What do you think?
Rate this book
Marx
Karl Marx (1818-1883) was trained as a philosopher and steeped in the thought of Hegel and German idealism, but turned away from philosophy in his mid-twenties towards politics, economics and history. It is for his these subjects Marx is best known and in which his work and ideas shaped the very nature of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. However, Marx's engagement with philosophy runs through most of his work, especially in his philosophy of history and in moral and political philosophy. In this outstanding introduction to Marx's philosophy Brian Leiter and Jaime Anderson begin with an overview of Marx's life and intellectual development, before examining and assessing the following important The addition of chapter summaries, annotated further reading and a glossary of technical terms make this an indispensable introduction to Marx's philosophy. It will also be useful to those in related disciplines such as politics, sociology, history and economics.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
316 pages, Paperback
Published September 5, 2024
12 people are currently reading
158 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 - 5 of 5 reviews
September 16, 2024
Warning, very long review ahead, no one has to read, but I had a blast with this book and I strongly recommend people give it a read.
First idea explained is historical materialism. According to Marx, the strongest desires humans have are our basic material ones; the need for shelter, food, and clothing. To meet those needs, humans develop a "mode of production", which is a combination of the forces of production (technology/resources) and relations of production (the roles people have in the production process and the social relationships that come from it). The mode of production is the "base" that causes the "superstructure" of a society; the society's political institutions, religions, laws, and moral philosophies.Throughout history, these modes of production have led to historical epochs that led to other epochs (slavery->feudalism->capitalism). Over time, these modes of production lead to contradictions that cause then to collapse. For example; feudalism led to the invention of the power loom, which led to the invention of the factory. However, under feudalism, workers were stuck on farms and couldn't move to the factories to work. So, the owners of the factories realized that feudalism was wasteful and they fought wars to overthrow the old feudal order (“The feudal and pre-capitalist order gave way because the nascent capitalist class could make better use of the available productive power.”)
Related to the political superstructure is Marx’s theory of ideology. Because the ideas (moral, religious, political) of a society are downstream from its mode of production, many of them exist to uphold the material interests of the dominant class. These beliefs are made by ideologists (economists, religious leaders, philosophers) who make and argue for false beliefs because they are in the interests of the ruling class. The ideologists are often not doing this knowingly, and they often successfully confuse/mislead the oppressed class into adopting beliefs that are harmful. These ideologies also take facts of human psychology that are specific to a particular mode of production, and make it into a universal fact of human psychology(“under capitalism, most individuals must compete in the marketplace to sell their labor power to survive, so self-preservation under capitalism demands constant competition and self-interested calculating. Ideologists interpret this as evidence that egoism and competition are characteristics of human nature, rather than a consequence of economic circumstances.”)
Class, another big Marxist idea. Economic systems sort people into groups of people who have shared material interests, and these groups of people (or classes) come into conflict with each other. . Marx strongly disagrees with the idea that capitalism leads to mutually beneficial contracts between classes. Example; workers want higher wages, more vacation days, all things that are in direct conflict with the owners of the factories who want the exact opposite. In capitalism, the most important classes are the proletariat (the workers) and the bourgeois (the owners of capital). Class is NOT determined by income level, (which is maybe how we think of class today. Instead, class is determined by ownership; workers primarily make their money from wages/labor, capitalists make their money primarily through ownerships of capital.
Just like the epochs before it, Marx thinks that capitalism’s contradictions and conflict between the classes will eventually lead it to collapse. Marx spends a lot of time talking about the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and the labor theory of value, but he got this wrong, so its not worth talking about. His more relevant criticism of capitalism is that capitalists are incentivized to invest in technology that requires less and less labor to produce goods. This may seem good, as capitalism will become increasingly productive and efficient (which is also what capitalist economists predict will happen). However, because workers are being replaced by technology, they obviously won’t get paid wages which ALSO means they have less money to spend on the goods that technology produces. Each capitalist is incentivized to cut labor costs by firing workers and replacing them with tech which leads to a society of impoverished workers; even as technology and productivity increases. Important to note, the transition away from capitalism will likely happen in a highly developed economy.
I think Marx’s criticism of technology is spot on and I also think its interesting that Marx doesn’t really care about arguments that try to paint capitalism as immortal or unjust, which seem to be really common among modern-day progressives (ex: Bezos/Musk don’t deserve their money/its unfair that workers don’t get paid more). These moral arguments will probably just be ignored by the bourgeois, and moral philosophy comes from and justifies the existing mode of production anyway. Instead, Marx argues that as a matter of historical and economic fact, capitalism will collapse under the weight of its contradiction, and communists should try to highlight this fact, not try to overthrow capitalism with arguments.
Leiter and Edwards are critical of 20th century Marxist revolutions and a good chunk of Western academic Marxism. The former for trying to turn largely feudal/agrarian societies (pre-communist China/USSR) directly into socialist economics, without allowing capitalism to develop technology and productivity; Marx thought socialism would arrive in the world’s most advanced industrial nations first. Western Marxism has spent too much time focusing on the superstructure of capitalism (culture, etc) and trying to resurrect Marx’s bad economic arguments (labor theory of value etc). Instead we should get down to brass tacks; look at Marx’s still relevant theory of history, ideology and his economics minus the labor theory of value.
Finally, the important part of this review, me. Have I converted the science of Marxism? I don’t think so, at least not all the way. I think it remains to be seen whether technological growth is as endless as Marx seems to think; maybe we’ll reach a cap on how much technology can replace labor, and idk what happens then. I also don’t agree that all religious/moral views are downstream from the mode of production. However, I think there is a LOT here that is really eye opening and accurate. Of course, there’s a voice in the back of my head telling me that if Lenin, Mao and co messed it up so badly (understatement of the century), then it could just be all be bunk. But I can see why so many people have read Marx and been inspired, there’s a lot of hope here, a promise that the poverty and inequalities of today will eventually be resolved and that if we play our cards right, a better world is possible. So (biases on the table), I do want the core claims of Marxism to be true, but who knows if it really is.
First idea explained is historical materialism. According to Marx, the strongest desires humans have are our basic material ones; the need for shelter, food, and clothing. To meet those needs, humans develop a "mode of production", which is a combination of the forces of production (technology/resources) and relations of production (the roles people have in the production process and the social relationships that come from it). The mode of production is the "base" that causes the "superstructure" of a society; the society's political institutions, religions, laws, and moral philosophies.Throughout history, these modes of production have led to historical epochs that led to other epochs (slavery->feudalism->capitalism). Over time, these modes of production lead to contradictions that cause then to collapse. For example; feudalism led to the invention of the power loom, which led to the invention of the factory. However, under feudalism, workers were stuck on farms and couldn't move to the factories to work. So, the owners of the factories realized that feudalism was wasteful and they fought wars to overthrow the old feudal order (“The feudal and pre-capitalist order gave way because the nascent capitalist class could make better use of the available productive power.”)
Related to the political superstructure is Marx’s theory of ideology. Because the ideas (moral, religious, political) of a society are downstream from its mode of production, many of them exist to uphold the material interests of the dominant class. These beliefs are made by ideologists (economists, religious leaders, philosophers) who make and argue for false beliefs because they are in the interests of the ruling class. The ideologists are often not doing this knowingly, and they often successfully confuse/mislead the oppressed class into adopting beliefs that are harmful. These ideologies also take facts of human psychology that are specific to a particular mode of production, and make it into a universal fact of human psychology(“under capitalism, most individuals must compete in the marketplace to sell their labor power to survive, so self-preservation under capitalism demands constant competition and self-interested calculating. Ideologists interpret this as evidence that egoism and competition are characteristics of human nature, rather than a consequence of economic circumstances.”)
Class, another big Marxist idea. Economic systems sort people into groups of people who have shared material interests, and these groups of people (or classes) come into conflict with each other. . Marx strongly disagrees with the idea that capitalism leads to mutually beneficial contracts between classes. Example; workers want higher wages, more vacation days, all things that are in direct conflict with the owners of the factories who want the exact opposite. In capitalism, the most important classes are the proletariat (the workers) and the bourgeois (the owners of capital). Class is NOT determined by income level, (which is maybe how we think of class today. Instead, class is determined by ownership; workers primarily make their money from wages/labor, capitalists make their money primarily through ownerships of capital.
Just like the epochs before it, Marx thinks that capitalism’s contradictions and conflict between the classes will eventually lead it to collapse. Marx spends a lot of time talking about the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and the labor theory of value, but he got this wrong, so its not worth talking about. His more relevant criticism of capitalism is that capitalists are incentivized to invest in technology that requires less and less labor to produce goods. This may seem good, as capitalism will become increasingly productive and efficient (which is also what capitalist economists predict will happen). However, because workers are being replaced by technology, they obviously won’t get paid wages which ALSO means they have less money to spend on the goods that technology produces. Each capitalist is incentivized to cut labor costs by firing workers and replacing them with tech which leads to a society of impoverished workers; even as technology and productivity increases. Important to note, the transition away from capitalism will likely happen in a highly developed economy.
I think Marx’s criticism of technology is spot on and I also think its interesting that Marx doesn’t really care about arguments that try to paint capitalism as immortal or unjust, which seem to be really common among modern-day progressives (ex: Bezos/Musk don’t deserve their money/its unfair that workers don’t get paid more). These moral arguments will probably just be ignored by the bourgeois, and moral philosophy comes from and justifies the existing mode of production anyway. Instead, Marx argues that as a matter of historical and economic fact, capitalism will collapse under the weight of its contradiction, and communists should try to highlight this fact, not try to overthrow capitalism with arguments.
Leiter and Edwards are critical of 20th century Marxist revolutions and a good chunk of Western academic Marxism. The former for trying to turn largely feudal/agrarian societies (pre-communist China/USSR) directly into socialist economics, without allowing capitalism to develop technology and productivity; Marx thought socialism would arrive in the world’s most advanced industrial nations first. Western Marxism has spent too much time focusing on the superstructure of capitalism (culture, etc) and trying to resurrect Marx’s bad economic arguments (labor theory of value etc). Instead we should get down to brass tacks; look at Marx’s still relevant theory of history, ideology and his economics minus the labor theory of value.
Finally, the important part of this review, me. Have I converted the science of Marxism? I don’t think so, at least not all the way. I think it remains to be seen whether technological growth is as endless as Marx seems to think; maybe we’ll reach a cap on how much technology can replace labor, and idk what happens then. I also don’t agree that all religious/moral views are downstream from the mode of production. However, I think there is a LOT here that is really eye opening and accurate. Of course, there’s a voice in the back of my head telling me that if Lenin, Mao and co messed it up so badly (understatement of the century), then it could just be all be bunk. But I can see why so many people have read Marx and been inspired, there’s a lot of hope here, a promise that the poverty and inequalities of today will eventually be resolved and that if we play our cards right, a better world is possible. So (biases on the table), I do want the core claims of Marxism to be true, but who knows if it really is.
March 22, 2025
My motivation for reading this book was to gain a comprehensive understanding of Karl Marx’s biographical and intellectual journey. Given how often conservative or right-wing commentary labels liberal or left-wing ideas as "Marxist," I wanted to delve into Marx’s actual motivations, theoretical beliefs, and practical ideas. With a background in philosophy, I found the text accessible, but it is also written in a way that accommodates readers without prior philosophical training.
One of the most compelling aspects of Marx’s thought, as presented in this book, is his theory of historical materialism. Marx argues that material conditions—such as technological advancements—drive cultural and economic shifts, disrupting class relations and reshaping society. This idea is particularly relevant today as technology becomes increasingly pervasive in both our economy and personal lives. It raises fascinating questions about how these changes will influence the culture of work moving forward.
The book also addresses my initial concern: the frequent misattribution of ideas to Marx. Many modern interpretations, particularly those tied to cultural or gender issues, stray far from his original intent. Marx’s focus was on alleviating alienation caused by exploitative labor under capitalism—not on engaging in contemporary "culture wars." The authors do an excellent job critiquing these misapplications while staying true to Marx’s core vision.
Additionally, the book paints a vivid picture of Marx’s life. Despite his financial struggles, he remained a passionate and rigorous thinker, dedicated to addressing the alienation workers face when their labor becomes merely a means to produce capital. This serves as a powerful reminder in our current age, where many advocate for change without fully committing to the hard work required.
Overall, this is an outstanding introduction to Marx’s philosophy for an amateur reader. It combines accessibility with depth, making it suitable for both newcomers and those with more advanced knowledge. I look forward to exploring more titles in this series.
One of the most compelling aspects of Marx’s thought, as presented in this book, is his theory of historical materialism. Marx argues that material conditions—such as technological advancements—drive cultural and economic shifts, disrupting class relations and reshaping society. This idea is particularly relevant today as technology becomes increasingly pervasive in both our economy and personal lives. It raises fascinating questions about how these changes will influence the culture of work moving forward.
The book also addresses my initial concern: the frequent misattribution of ideas to Marx. Many modern interpretations, particularly those tied to cultural or gender issues, stray far from his original intent. Marx’s focus was on alleviating alienation caused by exploitative labor under capitalism—not on engaging in contemporary "culture wars." The authors do an excellent job critiquing these misapplications while staying true to Marx’s core vision.
Additionally, the book paints a vivid picture of Marx’s life. Despite his financial struggles, he remained a passionate and rigorous thinker, dedicated to addressing the alienation workers face when their labor becomes merely a means to produce capital. This serves as a powerful reminder in our current age, where many advocate for change without fully committing to the hard work required.
Overall, this is an outstanding introduction to Marx’s philosophy for an amateur reader. It combines accessibility with depth, making it suitable for both newcomers and those with more advanced knowledge. I look forward to exploring more titles in this series.
May 3, 2025
This was a very thorough and accessible introduction. I have not spent a lot of time reading Marx, but this book convinced me that his ideas are worth paying attention to. I was especially interested in the sections on alienation and ideology. According to Marx, under capitalism, the worker is alienated in several ways: they are alienated from the product of their labor, as they do not have the rights to what they produce; they are alienated from their labor, as it consists in tasks that do not involve man's essential nature; and they are alienated from other men. Much of this rings true to me, but I do not think that this is unique to, or even essential to, capitalism. That said, I think it is enough for the critique to go through that capitalism tends to produce these outcomes while other alternatives do not.
Beyond the substance of Marx's critique, I really admire his approach to political philosophy. Marx identifies problems in the world and thinks long and hard about them. He then comes up with a systematic critique, explaining how the issues we face arise (or, at least, can arise) from structural features of the social world that are not set in stone. This is very different from the climate of contemporary post-Rawlsian political philosophy, where it seems like all people are concerned with are making abstract theoretical points and responding to the work of other philosophers. This might be somewhat of an exaggeration, but I think it is definitely true that the current incentive structure of academia rewards those who make small and often pedantic points about the shortcomings of other philosophers' work than those who have some bold vision, even if the vision contains several mistakes. I think we learn more from someone like Marx from both a philosophical and historical perspective. Historically, he encourages us to critically examine the social dynamics of our time, and philosophically, he encourages us to think about what an ideal society would look like based on the deficiencies of our own.
Beyond the substance of Marx's critique, I really admire his approach to political philosophy. Marx identifies problems in the world and thinks long and hard about them. He then comes up with a systematic critique, explaining how the issues we face arise (or, at least, can arise) from structural features of the social world that are not set in stone. This is very different from the climate of contemporary post-Rawlsian political philosophy, where it seems like all people are concerned with are making abstract theoretical points and responding to the work of other philosophers. This might be somewhat of an exaggeration, but I think it is definitely true that the current incentive structure of academia rewards those who make small and often pedantic points about the shortcomings of other philosophers' work than those who have some bold vision, even if the vision contains several mistakes. I think we learn more from someone like Marx from both a philosophical and historical perspective. Historically, he encourages us to critically examine the social dynamics of our time, and philosophically, he encourages us to think about what an ideal society would look like based on the deficiencies of our own.
March 15, 2025
بخش هایی که من خوندم خیلی شفاف و گویا بود.
به نظرم بخشی که سعی میکرد ایده های مارکس رو به یافته های روانشناسی تجربی و علوم شناختی پیوند بزنه جالب بود. همچنین مرور ایده های جریان های پسامارکسیستیش. من بخشی که به تئوری اقتصادی مارکس میپرداخت رو نخوندم.
به نظرم بخشی که سعی میکرد ایده های مارکس رو به یافته های روانشناسی تجربی و علوم شناختی پیوند بزنه جالب بود. همچنین مرور ایده های جریان های پسامارکسیستیش. من بخشی که به تئوری اقتصادی مارکس میپرداخت رو نخوندم.
October 24, 2024
The two stars don't represent the work of the authors. The authors do a great job of representing the ideas--the ideas just aren't especially good. Worth reading so that you can identify and disrupt nonsense when you see it.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews