What do you think?
Rate this book
Introducing Graphic Guides
Introducing Marxism: A Graphic Guide
Was Marx himself a 'Marxist'? Was his visionary promise of socialism betrayed by Marxist dictatorship? Is Marxism inevitably totalitarian? What did Marx really say? "Introducing Marxism" provides a fundamental account of Karl Marx's original philosophy, its roots in 19th century European ideology, his radical economic and social criticism of capitalism that inspired vast 20th century revolutions. It assesses Marxism's Russian disciples, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin who forged a ruthless dogmatic Communism. The book examines the alternative Marxist approaches of Gramsci, the Frankfurt School of critical theory and the structuralist Marxism of Althusser in the 1960s. It marshals postmodern interpretations of Marxism and raises the spectre of 'post-Marxism' in Derrida's confrontation with Fukuyama's 'end of history' doctrine.
242 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2004
826 people are currently reading
1351 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 220 reviews
May 31, 2017
An introductory book should be judged on two merits:
1. It should be simple and lucid in explaining the breadth of the topic, and
2. it should not be inaccurate or give space for misconstruing the subject.
I am only vaguely acquainted with the central tenets of Marxism and so, I am capable of judging the book fairly only based on the first point.
It's a graphic guide and has a picture-a-page structure with the same picture repeated with minor changes within a topic for several topics. The pictures are black and white mostly depicting various philosophers, chiefly Marx, professing their views in speech bubbles. In some cases, a dialogue format is used to illustrate conflicting ideas. This may an appealing way to drive the ideas home, but it is not necessarily more effective pedagogically, to someone who is already interested to learn about Marxism. On the flip side, it severely restricts the page space available to some of the more dense arguments of Marxism. (Based on popular perception, Marxism seems unnecessarily full of these.)
While I cannot judge on the accuracy of the ideas accurately, and while I liked the beginning 3/4th of the book, I think the whole 'post-Marxism' bit was incongruous with the rest of the book, and Marxism in general, and makes this book useless, considering how much space was allocated to that subject. How can something that advocates that "nothing should be done. revolution is impossible. our job is only to build 'narratives' of what is happening and since our narratives are always subjective, they are pretty much useless to do anything with." be even remotely compatible with Marxism, let alone be termed an 'extension of Marxism'? It could have worked, at most, as a criticism of Marxism, and, probably, a good one at that. To borrow Marxist lingo, it seems completely reactionary. Their ideal state is free-market with limited government, for god's sake.
If the final argument of the book has any sense at all, it doesn't show it. No criticism of post-Marxism is even included. It just feels like the author's paternalistic condescension was at work here. "Oh no! What happens if the impressionable young minds are seduced by this ideology and start taking it seriously? I must never let that happen."
1. It should be simple and lucid in explaining the breadth of the topic, and
2. it should not be inaccurate or give space for misconstruing the subject.
I am only vaguely acquainted with the central tenets of Marxism and so, I am capable of judging the book fairly only based on the first point.
It's a graphic guide and has a picture-a-page structure with the same picture repeated with minor changes within a topic for several topics. The pictures are black and white mostly depicting various philosophers, chiefly Marx, professing their views in speech bubbles. In some cases, a dialogue format is used to illustrate conflicting ideas. This may an appealing way to drive the ideas home, but it is not necessarily more effective pedagogically, to someone who is already interested to learn about Marxism. On the flip side, it severely restricts the page space available to some of the more dense arguments of Marxism. (Based on popular perception, Marxism seems unnecessarily full of these.)
While I cannot judge on the accuracy of the ideas accurately, and while I liked the beginning 3/4th of the book, I think the whole 'post-Marxism' bit was incongruous with the rest of the book, and Marxism in general, and makes this book useless, considering how much space was allocated to that subject. How can something that advocates that "nothing should be done. revolution is impossible. our job is only to build 'narratives' of what is happening and since our narratives are always subjective, they are pretty much useless to do anything with." be even remotely compatible with Marxism, let alone be termed an 'extension of Marxism'? It could have worked, at most, as a criticism of Marxism, and, probably, a good one at that. To borrow Marxist lingo, it seems completely reactionary. Their ideal state is free-market with limited government, for god's sake.
If the final argument of the book has any sense at all, it doesn't show it. No criticism of post-Marxism is even included. It just feels like the author's paternalistic condescension was at work here. "Oh no! What happens if the impressionable young minds are seduced by this ideology and start taking it seriously? I must never let that happen."
November 11, 2018
This is a really terrible book. The first half or so is a fairly basic abridged description of Marxist theory, although it makes a lot of assumptions and leaves loads out. The second half is little more than an anti-socialist manifesto, particularly the bizarre final 10 points the author uses to make his absurd free-market libertarian arguments that wouldn’t be out of place in an Ayn Rand book, or from the mouth of any American Republican.
For something that is meant to be an introduction to a topic as complex and (literally) revolutionary as Marxism this is far, far too biased and makes no attempt to rectify that fact. How can an supposedly educational introduction to an economic theory basically say “now we all know this doesn’t work but here’s why some evil people thought it did”?
I can only hope this is not many people’s’ primary exposure to Marxist, and the much broader socialist, theory. Grim stuff.
For something that is meant to be an introduction to a topic as complex and (literally) revolutionary as Marxism this is far, far too biased and makes no attempt to rectify that fact. How can an supposedly educational introduction to an economic theory basically say “now we all know this doesn’t work but here’s why some evil people thought it did”?
I can only hope this is not many people’s’ primary exposure to Marxist, and the much broader socialist, theory. Grim stuff.
January 18, 2015
Reasonably clear account of the main aspects of Marxism and how they've developed over the last 150 years. The book's final conclusions puzzled me as they didn't seem justified by the preceding text.
October 20, 2021
2021 Edit: having started to actually read Marx and try to understand his ideas, revisiting this has really brought to light that this book is borderline propaganda for discrediting Marxism. As someone who doesn't even identify as a Marxist - merely interested in understanding Marxism itself - I still found myself almost shocked at the falsities the 10 points stipulated at the beginning of this book, let alone the 10 at the end. I cannot recommend this in the slightest. Its practically asinine in its concoction.
--------
A reader of this will enjoy the concise and interesting history that this book delivers. However, through its pages, I found myself at times, questioning the narrative the authors were pushing. Without a larger knowledge of Marx, I couldn't form a critisicm, as such I would warn readers of how much is omitted from these pages, especially with reference to later post-Marxism introductions. However, the authors decide to pen a 10 point criticism of Marxism in this Post-Modern world (already the post-modern is a subjective opinion) and this I DID find slightly repulsive and sweepingly dismissive of revolutionary rhetoric and action. The blatant dismissal of class as a remotely unifying force for revolutionary change had alarm bells ringing in my mind particularly. By mentioning that some later critics of Marx noticed that we should be more detailed about oppression (a black woman has different grivences compared to a white factory working male for example) is absolutely not a reason to dismiss working for a society that better accommodates all these oppressions; and yet that's exactly what this book does.
Not only this, but the fact that the books narrative decides to end with a good chunck of space devoted to post-Marxists who, upon reading about their ideas in this very book , I found to be borderline flirting with free market fundamentalism. How on earth such people can be given such conclusive space at the end of the book is beyond me. I won't list the rest here, but if you pick this up, feel free to have a look at the back to make your own mind up.
This is mainly why I choose to try and read Marx myself, I am simply too untrusting of others telling me, or summerise for me, whether his ideas are still relevant or not. In many cases it feels that although Marxism is tolerated as an idea to learn about, certain intellectuals will do what they can - consciously or unconsciously - to de-fang and obfuscate the tradition. I feel this book is no different in trying to present Marxism as a dustbin concept that's better left to be read as an old idea worth studying for purely historical interest. The fact the authors make the claim "socialism does not work and neither does any other grand narrative..." is enough to have me suspicious. Not because I'm a diehard Marxist, so much as because I can sense when an agenda is present.
My current feeling is postmodernist thinkers tend to do a good job of making certain unifying ideas absolutely incomprehensible.
--------
A reader of this will enjoy the concise and interesting history that this book delivers. However, through its pages, I found myself at times, questioning the narrative the authors were pushing. Without a larger knowledge of Marx, I couldn't form a critisicm, as such I would warn readers of how much is omitted from these pages, especially with reference to later post-Marxism introductions. However, the authors decide to pen a 10 point criticism of Marxism in this Post-Modern world (already the post-modern is a subjective opinion) and this I DID find slightly repulsive and sweepingly dismissive of revolutionary rhetoric and action. The blatant dismissal of class as a remotely unifying force for revolutionary change had alarm bells ringing in my mind particularly. By mentioning that some later critics of Marx noticed that we should be more detailed about oppression (a black woman has different grivences compared to a white factory working male for example) is absolutely not a reason to dismiss working for a society that better accommodates all these oppressions; and yet that's exactly what this book does.
Not only this, but the fact that the books narrative decides to end with a good chunck of space devoted to post-Marxists who, upon reading about their ideas in this very book , I found to be borderline flirting with free market fundamentalism. How on earth such people can be given such conclusive space at the end of the book is beyond me. I won't list the rest here, but if you pick this up, feel free to have a look at the back to make your own mind up.
This is mainly why I choose to try and read Marx myself, I am simply too untrusting of others telling me, or summerise for me, whether his ideas are still relevant or not. In many cases it feels that although Marxism is tolerated as an idea to learn about, certain intellectuals will do what they can - consciously or unconsciously - to de-fang and obfuscate the tradition. I feel this book is no different in trying to present Marxism as a dustbin concept that's better left to be read as an old idea worth studying for purely historical interest. The fact the authors make the claim "socialism does not work and neither does any other grand narrative..." is enough to have me suspicious. Not because I'm a diehard Marxist, so much as because I can sense when an agenda is present.
My current feeling is postmodernist thinkers tend to do a good job of making certain unifying ideas absolutely incomprehensible.
February 2, 2020
An "introductory" book to Marxism that ends up rejecting class struggle, defending the market as the best allocation system for commodities and proposing that we abandon any idea of transcending capitalism, as the only way forward is to "build narratives". I kid you not!
The author also barely mentions the recurring crises of capitalism which were central to Marx (and when discussed, he gets them wrong), confuses exchange value and value, price and value, uses the "muh totalitarianisms" frame etc.
I'll leave you with a couple of quotesfrom this book just to illustrate the reactionary outlook and pure ideology in the book:
1) "Solidarity and sympathy within groups is a humanitarian duty and gesture. A belief in class solidarity is harmful to this process".
2) "Socialism does not work"
3) "Anti-imperialism has had its day. The world is too complex".
Ok Hillary Clinton, whatever you say.
The author also barely mentions the recurring crises of capitalism which were central to Marx (and when discussed, he gets them wrong), confuses exchange value and value, price and value, uses the "muh totalitarianisms" frame etc.
I'll leave you with a couple of quotesfrom this book just to illustrate the reactionary outlook and pure ideology in the book:
1) "Solidarity and sympathy within groups is a humanitarian duty and gesture. A belief in class solidarity is harmful to this process".
2) "Socialism does not work"
3) "Anti-imperialism has had its day. The world is too complex".
Ok Hillary Clinton, whatever you say.
February 2, 2023
I am unfortunately still too stupid to grasp the concept of Marxism. This graphic guide did not help me.
Read
January 5, 2020ümumiyyetle bu kitabları türkçe oxumaq ilk başda çox ağır geldi,amma artıq çox böyük hezz alıram.bide karikatura ile oluşu meni menden alır :'))
April 2, 2018
80% ok history of Marxism. One star down because the "humor" and cartoons are trying way too hard. Two stars down because the author can't keep his libertarian views in his pants and randomly drops hoary canards like "socialism can't work" and "the free market is the only way to ensure an equitable distribution of capital" without even trying to justify them.
April 4, 2019
First third or so gives a broad glancing introductory overview of marx's philosophy which may be difficult for a beginner to follow. Another third of the book is dedicated to soviet history. This is the point at which it became too difficult for me to continue reading. The unjustified pounding over and over on the point of marxism's hopelessness as theory and practice and the out of nowhere statements of opinion betray this whole book as a tract of liberal propaganda first, education second. And the educational aspect really suffers for it.
October 21, 2017
Reading the ultimate conclusion, I was like: "wait, whaaaa?" Those ten points came totally out of nowhere, and seemed like something Francis Fukuyama might claim. I am still not entirely sure the author isn't just trolling. The German translation might obfuscate some irony markers.
August 16, 2016
1) Fikirlerin ya da açıklamaların birbirine meydan okuma ve böylece daha iyi bir teoriyi doğurma sürecine Hegel "diyalektik" adını vermişti.
2) Hegel, diyalektiliğin işlemesinde 3 temel yasa önerir. Marx ve Engels bu yasaların tümünü kabul etmekten memnundu.
1. Yasa - Niceliğin Niteliğe Dönüşme Yasası: Isıtılan suyun birden bire gaz halina dönüşmesi gibi toplumda aynı şekilde yavaşça ama ani dönüşümlerle değişir. Marksistler bu toplumsal dönüşümleri "devrim" diye tanımlar.
2. Yasa - Karşıtların Birliği Yasası: Gece-gündüz, sıcak-soğuk gibi her şey karşıtlık içinde var olur. Marksistlere göre mülk sahibi, işçi sınıfına karşıttır. Makinelerinin çalışması için mülk sahipleri işçilere, kendilerine iş verilmesi için işçiler mülk sahiplerine ihtiyacı vardır.
3. Yasa - Olumsuzlamanın Olumsuzlaması Yasası: Her tez içinde nihayet çökmesine sebep olacak olan sorunlar ve hatalar barındırır. Bu sorunları açığa çıkaran antitezdir, bu sayede tez olumsuzlanmış olur. Ancak antitez de kendi içerisinde hatalar barındırır, bu hataları açığa çıkaransa sentezdir. Marksistler bu sürecin tarihte işlediğini düşünür. Kapitalizm, feodalizmi olumsuzlamış; sosyalizm ise kapitalizmi olumsuzlayacaktır. Her olumsuzlamada sorunlar arkada bırakılır ama iyi şerler korunur. Sosyalizm, kapitalizmin sömürüsünü arkada bırakacak ama ileri teknolojiyi tutacaktır. Bu nedenle olumsuzlamanın olumsuzlanması süreci iyimser ve ilericidir.
3) Marx'ın diyalektik anlayışı Hegel'in aksine idealara değil maddi dünyaya bağlıdır. Marx'a göre Hegel'in gerçekliğin zihinsel olduğu ve fikirlerden oluştuğu fikri yanlıştır. Dolayısıyla Marx materyalist, Hegel idealisttir.
4) Marx sosyalizme diyalektik materyalizmi getirdiği için bilimsel olduğunu düşünüyordu. Bu anlayışla insan(veya türsel doğadaki) doğasındaki değişim için üç anlayış getiriyor;
1.Aşama: İnsanlar kendilerinin farkındadırlar, işbirliği yaparlar, özgürce yaşarlar fakat kendi koşulları üzerine düşünmez ve onları değiştirmek için harekete geçmezler.
2. Aşama: Ekonomik örgütlenme tarzları ortaya çıkar ve insanları doğalarından uzaklaştırır.
3. Aşama: Kişi kendini tam olarak gerçekleştirir. Nasıl yaşacağını, ne yapar ve nasıl olurs haklı olacağını bilir.
5) Doğadaki hammadddeleri çıkartıp onları işletmek için yapılmış şeylere Marx "üretim güçleri" der. Marx'a göre insanlık tarihinin başlarında insan ilişkilerine dayalı "ilkel komünizm" vardı. Bazı insanlar üretim güçlerine sahip olarak başka insanların emeğini kullanır hale geldi. Bu sistem çökmüş ve onun yerine feodalizm gelmişti. Fedoalizmde halk toprağa bağlıdır ve toprağın sahibide aristokratlardır. Büyüyen kasabalardaki tüccar ve imalatçılar iktidarı ele geçirerek Burjuva Devrimi'ne sebep olmuştur. Fedoalizm de çürümüş ve şimdiki üretim tarzı olan kapitalizm gelmiştir.
6) İngiliz ekonomist David Ricardo bir emek-değer teorisi geliştirdi. Bir metanın fiyatı onun yapılması için gereken zamana dayanıyordu. Marx'a göre sömürünün özünde meta ve değer vardır. Marx'a göre metanın tanımı: "Özellikleri sayesinde çeşitli türden insani istekleri karşılayan şey." Marx'a göre iki metanın ilişki içerisinde bulunduğu şey üretilmeleri için sarf edilen emek miktarıdır.
7) Üretim araçları, metaları yapmak için gereken araçlar ve makinelerdir. Bir makine bir meanın üretim miktarını iki katına çıkartabilir, böylece değeri yarıya düşer. Fakat bir işçinin böyle bir şey yapabilmesi için iki katı fazla çalışması lazımdır ki böyle bir şeyi yapamaz.
8) Kar elde edemeyen kapitalizm varlığını sürdüremez. Eğer kapitalist girişimciler işçilere emeklerinin gerçek değerlerini ödeselerdi hiç kar edemezlerdi. İşçiler kar edebilecekleri makinlere ya da fabriklara sahip olmadıkları için kendi emek güçlerini satarak para kazanırlar. Kapitalistler üretim araçları için ödemek zorunda oldukları para kontrollerinin dışındadır, onları mübadele değerinden satın almak zorundadır. Marx buna "sabit sermaye" demiştir. Emek gücününde işçilerin hayati gereksinimlerini karşılaması için gerekli oran para miktarından oluşan mübadele değeri vardır. Marx bunada "değişken sermaye" demiştir. Kapitalist kar edebilmek için işçilerine gerçek mübadele değerinden daha az ücret vermek zorundadır. Yani işçileri 10 saat çalıştırıp 6 saatlik ücret vermelidir ki kar edebilsin. Bunun yanı sıra kapitalistler kar oranını sürekli arttırmak durumundadır, bunun içinde örgütlenirler. Sermaye giderek yoğunlaşacak ve küçük girişimçiler piyasadan çekilecektir. Daralan kapitalist sınıf ile giderek kötüleşen sefaletten muzdarip ploterya arasında kutuplaşma olacak ve devrim gerçekleşecektir. 19.yüzyılda kapitalistler işçileri olağanüstü derecede uzun saatler boyunca çalışmaya zorlamıştır.
9) Her ne kadar Marksist teori sağlam ve mantıklı gözüksede, bugün az çok tüm ekonomistler Marx'ın teorisinin kusurlu olduğuna inanıyor. Popper, The Poverty of Historicism kitabında Marx'ın kilit kavramlarının yanlışlanamayacağını dolayısıyla bilimsel olmadığını söylemiştir. Bunun yanı sıra Popper, diyalektiliğin mistik ve doğrulanamaz bir saçmalık olduğunu düşünmüştü. Marx, 19.yüzyıldaki laissez-faire(let them do) kapitalizminin de devam edeceğini varsaymıştı. İki devasa sınıf olan sermaye ve emeğin ezip yok edeceğini düşündüğü orta sınıfın güç kazanacağını öngörememişti. Anonim şirketler sayesinde pek çok insan müşterek mülkiyet edinebildi, diğerleriyse yönetici olmuştur ve hissedarlar onlara yatırımlarının yönetsin diye ücret ödemektedir. Hissedarlarsa, Marx'ın beklediği gibi proletaryanın saflarına katılmak şöyle dursun, içinden çıktıkları sınıfa karşı kendilerini üstün hissetmişti. Sermayenin yoğunlaşması işçilerin "kolektifleşmesi"ne yol açar. Fakat, Marx'ın tahminin aksine işçiler kendi birliklerini, yani sendikalarını kurdurlar. Sendikalizmin amacı sistemi devirmek değil, ücretleri ve koşulları iyileştirmektir. Sosyal Demokrasi'nin "refah devleti"nin siyaset felsefi 20.yüzyılda güçlenmişti. Bu felsefinin merkezi özelliği, kapitalistlerin zararına olsa bile, sıradan insanların ekonomiyi iyileştirmek için ekonomiye müdahele etmesiydi. Böylece Marx'ın devletin yalnızca zenginlerin çıkarlarını kolladığı şeklindeki fikri hatalı çıkmıştı.
2) Hegel, diyalektiliğin işlemesinde 3 temel yasa önerir. Marx ve Engels bu yasaların tümünü kabul etmekten memnundu.
1. Yasa - Niceliğin Niteliğe Dönüşme Yasası: Isıtılan suyun birden bire gaz halina dönüşmesi gibi toplumda aynı şekilde yavaşça ama ani dönüşümlerle değişir. Marksistler bu toplumsal dönüşümleri "devrim" diye tanımlar.
2. Yasa - Karşıtların Birliği Yasası: Gece-gündüz, sıcak-soğuk gibi her şey karşıtlık içinde var olur. Marksistlere göre mülk sahibi, işçi sınıfına karşıttır. Makinelerinin çalışması için mülk sahipleri işçilere, kendilerine iş verilmesi için işçiler mülk sahiplerine ihtiyacı vardır.
3. Yasa - Olumsuzlamanın Olumsuzlaması Yasası: Her tez içinde nihayet çökmesine sebep olacak olan sorunlar ve hatalar barındırır. Bu sorunları açığa çıkaran antitezdir, bu sayede tez olumsuzlanmış olur. Ancak antitez de kendi içerisinde hatalar barındırır, bu hataları açığa çıkaransa sentezdir. Marksistler bu sürecin tarihte işlediğini düşünür. Kapitalizm, feodalizmi olumsuzlamış; sosyalizm ise kapitalizmi olumsuzlayacaktır. Her olumsuzlamada sorunlar arkada bırakılır ama iyi şerler korunur. Sosyalizm, kapitalizmin sömürüsünü arkada bırakacak ama ileri teknolojiyi tutacaktır. Bu nedenle olumsuzlamanın olumsuzlanması süreci iyimser ve ilericidir.
3) Marx'ın diyalektik anlayışı Hegel'in aksine idealara değil maddi dünyaya bağlıdır. Marx'a göre Hegel'in gerçekliğin zihinsel olduğu ve fikirlerden oluştuğu fikri yanlıştır. Dolayısıyla Marx materyalist, Hegel idealisttir.
4) Marx sosyalizme diyalektik materyalizmi getirdiği için bilimsel olduğunu düşünüyordu. Bu anlayışla insan(veya türsel doğadaki) doğasındaki değişim için üç anlayış getiriyor;
1.Aşama: İnsanlar kendilerinin farkındadırlar, işbirliği yaparlar, özgürce yaşarlar fakat kendi koşulları üzerine düşünmez ve onları değiştirmek için harekete geçmezler.
2. Aşama: Ekonomik örgütlenme tarzları ortaya çıkar ve insanları doğalarından uzaklaştırır.
3. Aşama: Kişi kendini tam olarak gerçekleştirir. Nasıl yaşacağını, ne yapar ve nasıl olurs haklı olacağını bilir.
5) Doğadaki hammadddeleri çıkartıp onları işletmek için yapılmış şeylere Marx "üretim güçleri" der. Marx'a göre insanlık tarihinin başlarında insan ilişkilerine dayalı "ilkel komünizm" vardı. Bazı insanlar üretim güçlerine sahip olarak başka insanların emeğini kullanır hale geldi. Bu sistem çökmüş ve onun yerine feodalizm gelmişti. Fedoalizmde halk toprağa bağlıdır ve toprağın sahibide aristokratlardır. Büyüyen kasabalardaki tüccar ve imalatçılar iktidarı ele geçirerek Burjuva Devrimi'ne sebep olmuştur. Fedoalizm de çürümüş ve şimdiki üretim tarzı olan kapitalizm gelmiştir.
6) İngiliz ekonomist David Ricardo bir emek-değer teorisi geliştirdi. Bir metanın fiyatı onun yapılması için gereken zamana dayanıyordu. Marx'a göre sömürünün özünde meta ve değer vardır. Marx'a göre metanın tanımı: "Özellikleri sayesinde çeşitli türden insani istekleri karşılayan şey." Marx'a göre iki metanın ilişki içerisinde bulunduğu şey üretilmeleri için sarf edilen emek miktarıdır.
7) Üretim araçları, metaları yapmak için gereken araçlar ve makinelerdir. Bir makine bir meanın üretim miktarını iki katına çıkartabilir, böylece değeri yarıya düşer. Fakat bir işçinin böyle bir şey yapabilmesi için iki katı fazla çalışması lazımdır ki böyle bir şeyi yapamaz.
8) Kar elde edemeyen kapitalizm varlığını sürdüremez. Eğer kapitalist girişimciler işçilere emeklerinin gerçek değerlerini ödeselerdi hiç kar edemezlerdi. İşçiler kar edebilecekleri makinlere ya da fabriklara sahip olmadıkları için kendi emek güçlerini satarak para kazanırlar. Kapitalistler üretim araçları için ödemek zorunda oldukları para kontrollerinin dışındadır, onları mübadele değerinden satın almak zorundadır. Marx buna "sabit sermaye" demiştir. Emek gücününde işçilerin hayati gereksinimlerini karşılaması için gerekli oran para miktarından oluşan mübadele değeri vardır. Marx bunada "değişken sermaye" demiştir. Kapitalist kar edebilmek için işçilerine gerçek mübadele değerinden daha az ücret vermek zorundadır. Yani işçileri 10 saat çalıştırıp 6 saatlik ücret vermelidir ki kar edebilsin. Bunun yanı sıra kapitalistler kar oranını sürekli arttırmak durumundadır, bunun içinde örgütlenirler. Sermaye giderek yoğunlaşacak ve küçük girişimçiler piyasadan çekilecektir. Daralan kapitalist sınıf ile giderek kötüleşen sefaletten muzdarip ploterya arasında kutuplaşma olacak ve devrim gerçekleşecektir. 19.yüzyılda kapitalistler işçileri olağanüstü derecede uzun saatler boyunca çalışmaya zorlamıştır.
9) Her ne kadar Marksist teori sağlam ve mantıklı gözüksede, bugün az çok tüm ekonomistler Marx'ın teorisinin kusurlu olduğuna inanıyor. Popper, The Poverty of Historicism kitabında Marx'ın kilit kavramlarının yanlışlanamayacağını dolayısıyla bilimsel olmadığını söylemiştir. Bunun yanı sıra Popper, diyalektiliğin mistik ve doğrulanamaz bir saçmalık olduğunu düşünmüştü. Marx, 19.yüzyıldaki laissez-faire(let them do) kapitalizminin de devam edeceğini varsaymıştı. İki devasa sınıf olan sermaye ve emeğin ezip yok edeceğini düşündüğü orta sınıfın güç kazanacağını öngörememişti. Anonim şirketler sayesinde pek çok insan müşterek mülkiyet edinebildi, diğerleriyse yönetici olmuştur ve hissedarlar onlara yatırımlarının yönetsin diye ücret ödemektedir. Hissedarlarsa, Marx'ın beklediği gibi proletaryanın saflarına katılmak şöyle dursun, içinden çıktıkları sınıfa karşı kendilerini üstün hissetmişti. Sermayenin yoğunlaşması işçilerin "kolektifleşmesi"ne yol açar. Fakat, Marx'ın tahminin aksine işçiler kendi birliklerini, yani sendikalarını kurdurlar. Sendikalizmin amacı sistemi devirmek değil, ücretleri ve koşulları iyileştirmektir. Sosyal Demokrasi'nin "refah devleti"nin siyaset felsefi 20.yüzyılda güçlenmişti. Bu felsefinin merkezi özelliği, kapitalistlerin zararına olsa bile, sıradan insanların ekonomiyi iyileştirmek için ekonomiye müdahele etmesiydi. Böylece Marx'ın devletin yalnızca zenginlerin çıkarlarını kolladığı şeklindeki fikri hatalı çıkmıştı.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 22, 2020
I was at Powell's Books in Portland, specifically in their politics section, when it hit me: looking for new books to read always makes me have to shit. This happens without fail. I didn't have time to go and resume my search after so the last book I grabbed was one with the most alluring cover: Marxism A Graphic Guide.
I'm not a huge theory guy. I feel like I actually spent a lot of time organizing with the DSA getting dunked on by people who can quote Das Kapital like the bible. I thought a graphic guide would be a good way for a time-pressed idiot like myself to learn some of the basics and defend myself from the rabid mobs of anarchists insisting that Medicare for All is fascism.
And maybe it is, but certainly not this graphic guide. It became clear by page 74 that Woodfin is actually not a fan of Marx. The first 70 or so pages are an introduction to Marx's life and theory of value. Woodfin then pivots, saying "Marxist Theory seemed rigorous....but more or less all economists today believe Marx's theory seriously flawed, or, to put it bluntly, wrong". He then spends the next 100 pages giving massive amounts of air time to Marx's anarchist and capitalist detractors - Bakunin and Francis Fukuyama play big roles - and post Marxists like Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. Significant time is spent talking about the authoritarianism of Russia, because of course.
The last page of the guide has a 10-point criticism of Marxism that includes such gems as "in an interdependent, globalized world, anti-imperialism has had its day. The world is too complex", "the state as such is always dangerous and cannot deliver effective social welfare", "any form of central planning is inefficient and tends toward corruption". It's unclear if Woodfin, who taught Marxism to undergrads (his bio doesn't list where) actually believes these criticisms, but it's strange that they're included and seem to refute a theory he spends almost no time defending.
It strikes me that Woodfin holds with neo-classical and modern economists he cites who, as the brilliant Martin Hagglund puts it, "seek to explain the value of commodities not in terms of labor time but in terms of supply and demand". Even though supply and demand seem like immutable orthodoxy, the concept doesn't reject Marx like some would think, Hagglund goes on: "the model of supply and demand confirms [Marx] argument that socially necessary labor time is the measure of value for commodities. [These concepts] cannot be understood merely in spatial terms but must be understood in temporal terms". The example I found very compelling was if water was even a fraction as difficult to obtain as diamonds
So to be clear, Marxism a Graphic Guide is a critical guide, paying tribute to Marxism only in its influence as a critical theory of the past. The stance of the author is that we have moved beyond the need for such a theory. And also that the government is inherently evil? Anyway, the cover is still pretty damn cool and I have to give it to illustrator Oscar Zarate, the art is fun:
I'm not a huge theory guy. I feel like I actually spent a lot of time organizing with the DSA getting dunked on by people who can quote Das Kapital like the bible. I thought a graphic guide would be a good way for a time-pressed idiot like myself to learn some of the basics and defend myself from the rabid mobs of anarchists insisting that Medicare for All is fascism.
And maybe it is, but certainly not this graphic guide. It became clear by page 74 that Woodfin is actually not a fan of Marx. The first 70 or so pages are an introduction to Marx's life and theory of value. Woodfin then pivots, saying "Marxist Theory seemed rigorous....but more or less all economists today believe Marx's theory seriously flawed, or, to put it bluntly, wrong". He then spends the next 100 pages giving massive amounts of air time to Marx's anarchist and capitalist detractors - Bakunin and Francis Fukuyama play big roles - and post Marxists like Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. Significant time is spent talking about the authoritarianism of Russia, because of course.
The last page of the guide has a 10-point criticism of Marxism that includes such gems as "in an interdependent, globalized world, anti-imperialism has had its day. The world is too complex", "the state as such is always dangerous and cannot deliver effective social welfare", "any form of central planning is inefficient and tends toward corruption". It's unclear if Woodfin, who taught Marxism to undergrads (his bio doesn't list where) actually believes these criticisms, but it's strange that they're included and seem to refute a theory he spends almost no time defending.
It strikes me that Woodfin holds with neo-classical and modern economists he cites who, as the brilliant Martin Hagglund puts it, "seek to explain the value of commodities not in terms of labor time but in terms of supply and demand". Even though supply and demand seem like immutable orthodoxy, the concept doesn't reject Marx like some would think, Hagglund goes on: "the model of supply and demand confirms [Marx] argument that socially necessary labor time is the measure of value for commodities. [These concepts] cannot be understood merely in spatial terms but must be understood in temporal terms". The example I found very compelling was if water was even a fraction as difficult to obtain as diamonds
So to be clear, Marxism a Graphic Guide is a critical guide, paying tribute to Marxism only in its influence as a critical theory of the past. The stance of the author is that we have moved beyond the need for such a theory. And also that the government is inherently evil? Anyway, the cover is still pretty damn cool and I have to give it to illustrator Oscar Zarate, the art is fun:
June 25, 2018
Helpful overview and into to Marxism and critiques
This is a helpful synopsis of Marxist theory, its historical application, principles, critiques and varied interpretations and transformations in modern times.
Wasn't too much a fan of the 10 point critiques in the end or lack of historical context as it pertains to the interference of socialist countries by hands of capitalist and imperial interest or lack of acknowledgement of leaders in global south and southern us who embraced and implemented Marxist theory.
Overall however good info to its general ideas and criticisms, enjoyed the resources for further reading in the end
This is a helpful synopsis of Marxist theory, its historical application, principles, critiques and varied interpretations and transformations in modern times.
Wasn't too much a fan of the 10 point critiques in the end or lack of historical context as it pertains to the interference of socialist countries by hands of capitalist and imperial interest or lack of acknowledgement of leaders in global south and southern us who embraced and implemented Marxist theory.
Overall however good info to its general ideas and criticisms, enjoyed the resources for further reading in the end
October 11, 2022
It is an interesting introduction to the history of Marxism and it's evolution. It is quite evident that the author is not a Marxist himself and the book ends up leaning towards being a full critique of Marxist thinking. I don't agree with some absolutist statements done by the author and he pretending to be central and neutral when is clear he is not. At least I have to give him credit in that he made me interested in learning more about Marxism and read more myself.
October 2, 2022
I'd be lying if I said I understood half of what this book was about, and I was hoping the graphic novel format would dumb it down enough for me.
It did not.
It did not.
October 16, 2018
Buku kecil untuk pengenalan idea besar yang pernah mendominasi dunia. Buku ini memerihalkan idea penghapusan kelas sosial dan ekonomi bermula daripada pemikiran Marx dan Engels. Malahan pemikiran tersebut juga turut memberi perhatian kepada perkembanganya oleh tokoh-tokoh penyambung seterusnya iaitu Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Gramsci, The Frankfurt School, Althusser, Fukuyama, Derrida, Laclau dan Mouffe.
April 15, 2025
Jeg lærte mye
December 23, 2020
Maybe I was a bit out of focus, but I’ve found the writing a little too boring and the text didn’t carry me through, mostly in the first half.
September 23, 2021
I would've given it 2 stars if it weren't for the illustrations and parts of it which were nice. The so called post Marxist conclusions sound plain neoconservative and reactionary. The ending is just awful.
August 25, 2020
Left me hungry for more Marx and Engels!
October 4, 2022
Χωρίς να έχω την θεωρητική γνώση για να κρίνω πόσο αξιόπιστη είναι αυτή η εικονογραφημένη εισαγωγή στην ιστορία της μαρξιστικής θεωρίας και πράξης, απόλαυσα την ανάγνωση και νιώθω σαφώς πιο εξοικειωμένος με την ορολογία και κυρίως τις επιστημολογικές εξελίξεις στον χώρο του μαρξισμού. Το βιβλίο κάνει μια περιεκτική αναδρομή στα μονοπάτια της "επιστημονικής" επαναστατικής σκέψης, ανοίγοντας συχνά διάλογο με τον αναγνώστη τον οποίο και ερεθίζει να σκεφτεί κριτικά και ιστορικά. Η τελευταία σελίδα με ένα μίνι-μανιφέστο της συνολικής κριτικής της μαρξιστικής κληρονομιάς την εποχή της έκδοσης του βιβλίου έχει ξενίσει αρκετούς αναγνώστες λόγω μιας διαθεσης ακύρωσης βασικών εργαλείων της μαρξιστικής ανάλυσης (κυρίως της έννοιας της "τάξης"). Κατά τη γνώμη μου, ακόμα και εάν αυτές οι θέσεις αντανακλούν τις προσωπικές απόψεις του συγγραφέα (μάλλον όχι) δεν χρωματίζουν την αφήγηση που έχει προηγηθεί. Αντιθέτως αντανακλούν δόκιμα ερωτηματα στα οποία υποχρεούται να απαντήσει η σύγχρονη μετα-μαρξιστική θεωρία εαν θέλει να παραμείνει χρήσιμη. Όπως άλλωστε προφητικά αφήνει να εννοηθεί η κατακλείδα φράση, η ιστορία συνεχίζεται, κάτι που οι ανατροπές της δεύτερης δεκαετίας του 21ου αιώνα μας υπενθυμίζουν πολύ επώδυνα.
October 20, 2017
Εύκολος ευανάγνωστος και απλός οδηγός, αν θες να αποκτήσεις μία ιδέα για την ιστορία του μαρξισμού. Αναφέρεται σε αρκετές θεωρίες-κριτικές του Μάρξ (Γκράμσι, Σχολή της Φρανκφούρτης, Μεταμορντενισμός). Ίσως κάποιες αντιρρήσεις για το τελικό συμπέρασμα του οδηγού, καθώς φαίνεται αναντίστοιχο με το υπόλοιπο περιεχόμενο
January 4, 2020
150 años de filosofia política perfectamente esbozados.
De hecho el título es engañoso.
No es solo marxismo.
Lo que más me ha gustado es que empieza en Hegel, y desde ahí, mediante Marx, crece y evoluciona hacia Gramsci, la escuela de Frankfurt, el post modernismo, Derrida, Fukuyama, Laclau, terminando en el lío de identidades y alianzas (agonismos y antagonismos) que tenemos actualmente.
Un mapa del tesoro de la filosofía política del último siglo y medio -cierto que de la eminentemente socialista, claro, aunque no sólo-, nada complaciente con el marxismo.
Me falta, quizá, una contextualización de las socialdemocracias de los 60 y 70 pero ya seria pedir algo que escapa del objetivo de estas -grandes- miniaturas.
Ojo, no es una loa marxista, es una exposición razonada que termina siendo una invitación a la reflexión.
De los mejores de la serie.
Muy, muy recomendable.
De hecho el título es engañoso.
No es solo marxismo.
Lo que más me ha gustado es que empieza en Hegel, y desde ahí, mediante Marx, crece y evoluciona hacia Gramsci, la escuela de Frankfurt, el post modernismo, Derrida, Fukuyama, Laclau, terminando en el lío de identidades y alianzas (agonismos y antagonismos) que tenemos actualmente.
Un mapa del tesoro de la filosofía política del último siglo y medio -cierto que de la eminentemente socialista, claro, aunque no sólo-, nada complaciente con el marxismo.
Me falta, quizá, una contextualización de las socialdemocracias de los 60 y 70 pero ya seria pedir algo que escapa del objetivo de estas -grandes- miniaturas.
Ojo, no es una loa marxista, es una exposición razonada que termina siendo una invitación a la reflexión.
De los mejores de la serie.
Muy, muy recomendable.
September 28, 2020
Overly simplistic in a few areas, and I didn't care much for the writing style. I understand that this was serving to be an introduction, but it's oversimplification hurts its case as a guide for the new Marx reader. Furthermore, even though it is oversimplified in areas, it also lacks nuance and definitional guidance in some of Marx's thought.
March 27, 2025
Went into this hoping for an unbiased history of Marxism. Unfortunately it was more pro-capitalism. If you want to learn about Marxism, just google it. Don’t read this.
The illustrations by Oscar Zarate were nice, though!
The illustrations by Oscar Zarate were nice, though!
January 2, 2020
A very short overview of Marxism, its roots and its transformations through years.
March 31, 2024
A thoughtful and critical review of Marxist thought. I have some quibbles, particularly around Popperian falsifiablility as the standard bearer of science vis-à-vis Marxist essentialism, and I think the book's final conclusions are too strong against state welfare action, but it's still a good little read.
September 11, 2024
I'm glad I bought it so there are fewer copies for less discerning readers to purchase (terrible politics, awfully dismissive attitude towards the thinker and his work)
March 9, 2025
Maybe I’m stupid but I feel so lost and confused on what that book was trying to teach me
If you want a better explanation of what Marxism is, honestly just google it lol
If you want a better explanation of what Marxism is, honestly just google it lol
May 16, 2025
I don't know about you guys but I learned a whole lot from this funny little book. If anything, it explained Marxism's evolution better than any of my school History textbooks ever did.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 220 reviews