you wanted to learn about those that highly influenced Marx and what his original thoughts were (that led to a morphed version as we see today labeled Marxism/socialism).
I’d only recommend this book of you wanted to learn about those that highly influenced Marx and what his original thoughts were (that led to a morphed version as we see today labeled Marxism/socialism).
October 10, 2020
Fair and objective writing by Sowell, a great place to start for anyone curious about Marx
July 6, 2022
UPDATE: Anything written by Dr. Thomas Sowell is worth multiple readings and Marxism: Philosophy and Economics is no exception. As a renown economist, professor, author, and commentator he presents in this book his analysis of some of the major writings of Marx and Engles on their theories of communism. He points out the deficiencies and the reasons it has failed wherever it has been tried. I wanted to review and remind myself of these principles since I see a growing number of (particularly the younger generation) Americans, thinking socialism is different from communism, want to give socialism in the US. They mistakenly think that socialism is all about sharing and caring when it is really all about taking from workers and producers to distribute to those who look to government redistribution of funds to them. There is also a mental denial of the repeated examples of the natural progression from socialism to totalitarian communism.
Thomas Sowell takes the collection of Karl Marx writings and principles along with those of Engles and provides a more coherent understanding of them. He fairly presents them in a much more clear and concise manner than reading the original texts. What’s interesting is that many avowed Marxists have not bothered to read the original material. The author also includes a chapter summarizing Marx’s life and stating that he was not against religion as many think. For knowledgeable economists Marx’s economic theories don’t stand up, but there are plenty of those willing to give it another try!
Thomas Sowell takes the collection of Karl Marx writings and principles along with those of Engles and provides a more coherent understanding of them. He fairly presents them in a much more clear and concise manner than reading the original texts. What’s interesting is that many avowed Marxists have not bothered to read the original material. The author also includes a chapter summarizing Marx’s life and stating that he was not against religion as many think. For knowledgeable economists Marx’s economic theories don’t stand up, but there are plenty of those willing to give it another try!
September 23, 2013
The main body of the book is a very lucid and thorough exposition of Marxism, and I could find very little fault with it (for what that's worth) - it did a great job clarifying things such as Marx's dialectical method for me.
The penultimate chapter is a biography of Marx, and the tone starts to change - you can start to see where we're heading. The final chapter, the "critique" of Marxism, has very little to offer. Disappointingly sweeping statements and cold war-type arguments against existing Communist systems that we've all heard before - unsurprising of course given the date of publication. The only useful bit is on the formulation of value, which most contemporary Marxists have abandoned by now. Does Marx's arbitrary (and wrong) simplification of value cause his whole critical system to crumble? I remain unconvinced.
Still, the first 8 chapters of the book are as useful as any you'll find in deciphering Marx and Engels' legacy, and for that I commend you Mr. Sowell, you Marxian free-marketeer, you anti-intellectual intellectual you.
The penultimate chapter is a biography of Marx, and the tone starts to change - you can start to see where we're heading. The final chapter, the "critique" of Marxism, has very little to offer. Disappointingly sweeping statements and cold war-type arguments against existing Communist systems that we've all heard before - unsurprising of course given the date of publication. The only useful bit is on the formulation of value, which most contemporary Marxists have abandoned by now. Does Marx's arbitrary (and wrong) simplification of value cause his whole critical system to crumble? I remain unconvinced.
Still, the first 8 chapters of the book are as useful as any you'll find in deciphering Marx and Engels' legacy, and for that I commend you Mr. Sowell, you Marxian free-marketeer, you anti-intellectual intellectual you.
December 1, 2020
Sowell is a prominent conservative intellectual, but he puts ideology aside here and provides a clear eyed analysis of Marx’s work. I have a tough time staying awake through any discussion of economics, so the relative brevity of this book was very appealing. This book was written a few years before the collapse of Eastern European Communism, but Sowell could already see that Marxism, even with the Leninist modifications, was essentially already obsolete.
June 12, 2019
This book is a heady one, one of the earlier written books by the author, and one that seeks, through a close reading of the writings of Marx and Engels, to explain what Marx was really saying (sadly, not a straightforward task) as well as the contradictions within his own doctrine and practice, and the way that it greatly influenced the world. The book was written during the Cold War, so the way that the book deals with the abstractions and flaws of Marxism is done in such a way that avoids the triumphalism that would be appropriate after Marxism has totally discredited itself in the eyes of everyone except for "democratic socialists" who demand new experiments to ruin countries that weren't already ruined by Communism. Although the book is certainly a challenge to read, not least because of its long quotes and summaries of the writings of Marx and Engels, it is a challenge worth undertaking because it is important to study the failures of a view that has greatly influence others to this day. This book can be considered part of what is certainly a long career of opposition to contemporary folly and economic and political idiocy, and that is a good fight worth supporting.
After a short preface, this book of more than 200 pages contains 10 chapters that deal with various aspects of the thought and practice of Marxism. The author begins with a discussion of Marxist economics and philosophy (1), and why those two elements must both be addressed to understand Marx's impact. After that comes a discussion of the dialectical approach (2) and how Marx meant that contested term and how he was inspired by Hagel's emphasis on abstraction. After that, Sowell discusses Marx's thoughts regarding philosophic materialism and how it related to the larger materialist philosophical tradition (3). A chapter on the Marxian theory of history and its problems follows (4), along with a discussion of Marx and Engel's views about the capitalist economy (5), and the fundamental nature of Marxian economic crises (6). After that the author discusses what Marxian value was and why this is problematic in terms of the large amount of debate that has existed around this point (7). A discussion of political systems and Marx's naive views of revolution then follows (8), along with a chapter that deals with Marx as a man (9). Finally, the author concludes with a discussion of Marx's legacy (10) through the first part of the Cold War as well as notes and an index.
Although I am by no means unfamiliar with Marxist thinking [1], this book was a revelation in several ways. For one, I was pleased by the way that the author managed to include not only Marx but also Engels as a commentator when it came to Marxist thought, recognizing the close collaboration that the two of them had over many years. After all, many people neglect Engel's importance as a commentator and proponent of Marxist philosophy. It was also revealing to see how Marx (and Engels) were like as people, and not in a good way. Besides acting like generally overprivileged people who simultaneously were dependent on and contemptuous of their parents (which sounds like a lot of contemporary young leftists today), Marx's undisciplined ways as well as his autocratic behavior set the tone for the disastrous impact of Marxism on the world at large. Even if we have little interest in Marx as a thinker or as a person, it is worthwhile to read about such lives and such thinkers, especially as a way of inoculating ourselves from following after the same hypocritical and unjust tendencies ourselves and encouraging instead more proper and restrained and upright personal behavior as well as more sound abstract reasoning.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
After a short preface, this book of more than 200 pages contains 10 chapters that deal with various aspects of the thought and practice of Marxism. The author begins with a discussion of Marxist economics and philosophy (1), and why those two elements must both be addressed to understand Marx's impact. After that comes a discussion of the dialectical approach (2) and how Marx meant that contested term and how he was inspired by Hagel's emphasis on abstraction. After that, Sowell discusses Marx's thoughts regarding philosophic materialism and how it related to the larger materialist philosophical tradition (3). A chapter on the Marxian theory of history and its problems follows (4), along with a discussion of Marx and Engel's views about the capitalist economy (5), and the fundamental nature of Marxian economic crises (6). After that the author discusses what Marxian value was and why this is problematic in terms of the large amount of debate that has existed around this point (7). A discussion of political systems and Marx's naive views of revolution then follows (8), along with a chapter that deals with Marx as a man (9). Finally, the author concludes with a discussion of Marx's legacy (10) through the first part of the Cold War as well as notes and an index.
Although I am by no means unfamiliar with Marxist thinking [1], this book was a revelation in several ways. For one, I was pleased by the way that the author managed to include not only Marx but also Engels as a commentator when it came to Marxist thought, recognizing the close collaboration that the two of them had over many years. After all, many people neglect Engel's importance as a commentator and proponent of Marxist philosophy. It was also revealing to see how Marx (and Engels) were like as people, and not in a good way. Besides acting like generally overprivileged people who simultaneously were dependent on and contemptuous of their parents (which sounds like a lot of contemporary young leftists today), Marx's undisciplined ways as well as his autocratic behavior set the tone for the disastrous impact of Marxism on the world at large. Even if we have little interest in Marx as a thinker or as a person, it is worthwhile to read about such lives and such thinkers, especially as a way of inoculating ourselves from following after the same hypocritical and unjust tendencies ourselves and encouraging instead more proper and restrained and upright personal behavior as well as more sound abstract reasoning.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
February 10, 2023
Sowell begins by saying that not all that claims to be Marxist or explain Marxism is based upon Marx’s writings; his book uses substantial quotes from Marx and Engels to demonstrate what they actually believed as opposed to how their thoughts were later developed and applied. The book primarily is an explication of Marx’s thought, not a commentary upon it or an analysis of it. It was dense and difficult to absorb by audio, but a helpful addition to my understanding of Marx’s theories.
February 8, 2009
This was the first Sowell book I read and I read it without knowing anything about the man (Sowell) or his personal beliefs. It was interesting to read and constantly wonder what his true feelings about Marxism were. I can honestly say it wasn't until the end - chapters where he warned he would be more than objective - when I figured it out. I knew that was the mark of a great book on a complex and controversial subject.
This book is a good, solid introduction to the concepts of Marxism.
This book is a good, solid introduction to the concepts of Marxism.
June 25, 2022
Fairly presenting Marx's thinking is something that few can be trusted to do. The temptation to misrepresent either to demonize or glorify even if unwittingly is too strong for nearly all. Sowell, however, brings a rare combination of strengths to the task:
First of all in Sowell's early years he was a Marxist and, thus, he is familiar with how someone could look at Marx's work favorably. Secondly, Sowell's speciality is intellectual history and he insists on getting his information from primary sources as opposed to relying on second hand interpretations. Third, Sowell is a man of great integrity: even when he disagrees with someone's ideas he presents them fairly. Truth first and dealing with reality as it really is is paramount to Sowell.
As an example of Sowell's ability to dispassionately engage with ideas he does not ultimately agree with, consider that it was Sowell who did extensive research on the differences between black IQ scores and those of other races. Although Sowell went in 90% sure that the differences would not be found to be due to genetics he was prepared to accept results to the contrary if that was what the evidence showed. If it turned out that way he said it was still better to deal with reality as it really is. When engaging with those who did think the differences were due to genetics Sowell engaged with them on the basis of the merits of their actual arguments and admitted that their position was logically possible, something that had to be decided on the basis of logic and evidence and something worthy of serious study as opposed to summary dismissal. Sowell is brilliant enough that he has no need to deal with strawmen: he can take on real beliefs as they are.
Nearly everyone who reads this book, whether left leaning or right leaning, will learn something about Marx they did not already know. For instance, although Marx was, of course, an atheist he believed in religious freedom. He thought religion was something that men turned to because of the alienation created in them by the capitalist system leading them to project their true ideals onto something not real. The solution was not to ban religion but to change the conditions leading to that alienation and the resultant turn to religion. Sowell emphasizes the centrality of the notion of alienation in Marx's thinking in leading to the inability of most people to fully develop under capitalism due to its stultifying effects on workers.
Sowell also clarifies what Marx thought a "dictatorship of the proletariat" would look like: it would be a democratic republic with a constitution but where capital and land would be controlled by the majority thus giving them effective "dictatorial" power. Sowell traces Marx's thought on "from each according to ability; to each according to need". According to Marx this would be a final state after humanity's development under socialism increased their co-operativeness and made the state no longer necessary. Along these lines, Marx recognized that initially large appropriations of property would not be wise. Marx's thought is not completely clear but he seems to have thought there would always be a need for a market to be involved in determining what was produced in what quantities even after the revolution.
Sowell points out that to Marx "revolution" did not necessary mean violence. Indeed, he preferred to see a non-violent revolution but would not rule of violence if necessary. Marx, for instance, thought the Paris Commune was making a mistake as capitalist powers at that point feared what could be done through legal means more than through violence.
Sowell spends a great deal of time dealing with Hegel's philosophy and its centrality to Marx. Ultimately Marx thought he was describing laws of historical progress that led humanity through various stages. Capitalism was necessary but its internal contradictions meant it was only there to pave the way toward something better. Its role was to produce the possibility of some individuals well off enough (Marx? Engels?) that they could escape worker's alienation, see the exploitiveness of the system for what it was and work toward bringing about history's next phase: a phase only possible due to the enormous productivity made possible due to capitalist innovation. Sowell, having a bird's eye view over all of Marx's work is able to point out that towards the end of his life Marx was questioning whether the revolution truly was inevitable. Sowell points this out as an occasion in which Marx's strong rhetoric did not match his real feelings as revealed in private correspondence.
Although the page count of this book is low the information density is even higher than in Sowell's other works. Some chapters can not be listened to in audio format due to the need to go back and re-read. Since the mathematics of Marx's work is discussed the intended audience for this book may also be different than that of most of Sowell's other works. The mathematics, however, is not difficult: only high school level. Normally until the final two overview chapters Sowell merely presents Marx's thoughts without adding his own commentary on their validity. Sowell does make an exception when discussing the mathematics of Marx's "law" (not "theory") as he called it of value. In this case Marx's reasoning is so poor that it is good that Sowell does point out the flaws otherwise one wonders "did Marx real make that leap just by stating it with no evidence or reasoning?" Cross checking with the first chapter of Kapital the reader can verify that, yes, Marx really did do that. Sowell goes on to outline absurd assumptions in Marx's theory: for example that workers would try to minimize the percentage of their work that was "stolen" by the capitalist as opposed to trying to maximize their income.
The penultimate chapter gives an overview of Marx's character and the outline of his life. Sowell conjectures and presents evidence that Marx was "megalomaniacal". Marx grew up as a spoiled child and had a huge sense of entitlement throughout his life. He always spent way beyond his means to the point where his family lived in squalor, with three of his children dying although he did have enough income that if he had made even a reasonable effort he could have lived comfortably instead. Personally Marx was exploitive: for instance praising someone's work when he wanted something from them but then deriding it behind their back when discussing it with Engels. Sowell also discusses Marx's "blood-thirsty" streak and the delight he took in destroying anyone who disagreed with him. In political life Marx sought dictatorial control of the organizations he would belong to and, if he could not get it, was willing to destroy them instead. Marx seems to be a man with little self-control: getting his maid pregnant even while his own wife was also pregnant, drinking heavily throughout his life, spending his days absorbed in reading at the London Museum and writing Kapital as opposed to providing a life that could take his family out of poverty instead.
The final chapter is more typical of Sowell's other writings: Here Sowell describes why Marx's ideas were so flawed that they play no role in modern economics. He discusses their historical failure. Although it is true that Lenin did depart significantly from Marx, Sowell describes how the example of Marx's personal actions and his style of writing contributed to the authoritarianism that Lenin and others were able to read into Marx.
At the end of reading this book you do see that there is much about Marx that has been misrepresented although approximately equally by both the right and the left. Sowell's delving into Marx personality is helpful because once it is clear that Marx's economic theories were built on nothing mathematically or scientifically one would otherwise be left to wonder why he believed what he did. Indeed, Sowell points out that Marx was intelligent enough and had, indeed, thought about subjects that were "this close" that they should have revealed the problems with his theories to him. What is left is the inescapable conclusion that Marx's thinking was mostly just projections of his troubled personality. Apparently, however, he is not the only one suffering from such projections and has, of course, had an enormous influence over human history.
Today variants of Marxism and some classical Marxism are growing in popularity so, as with Sowell's other writings, this remains a timely book to read even if by review count it is not nearly as popular as his other writings.
First of all in Sowell's early years he was a Marxist and, thus, he is familiar with how someone could look at Marx's work favorably. Secondly, Sowell's speciality is intellectual history and he insists on getting his information from primary sources as opposed to relying on second hand interpretations. Third, Sowell is a man of great integrity: even when he disagrees with someone's ideas he presents them fairly. Truth first and dealing with reality as it really is is paramount to Sowell.
As an example of Sowell's ability to dispassionately engage with ideas he does not ultimately agree with, consider that it was Sowell who did extensive research on the differences between black IQ scores and those of other races. Although Sowell went in 90% sure that the differences would not be found to be due to genetics he was prepared to accept results to the contrary if that was what the evidence showed. If it turned out that way he said it was still better to deal with reality as it really is. When engaging with those who did think the differences were due to genetics Sowell engaged with them on the basis of the merits of their actual arguments and admitted that their position was logically possible, something that had to be decided on the basis of logic and evidence and something worthy of serious study as opposed to summary dismissal. Sowell is brilliant enough that he has no need to deal with strawmen: he can take on real beliefs as they are.
Nearly everyone who reads this book, whether left leaning or right leaning, will learn something about Marx they did not already know. For instance, although Marx was, of course, an atheist he believed in religious freedom. He thought religion was something that men turned to because of the alienation created in them by the capitalist system leading them to project their true ideals onto something not real. The solution was not to ban religion but to change the conditions leading to that alienation and the resultant turn to religion. Sowell emphasizes the centrality of the notion of alienation in Marx's thinking in leading to the inability of most people to fully develop under capitalism due to its stultifying effects on workers.
Sowell also clarifies what Marx thought a "dictatorship of the proletariat" would look like: it would be a democratic republic with a constitution but where capital and land would be controlled by the majority thus giving them effective "dictatorial" power. Sowell traces Marx's thought on "from each according to ability; to each according to need". According to Marx this would be a final state after humanity's development under socialism increased their co-operativeness and made the state no longer necessary. Along these lines, Marx recognized that initially large appropriations of property would not be wise. Marx's thought is not completely clear but he seems to have thought there would always be a need for a market to be involved in determining what was produced in what quantities even after the revolution.
Sowell points out that to Marx "revolution" did not necessary mean violence. Indeed, he preferred to see a non-violent revolution but would not rule of violence if necessary. Marx, for instance, thought the Paris Commune was making a mistake as capitalist powers at that point feared what could be done through legal means more than through violence.
Sowell spends a great deal of time dealing with Hegel's philosophy and its centrality to Marx. Ultimately Marx thought he was describing laws of historical progress that led humanity through various stages. Capitalism was necessary but its internal contradictions meant it was only there to pave the way toward something better. Its role was to produce the possibility of some individuals well off enough (Marx? Engels?) that they could escape worker's alienation, see the exploitiveness of the system for what it was and work toward bringing about history's next phase: a phase only possible due to the enormous productivity made possible due to capitalist innovation. Sowell, having a bird's eye view over all of Marx's work is able to point out that towards the end of his life Marx was questioning whether the revolution truly was inevitable. Sowell points this out as an occasion in which Marx's strong rhetoric did not match his real feelings as revealed in private correspondence.
Although the page count of this book is low the information density is even higher than in Sowell's other works. Some chapters can not be listened to in audio format due to the need to go back and re-read. Since the mathematics of Marx's work is discussed the intended audience for this book may also be different than that of most of Sowell's other works. The mathematics, however, is not difficult: only high school level. Normally until the final two overview chapters Sowell merely presents Marx's thoughts without adding his own commentary on their validity. Sowell does make an exception when discussing the mathematics of Marx's "law" (not "theory") as he called it of value. In this case Marx's reasoning is so poor that it is good that Sowell does point out the flaws otherwise one wonders "did Marx real make that leap just by stating it with no evidence or reasoning?" Cross checking with the first chapter of Kapital the reader can verify that, yes, Marx really did do that. Sowell goes on to outline absurd assumptions in Marx's theory: for example that workers would try to minimize the percentage of their work that was "stolen" by the capitalist as opposed to trying to maximize their income.
The penultimate chapter gives an overview of Marx's character and the outline of his life. Sowell conjectures and presents evidence that Marx was "megalomaniacal". Marx grew up as a spoiled child and had a huge sense of entitlement throughout his life. He always spent way beyond his means to the point where his family lived in squalor, with three of his children dying although he did have enough income that if he had made even a reasonable effort he could have lived comfortably instead. Personally Marx was exploitive: for instance praising someone's work when he wanted something from them but then deriding it behind their back when discussing it with Engels. Sowell also discusses Marx's "blood-thirsty" streak and the delight he took in destroying anyone who disagreed with him. In political life Marx sought dictatorial control of the organizations he would belong to and, if he could not get it, was willing to destroy them instead. Marx seems to be a man with little self-control: getting his maid pregnant even while his own wife was also pregnant, drinking heavily throughout his life, spending his days absorbed in reading at the London Museum and writing Kapital as opposed to providing a life that could take his family out of poverty instead.
The final chapter is more typical of Sowell's other writings: Here Sowell describes why Marx's ideas were so flawed that they play no role in modern economics. He discusses their historical failure. Although it is true that Lenin did depart significantly from Marx, Sowell describes how the example of Marx's personal actions and his style of writing contributed to the authoritarianism that Lenin and others were able to read into Marx.
At the end of reading this book you do see that there is much about Marx that has been misrepresented although approximately equally by both the right and the left. Sowell's delving into Marx personality is helpful because once it is clear that Marx's economic theories were built on nothing mathematically or scientifically one would otherwise be left to wonder why he believed what he did. Indeed, Sowell points out that Marx was intelligent enough and had, indeed, thought about subjects that were "this close" that they should have revealed the problems with his theories to him. What is left is the inescapable conclusion that Marx's thinking was mostly just projections of his troubled personality. Apparently, however, he is not the only one suffering from such projections and has, of course, had an enormous influence over human history.
Today variants of Marxism and some classical Marxism are growing in popularity so, as with Sowell's other writings, this remains a timely book to read even if by review count it is not nearly as popular as his other writings.
March 18, 2023
A timely, contentious topic--explained as succinctly and elegantly as one could hope of such dense and tedious subject matter.
Knowing Sowell as a former Marxist, I was expecting a blow-by-blow refutation of the famed economic/political theory. That's not exactly what this ended up as (though he does get his licks in at the very end.) But up until that very end, Sowell manages to come off as an objective and straight-forward teacher--setting the record straight on what Marx did and didn't say, and what he did and didn't mean... along with explaining how much of a role the German philosopher Friedrich Engels had in collaborating with--and clarifying--Marx's vision.
Sowell goes out of his way to put Karl Marx's theory in the context of his original day and age--as he did not live to see the adoption and implementation of his life's dedication. (Which is both vaguely vindicating, in a "well-intended people are sometimes the most dangerous" sort of way... And aggravating, when one takes into consideration Marx's highly privileged lifestyle, fiscal irresponsibility, and dubious work ethic.)
While backgrounds are laid bare, there is never the impression that Marx (or Engels, for that matter) were anything close to evil in their intentions. I think that's a mistake too often made by the most vehement opponents of Marxism. I also found it noteworthy that Marx was not, in fact, anti-religion.
Though in his youth Sowell was drawn to Marxism, his final wisened analysis of the theory can be summed up in one of his final critiquing quotes:
"The Marxist constituency has remained as narrow as the conception behind it. The Communist Manifesto, written by two bright and articulate young men without responsibility even for their own livelihoods—much less for the social consequences of their vision—has had a special appeal for successive generations of the same kinds of people."
Ouch.
If Marx weren't so very long dead, he might have wanted to put some ice on that burn.
Knowing Sowell as a former Marxist, I was expecting a blow-by-blow refutation of the famed economic/political theory. That's not exactly what this ended up as (though he does get his licks in at the very end.) But up until that very end, Sowell manages to come off as an objective and straight-forward teacher--setting the record straight on what Marx did and didn't say, and what he did and didn't mean... along with explaining how much of a role the German philosopher Friedrich Engels had in collaborating with--and clarifying--Marx's vision.
Sowell goes out of his way to put Karl Marx's theory in the context of his original day and age--as he did not live to see the adoption and implementation of his life's dedication. (Which is both vaguely vindicating, in a "well-intended people are sometimes the most dangerous" sort of way... And aggravating, when one takes into consideration Marx's highly privileged lifestyle, fiscal irresponsibility, and dubious work ethic.)
While backgrounds are laid bare, there is never the impression that Marx (or Engels, for that matter) were anything close to evil in their intentions. I think that's a mistake too often made by the most vehement opponents of Marxism. I also found it noteworthy that Marx was not, in fact, anti-religion.
Though in his youth Sowell was drawn to Marxism, his final wisened analysis of the theory can be summed up in one of his final critiquing quotes:
"The Marxist constituency has remained as narrow as the conception behind it. The Communist Manifesto, written by two bright and articulate young men without responsibility even for their own livelihoods—much less for the social consequences of their vision—has had a special appeal for successive generations of the same kinds of people."
Ouch.
If Marx weren't so very long dead, he might have wanted to put some ice on that burn.
February 4, 2019
An interesting look at Marx and his ideas. Unfortunately his ideas have morphed in our modern day, but this book gives a good grasp on the foundation of his philosophies.
August 26, 2021
Thomas Sowell provides an eloquent, intelligent, and wise analysis of Marxism. Not only did he cover the main points in Das Kapital, but also the history and life of Karl Marx. I highly recommend this book.
February 8, 2020
An excellent review of Marx’s economic theory and its influences and development, with a particular focus on Hegel’s influence as well as that of the classical economists such as Smith, Ricardo, and others. Sowell is an excellent writer on economics, but this book is more academic than most of his work.
I’m very familiar with Marx’s work, having read CAPITAL, THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO and THEORIES OF SURPLUS VALUE, as well as selections from various other works (one of my areas of specialization in grad school was the development of economic thought) and I’d say Sowell does an excellent job of representing Marx’s thought in this short work.
Marx, an auto-didact, was himself a classical economist and his work is best understood in context of classical economists. There is a straight line from Smith, particularly his THEORY OF MORAL SENTIMENTS, to Marx. Sowell spends quite a bit of time on Marx’s economics and, in my opinion, it helps to be familiar with economics to appreciate the first seven chapters of the book.
If you want to skip to the good stuff, start at chapter eight, where there is less economic theory and more politics, biography and history.
Sowell’s analysis in this book, published in 1985, is particularly germane today as a new crop of young people, discovering the harsh nature of reality, retreat into Utopian fantasies such as socialism and communism.
I remember my introduction to Marx in freshman Poli Sci well. It most closely resembled my reaction to the South Park “Underwear Gnomes” episode - I burst out laughing at the ridiculousness of it all. It was and is and always will be impossible - humanity is complex and complicated, human nature is varied and and there will always be wolves and sheep. Humans are not perfect nor are they perfectible. Even benevolent despots grow old and die and less benevolent despots crop up to take their place. I’d rather have the option to succeed or starve than no option at all (or as Milton wrote, : "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.")
None of this is to say that we shouldn’t always strive to improve our collective lot - what Marx got right, in my opinion (from Hegel), is the historical struggle between thesis and antithesis resulting in a synthesis that is, one hopes, better than what existed before. We can be better than we are now, but we’ll never be angels, at least not in this realm.
Although I read the book before, this time I listened to the Audible version. The narrator speaks in an irritatingly slow cadence (I had to spend it up to 1.75x) and he insist on pronouncing “bourgeois” as “ber-zhwa.” The audio version isn’t ideal as there are a few mathematical concepts one should work through and it’s rather difficult to do so while driving.
I’m very familiar with Marx’s work, having read CAPITAL, THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO and THEORIES OF SURPLUS VALUE, as well as selections from various other works (one of my areas of specialization in grad school was the development of economic thought) and I’d say Sowell does an excellent job of representing Marx’s thought in this short work.
Marx, an auto-didact, was himself a classical economist and his work is best understood in context of classical economists. There is a straight line from Smith, particularly his THEORY OF MORAL SENTIMENTS, to Marx. Sowell spends quite a bit of time on Marx’s economics and, in my opinion, it helps to be familiar with economics to appreciate the first seven chapters of the book.
If you want to skip to the good stuff, start at chapter eight, where there is less economic theory and more politics, biography and history.
Sowell’s analysis in this book, published in 1985, is particularly germane today as a new crop of young people, discovering the harsh nature of reality, retreat into Utopian fantasies such as socialism and communism.
I remember my introduction to Marx in freshman Poli Sci well. It most closely resembled my reaction to the South Park “Underwear Gnomes” episode - I burst out laughing at the ridiculousness of it all. It was and is and always will be impossible - humanity is complex and complicated, human nature is varied and and there will always be wolves and sheep. Humans are not perfect nor are they perfectible. Even benevolent despots grow old and die and less benevolent despots crop up to take their place. I’d rather have the option to succeed or starve than no option at all (or as Milton wrote, : "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.")
None of this is to say that we shouldn’t always strive to improve our collective lot - what Marx got right, in my opinion (from Hegel), is the historical struggle between thesis and antithesis resulting in a synthesis that is, one hopes, better than what existed before. We can be better than we are now, but we’ll never be angels, at least not in this realm.
Although I read the book before, this time I listened to the Audible version. The narrator speaks in an irritatingly slow cadence (I had to spend it up to 1.75x) and he insist on pronouncing “bourgeois” as “ber-zhwa.” The audio version isn’t ideal as there are a few mathematical concepts one should work through and it’s rather difficult to do so while driving.
February 26, 2021
I have mixed feelings about this book. The first three-quarters of this book is hard to get through. Sowell goes in-depth into Marx's philosophy on knowledge, history, and political philosophy. That's all before you get to the sections on economics. From that point on it picks up some but I understand why Sowell needed to cover that ground at first.
Overall, I think Sowell does a fair job portraying Marx's ideas and philosophies. He is careful to point out that we can't confuse Marx's ideas and how he communicated them with how others interpreted those ideas after him. He does a good job laying out the arguments Marx and Engles made in their works and explains the context and thinking behind them. Sowell is very detailed in this regard.
I think Sowell does a good job showing the shortcomings of Marx's idea in theory and in practice. On the economics side, he shows the contradictions in the theory and then shows the failures of those theories in practice. Sowell is careful to point out that while Marx himself didn't explicitly argue for totalitarianism he left the door open for future actors to do exactly that do argue to further his ideas.
I think it was interesting how little Marx and Engles outlined what a communist or socialist society should look like. They went out of their way to not provide a recipe on what should be done but instead said that the circumstances in society will come about naturally.
If you are interested in an in-depth review of Marx's thoughts and ideas this is probably a good place to go but it can be a slog in places.
Overall, I think Sowell does a fair job portraying Marx's ideas and philosophies. He is careful to point out that we can't confuse Marx's ideas and how he communicated them with how others interpreted those ideas after him. He does a good job laying out the arguments Marx and Engles made in their works and explains the context and thinking behind them. Sowell is very detailed in this regard.
I think Sowell does a good job showing the shortcomings of Marx's idea in theory and in practice. On the economics side, he shows the contradictions in the theory and then shows the failures of those theories in practice. Sowell is careful to point out that while Marx himself didn't explicitly argue for totalitarianism he left the door open for future actors to do exactly that do argue to further his ideas.
I think it was interesting how little Marx and Engles outlined what a communist or socialist society should look like. They went out of their way to not provide a recipe on what should be done but instead said that the circumstances in society will come about naturally.
If you are interested in an in-depth review of Marx's thoughts and ideas this is probably a good place to go but it can be a slog in places.
April 5, 2020
I bought this book because I enjoy Dr. Sowell‘s writing style and I wanted a deeper dive into contrast between capitalism & Marxism without having to study Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto. I don’t have time for that.
If you think that you’ll be able to logically work your way through the labyrinth of Marxism from A to Z just by reading this book, you are mistaken. The mental gymnastics required to make any sense out of Hegel, Marx, and Engels limits the effectiveness of even the best economic minds/authors in history (Sowell). I weep when I think of poor Dr Sowell spending months meticulously researching the volumes & volumes of nonsense, contradictions, and what history has shown since to be just flat-out b.s. in order to write this book. I’m surprised Dr Sowell survived the journey.
If you can score this book cheap and have extra time on your hands, go ahead and take a look. I would recommend spending your money on a brand new hardcover version of one of Dr. Sowell’s other books, like Basic Economics.
Summary: communism & socialism suck.
If you think that you’ll be able to logically work your way through the labyrinth of Marxism from A to Z just by reading this book, you are mistaken. The mental gymnastics required to make any sense out of Hegel, Marx, and Engels limits the effectiveness of even the best economic minds/authors in history (Sowell). I weep when I think of poor Dr Sowell spending months meticulously researching the volumes & volumes of nonsense, contradictions, and what history has shown since to be just flat-out b.s. in order to write this book. I’m surprised Dr Sowell survived the journey.
If you can score this book cheap and have extra time on your hands, go ahead and take a look. I would recommend spending your money on a brand new hardcover version of one of Dr. Sowell’s other books, like Basic Economics.
Summary: communism & socialism suck.
January 20, 2014
An obviously well-researched book, although perhaps more scholarly than necessary (or maybe I've just been spoiled by Dr. Sowell's more accessible works). It starts with a detailed description of the philosophy that inspired Marxism, followed by the philosophy of Marxism. I wouldn't say this is a basic intro to the basics of Marxism, but a deeper analysis of philosophy behind the man.
The book is very even-handed and uncritical until the final two chapters, that's when Sowell's usual no nonsense assault begins.
I walked away from this book with a greater understanding of Marxian(and Hegelian) philosophy, and a surprising mild appreciation for Engles, who appears to be Jykell to Marx's Hyde. I'd recommend this book more to those interested in philosophy than those interested in economics.
The book is very even-handed and uncritical until the final two chapters, that's when Sowell's usual no nonsense assault begins.
I walked away from this book with a greater understanding of Marxian(and Hegelian) philosophy, and a surprising mild appreciation for Engles, who appears to be Jykell to Marx's Hyde. I'd recommend this book more to those interested in philosophy than those interested in economics.
January 21, 2024
In this book, Sowell wrote in a reasonably clear manner the philosophy, economic theory, and a bit of biography of Marx. For those interested in Marxism, this may be a good guide book. But a more useful image that I got from the book is why a common person shouldn’t bother with understanding Marxism per se (a more useful subject might be how the communists used Marxism deftly).
A most important issue of Marxism is the use of stylized jargons, which impacts the interpretation of Marxism. As a result many analyses start with the common interpretation without citing any original writing. Also, Marx’s theory is just a theory. (In fact, more scientifically speaking, his economic theory is at most a conjecture, not even a testable hypothesis, let alone a verified theory.) Moreover, many concepts, such as ”alienation”, are projected by intellectuals onto the class of proletariats rather than a passion felt within that class with such intensity to drive the them to the barricades. To sum, it was never a well-formed economic theory and today, economists largely ignore Marxian theory. Deng Xiaoping’s famous “black cat white cat” is just a different way of saying “forget Marxism — in economy”.
The reason Marxism is so well known is, in my opinion, that it’s a convenient rallying cry. Revolutionists in former communist countries need some “theory” to justify their legitimacy or to garner support. They happened to choose Marxism. In fact, they don’t really care about it said. You see, Marx clearly said that the proletariats need to learn from mistakes to be fit to rule, not to be educated top down by a leader. But brain-washing is exactly what the communists did to the populace. Sowell said “The supreme irony of Marxism was that a fundamentally humane and egalitarian creed, was so dominated by a bookish perspective that became blind to facts and deaf to humanity and freedom.” But to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the rest of the lot, there was no irony: Mao, for one, never showed one iota of care to facts or freedom; However humane Marxism was, it doesn’t matter bit, it was just part of the mechanism for ruling.
A most important issue of Marxism is the use of stylized jargons, which impacts the interpretation of Marxism. As a result many analyses start with the common interpretation without citing any original writing. Also, Marx’s theory is just a theory. (In fact, more scientifically speaking, his economic theory is at most a conjecture, not even a testable hypothesis, let alone a verified theory.) Moreover, many concepts, such as ”alienation”, are projected by intellectuals onto the class of proletariats rather than a passion felt within that class with such intensity to drive the them to the barricades. To sum, it was never a well-formed economic theory and today, economists largely ignore Marxian theory. Deng Xiaoping’s famous “black cat white cat” is just a different way of saying “forget Marxism — in economy”.
The reason Marxism is so well known is, in my opinion, that it’s a convenient rallying cry. Revolutionists in former communist countries need some “theory” to justify their legitimacy or to garner support. They happened to choose Marxism. In fact, they don’t really care about it said. You see, Marx clearly said that the proletariats need to learn from mistakes to be fit to rule, not to be educated top down by a leader. But brain-washing is exactly what the communists did to the populace. Sowell said “The supreme irony of Marxism was that a fundamentally humane and egalitarian creed, was so dominated by a bookish perspective that became blind to facts and deaf to humanity and freedom.” But to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the rest of the lot, there was no irony: Mao, for one, never showed one iota of care to facts or freedom; However humane Marxism was, it doesn’t matter bit, it was just part of the mechanism for ruling.
June 14, 2022
This is a great book. It's author is a master at unraveling difficult material, and Marx's own writings are quite convoluted and somewhat self-contradictory. "You can't refute a sneer." Sowell points out throughout the book how most Marxists don't understand (and almost never reference) the original writings of Marx (and Engels, who did a lot of the writing). He gives biographical, economic, philosophical, and sociological context to the writings and walks the reader through what Marx said and how it has been twisted, refined, or believed. This is a great book on the subject. The last chapter is especially well-done, as it shows at length the legacy of Marxism. I give you a small taste:
“What Marx accomplished was to produce such a comprehensive, dramatic, and fascinating vision that it could withstand innumerable empirical contradictions, logical refutations and moral revulsions at its effects.”
“What Marx accomplished was to produce such a comprehensive, dramatic, and fascinating vision that it could withstand innumerable empirical contradictions, logical refutations and moral revulsions at its effects.”
October 10, 2018
Dr. Sowell was a young radical in the past, hence why he also had read Marx and Engel's works. In this volume, he explained the entire ideology behind Marxism (it is actually mostly "Engelism") and the life of this intelligentsia. Many of the popular misconceptions were dispelled, such as quotes attributed to Marx were actually from Fabian socialists and Marx's distinction of his ideas from socialism. Although generally nonsensical, Dr. Sowell has explained the writing in great details (over 1000 references) and provided actual economic facts and history to refute Marx and Engel's ideas.
June 2, 2025
i fucking loved this book, especially sowell’s writing style: clear, terse explanations packed with opportunities for great intellectual simulation. this was not only a thorough analysis of marx and engel’s evolving rhetorical, philosophical, historical, and economic systems of thought, but also an exciting adventure into characterizing the complex relationship, or perhaps lack thereof, between communism as conceived by marx and that which gained prominence in the form of totalitarian states during the 20th century.
September 4, 2020
3.5... Some parts were informative, and the criticism he had for Marx personally was well-founded. I especially enjoyed the little biographies of Marx & Engels toward the end. A lot of the early parts of the book were hard to understand and boring, but the nuggets of information (that were few & far between) were worth it, especially since it wasn't a very long book. Just started Capital in the 21st Century and it is much better at explaining similar topics so far
September 18, 2021
A surprisingly thorough, detailed, and objective overview of Marx and Engel’s complete oeuvre in a brief 150 pages, let down by a final chapter where that objective eye gives way to the author’s deep seated neoliberal biases. A shame really because this was ironically otherwise an intellectual achievement.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 170 reviews