What do you think?
Rate this book
Radicalism and Revolt Against Reason: The Social Theories of Georges Sorel
Radicalism and the Revolt Against Reason is a work that continues to have a steady and large scale impact on political and social theory fifty years since its first appearance. A study of how radical thought modifies its actions and ideologies in a time of unrealized and frustrated expectations, the focus is on Georges Sorel and the Europe of the fin de si?cle, a time when socialist revolution was forcefully set aside by liberal reform. In a technique that presaged contemporary period, radical demands did not simply dissolve or disappear, they profoundly changed emphasis from the impersonal forces of history to highly personal forces of individual will. This edition includes a substantial brand new introduction by the author.
- GenresPhilosophyPolitics
288 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1968
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 31, 2009
This is a book whose politics is hard to classify. Sorel was a "socialist" but opposed to Marxism, and was an influence on later syndicalists (including those of the anarchist variety) and fascists as well (including Mussolini, who had a background in socialism also). What seems to stand out in particular about his thinking is that he viewed violence, not merely as a means to effect revolution, but quite possibly as a desirable end in itself. As the title suggests, Sorel was uninterested in "scientific Marxism" or any limitation of the class struggle to merely rational perspectives. Nevertheless, his philosophy was down-to-earth (even gritty), not poetic or Utopian like the anarchism of Proudhon, Kropotkin, or Landauer.
Irving L. Horowitz, who published this study in the 1960s, was concerned with parallels between the dangerous philosophy of Sorel, which may have contributed to the intellectual currents of western Fascism (although hardly to National Socialism), and the growing New Left on American campuses. Doubtless he had in mind thinkers like Marcuse and the Frankfurt School, but their names do not appear in the index. He only mentions briefly in his introduction that the "Left has partaken of this bitter feast" and leaves it to the reader to interpret in what ways it does so. His analysis is interesting, and he gives a good intellectual history of sources for those unfamiliar with Sorel.
The real treat, however, is reading Sorel's own words in the final section. In spite of the claims Marxists would subsequently made, there were many excellent critiques of Marxist ideology in the late-19th and early-20th Centuries that perceptively foretold what was coming. Sorel's unfortunately was limited mostly to demands that revolutionaries avoid alliances with bourgeois parties, but nevertheless he manages some very nice witticisms and attacks. This essay stands as one example of the resistance of French revolutionary thought to the homogenization that classical Marxist parties attempted to impose across Europe.
Irving L. Horowitz, who published this study in the 1960s, was concerned with parallels between the dangerous philosophy of Sorel, which may have contributed to the intellectual currents of western Fascism (although hardly to National Socialism), and the growing New Left on American campuses. Doubtless he had in mind thinkers like Marcuse and the Frankfurt School, but their names do not appear in the index. He only mentions briefly in his introduction that the "Left has partaken of this bitter feast" and leaves it to the reader to interpret in what ways it does so. His analysis is interesting, and he gives a good intellectual history of sources for those unfamiliar with Sorel.
The real treat, however, is reading Sorel's own words in the final section. In spite of the claims Marxists would subsequently made, there were many excellent critiques of Marxist ideology in the late-19th and early-20th Centuries that perceptively foretold what was coming. Sorel's unfortunately was limited mostly to demands that revolutionaries avoid alliances with bourgeois parties, but nevertheless he manages some very nice witticisms and attacks. This essay stands as one example of the resistance of French revolutionary thought to the homogenization that classical Marxist parties attempted to impose across Europe.
Displaying 1 of 1 review