What do you think?
Rate this book
Challengers to Capitalism: Marx, Lenin, and Mao
Book by Gurley, John G
175 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1976
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
December 4, 2017
I chose this one randomly from the university library when I didn't have anything to read. Published in 1979, the cold war and the U.S.S.R. were still very much at present, so it made for some interesting reading when Gurley wrote about the future prospects for Russia's communist nation. Challengers to Capitalism, naturally, deals solely with the four prominent communist figures of the title. Beginning with Marx, a thorough critique of capitalism is followed by a summary of the Marxist ideal. Russia in the period of Leninism then Stalinism (the less happy elements curiously glossed over) takes a large percentage of the book. Then finally, before a final condemnation of the exploitative capitalist system, the more-or-less successful endeavours of Mao Tse-Tung are explored.
Clearly written by a socialist-leaning American professor, this book provides a comprehensive overview of communism's stinted rise last century. One doesn't have to be a disillusioned Liberal cry-baby in order to appreciate this book. I am a privileged, white, middle-class Australian who is comfortable living in a capitalist world (even if my contentment is, some would argue, delusional. My job and my lifestyle allows me to do the things I like in life. A little hard work for a company that ultimately sees me as an insignificant and expendable source of labour isn't too much of a price to pay for me). There ain't nothing wrong with keeping an open mind though.
At the end of the day, I think communism - or at least its fundamental Marxist sentiment - is morally well-intentioned. Right-wingers would do well to understand that. The thing is it has not been perfectly put into practice - not even in China, I imagine. I would say that, like capitalism, it is an ideology with its flaws and strengths. An idea brought about by people simply trying to exist in as practicable and sustaining a way as possible. The world entire is not there yet.
Clearly written by a socialist-leaning American professor, this book provides a comprehensive overview of communism's stinted rise last century. One doesn't have to be a disillusioned Liberal cry-baby in order to appreciate this book. I am a privileged, white, middle-class Australian who is comfortable living in a capitalist world (even if my contentment is, some would argue, delusional. My job and my lifestyle allows me to do the things I like in life. A little hard work for a company that ultimately sees me as an insignificant and expendable source of labour isn't too much of a price to pay for me). There ain't nothing wrong with keeping an open mind though.
At the end of the day, I think communism - or at least its fundamental Marxist sentiment - is morally well-intentioned. Right-wingers would do well to understand that. The thing is it has not been perfectly put into practice - not even in China, I imagine. I would say that, like capitalism, it is an ideology with its flaws and strengths. An idea brought about by people simply trying to exist in as practicable and sustaining a way as possible. The world entire is not there yet.
February 26, 2021
Honestly one of the best "intro to [socialism/communism/marxism/etc]" books I've ever read. Though it's maybe not *the* best on the individual tasks of (a) introducing the theory of Marxism and Leninism and (b) introducing the ways in which it has been transformed by states adopting the "Marxist-Leninist" moniker, it's the best I've seen in terms of combining both in a succinct but effective way. It is honestly SO refreshing to finally read a book that is willing to just dive right in to the details of Marxian exploitation, Lenin's War Communism, Stalin's extreme focus on growth of heavy industry, etc., without getting bogged down in the 50,000 different awful things they all did -- it's like, yes, word, but I have already learned about these things again and again throughout my life, since they're literally the dominant ideological stance of the US... this is not *excusing* the bad things, it's simply recognizing that a book on the specific critiques/acts that Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao carried out against capitalism doesn't require a rehearsal of these 50,000 things for the 50,000th time among English readers
[PS: learned of this book bc it was cited in John Roemer's "Free to Lose", so mega shoutout to that book for being great AND leading me to this book as well]
[PS: learned of this book bc it was cited in John Roemer's "Free to Lose", so mega shoutout to that book for being great AND leading me to this book as well]
March 31, 2013
This is an undergrad or grad school book I’ve had for ages and am re-reading. I thought it was time to read about Marxist thought and history with the end to the Soviet Union, the triumph of capitalism, and the recent crisis that began in 2008.
The author is a believer, especially in Maoist China. From his writings on Mao’s China you can see he clearly believes that, in general, Mao got it right and was doing the right things to create a socialist – then communist – system. The odd thing about the book is that it is a shorter work that was added to over time, so as you read it, later chapters are written for different editions while retaining older material. The chapters on Marx and his thoughts could probably be maintained today but the sections on post-Stalin Russia and post-Mao China need serious updating (in my edition).
The sections on Marx’s thinking are useful, if a little tough to get through. He does a pretty good job of explaining Marx’s ideas, not all of which are intuitive. My feelings about Marx remain the same. He was great at critiquing the capitalism he saw in his time and terrible about predicting (or advocating) what should happen next. Marx saw the changing economic nature of Europe from feudalism to capitalism (and the fight for political rights by the bourgeoisie relative to the older, aristocratic class). He saw the poor working conditions of workers, the poverty, and the concentration of wealth. He did not see the rise of the middle class, workers demands for better wages, working conditions and the like. While he might say the workers were bought off to accept their exploitation, this is what happened. The revolutions he discusses by Lenin, Stalin, and Mao are the opposite of what Marx predicted. In the case of Lenin and the Soviet Union, a less developed country was the site of a communist revolution. In the case of Mao and China, Marx was further turned on his head by the reliance on the agricultural sector and peasants.
Gurley has an interesting chapter on “contemporary” views of the world scene (mid-1980s) and a section on what Marx might think if he were transported in time. Again, Gurley is a believer and sees anything that opposes capitalism, hurts its rate of growth, and limits its reach as a good thing. This is the opposite of what Marx would say. Gurley is really an anti-capitalist first and a socialist/Marxist second. Simply opposing “monopoly capital” is not communism – that’s too simple of a formulation. Someone can oppose large capitalist enterprises and believe in a smaller, constrained capitalism (intervention by the state, more voice for working and middle class in the economic system) rather than jumping straight to communism.
One interesting tidbit from someone who lived through the late Soviet period is his discussion over whether in the late 1960s onward, the Soviet Union was shifting from socialism to a state capitalism. I did not really hear that debate in my studies.
Overall an interesting book for those who want to know some basics of Marx but be warned about the perishable nature of much of his information about the post-Stalin Soviet Union and Mao’s China.
The author is a believer, especially in Maoist China. From his writings on Mao’s China you can see he clearly believes that, in general, Mao got it right and was doing the right things to create a socialist – then communist – system. The odd thing about the book is that it is a shorter work that was added to over time, so as you read it, later chapters are written for different editions while retaining older material. The chapters on Marx and his thoughts could probably be maintained today but the sections on post-Stalin Russia and post-Mao China need serious updating (in my edition).
The sections on Marx’s thinking are useful, if a little tough to get through. He does a pretty good job of explaining Marx’s ideas, not all of which are intuitive. My feelings about Marx remain the same. He was great at critiquing the capitalism he saw in his time and terrible about predicting (or advocating) what should happen next. Marx saw the changing economic nature of Europe from feudalism to capitalism (and the fight for political rights by the bourgeoisie relative to the older, aristocratic class). He saw the poor working conditions of workers, the poverty, and the concentration of wealth. He did not see the rise of the middle class, workers demands for better wages, working conditions and the like. While he might say the workers were bought off to accept their exploitation, this is what happened. The revolutions he discusses by Lenin, Stalin, and Mao are the opposite of what Marx predicted. In the case of Lenin and the Soviet Union, a less developed country was the site of a communist revolution. In the case of Mao and China, Marx was further turned on his head by the reliance on the agricultural sector and peasants.
Gurley has an interesting chapter on “contemporary” views of the world scene (mid-1980s) and a section on what Marx might think if he were transported in time. Again, Gurley is a believer and sees anything that opposes capitalism, hurts its rate of growth, and limits its reach as a good thing. This is the opposite of what Marx would say. Gurley is really an anti-capitalist first and a socialist/Marxist second. Simply opposing “monopoly capital” is not communism – that’s too simple of a formulation. Someone can oppose large capitalist enterprises and believe in a smaller, constrained capitalism (intervention by the state, more voice for working and middle class in the economic system) rather than jumping straight to communism.
One interesting tidbit from someone who lived through the late Soviet period is his discussion over whether in the late 1960s onward, the Soviet Union was shifting from socialism to a state capitalism. I did not really hear that debate in my studies.
Overall an interesting book for those who want to know some basics of Marx but be warned about the perishable nature of much of his information about the post-Stalin Soviet Union and Mao’s China.
Read
March 21, 2016Found it at a used bookstore ... this is a really nifty read to see the historical underpinnings of socialism.
Love that i don't have to read all of marx's stuff as the author ( a stanford professor) outlines the big ideas.
Love that i don't have to read all of marx's stuff as the author ( a stanford professor) outlines the big ideas.
Read
March 11, 2009This is a good book for those interested in economics during the Cold War era.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews