What do you think?
Rate this book
Considerations on Western Marxism
This synoptic essay considers the nature and evolution of the Marxist theory that developed in Western Europe, after the defeat of the proletarian rebellions in the West and the isolation of the Russian Revolution in the East in the early 1920s. It focuses particularly on the work of Lukács, Korsch and Gramsci; Adorno, Marcuse and Benjamin; Sartre and Althusser; and Della Volpe and Colletti, together with other figures within Western Marxism from 1920 to 1975. The theoretical production of each of these thinkers is related simultaneously to the practical fate of working-class struggles and to the cultural mutations of bourgeois thought in their time. The philosophical antecedents of the various school within this tradition—Lukácsian, Gramscian, Frankfurt, Sartrean, Althusserian and Della Volpean—are compared, and the specific innovations of their respective systems surveyed. The structural unity of 'Western Marxism', beyond the diversity of its individual thinkers, is then assessed, in a balance-sheet that contrasts its heritage with the tradition of 'classical' Marxism that preceded it, and with the commanding problems which will confront any historical materialism to succeed it.
140 pages, Paperback
First published September 16, 1976
32 people are currently reading
1528 people want to read
About the author
Perry Anderson
111 books260 followersPerry Anderson is an English Marxist intellectual and historian. He is Professor of History and Sociology at UCLA and an editor of the New Left Review. He is the brother of historian Benedict Anderson.
He was an influence on the New Left. He bore the brunt of the disapproval of E.P. Thompson in the latter's The Poverty of Theory, in a controversy during the late 1970s over the scientific Marxism of Louis Althusser, and the use of history and theory in the politics of the Left. In the mid-1960s, Thompson wrote an essay for the annual Socialist Register that rejected Anderson's view of aristocratic dominance of Britain's historical trajectory, as well as Anderson's seeming preference for continental European theorists over radical British traditions and empiricism. Anderson delivered two responses to Thompson's polemics, first in an essay in New Left Review (January-February 1966) called "Socialism and Pseudo-Empiricism" and then in a more conciliatory yet ambitious overview, Arguments within English Marxism (1980).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_An...
He was an influence on the New Left. He bore the brunt of the disapproval of E.P. Thompson in the latter's The Poverty of Theory, in a controversy during the late 1970s over the scientific Marxism of Louis Althusser, and the use of history and theory in the politics of the Left. In the mid-1960s, Thompson wrote an essay for the annual Socialist Register that rejected Anderson's view of aristocratic dominance of Britain's historical trajectory, as well as Anderson's seeming preference for continental European theorists over radical British traditions and empiricism. Anderson delivered two responses to Thompson's polemics, first in an essay in New Left Review (January-February 1966) called "Socialism and Pseudo-Empiricism" and then in a more conciliatory yet ambitious overview, Arguments within English Marxism (1980).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_An...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews
May 10, 2020
با اینکه کتاب کوتاهی است، اما تصویر مناسبی از جایگاه و اعقاب فکری برخی از متفکران برجسته چپ به دست میدهد، تا جایگاه آنان را در پازل بزرگتر بهتر ببینیم. البته تصویری است که باید با مطالعات بیشتر تکمیل و اصلاح شود.
هدف اصلی کتاب، بررسی موشکافانه ویژگیهای کلی جریانی در مارکسیسم است (تحت عنوان مارکسیسم غربی) که حوالی جنگ جهانی دوم و مشخصا با پیدایش مکتب فرانکفورت بوجود آمد. نقد عمده کتاب بر این جریان در قیاس با نسل اول مارکسیستهای کلاسیک، بر محور جدایی فزاینده نظریه از عمل و چرخش از تحلیل اقتصادی و سیاسی به فلسفه قرار دارد. مسئلهای که به زعم نویسنده نه تنها معلول تثبیت هرچه بیشتر نظامهای سرمایهداری در غرب و برآمدن تجربه مارکسیستهای غربی از دل «شکست» بود، بلکه ناشی از سرکوب استالینیستی احزاب کمونیست و سانسور نظریهها بود که عمده روشنفکران چپ غربی را به جدایی از حزب وادار میکرد.
در صفحات پایانی، نویسنده بررسی موشکافانه نسل اول مارکسیستهای کلاسیک نظیر مارکس، لنین و تروتسکی را نیز، در عین پاسداشت دستاوردهای فکری آنان ضروری میداند و حتی به رئوس کلی نقدهای وارد بر هر یک از آنها به گونهای فهرستوار، اشاره میکند، به عنوان مقدمهای برای پژوهشهای آینده.
هدف اصلی کتاب، بررسی موشکافانه ویژگیهای کلی جریانی در مارکسیسم است (تحت عنوان مارکسیسم غربی) که حوالی جنگ جهانی دوم و مشخصا با پیدایش مکتب فرانکفورت بوجود آمد. نقد عمده کتاب بر این جریان در قیاس با نسل اول مارکسیستهای کلاسیک، بر محور جدایی فزاینده نظریه از عمل و چرخش از تحلیل اقتصادی و سیاسی به فلسفه قرار دارد. مسئلهای که به زعم نویسنده نه تنها معلول تثبیت هرچه بیشتر نظامهای سرمایهداری در غرب و برآمدن تجربه مارکسیستهای غربی از دل «شکست» بود، بلکه ناشی از سرکوب استالینیستی احزاب کمونیست و سانسور نظریهها بود که عمده روشنفکران چپ غربی را به جدایی از حزب وادار میکرد.
در صفحات پایانی، نویسنده بررسی موشکافانه نسل اول مارکسیستهای کلاسیک نظیر مارکس، لنین و تروتسکی را نیز، در عین پاسداشت دستاوردهای فکری آنان ضروری میداند و حتی به رئوس کلی نقدهای وارد بر هر یک از آنها به گونهای فهرستوار، اشاره میکند، به عنوان مقدمهای برای پژوهشهای آینده.
November 22, 2025
"Western Marxism is the Marxism of defeat". Perry Anderson. They key word here is "Western". Anderson traces the Westward trajectory of Marxism in the twentieth century from Russia (Lenin, Trotsky, Buhkarin) to Poland (Rosa Luxemburg), Hungary (Luckas), Italy (Antonio Gramsci, Galvano Della Vope) and finally, after World War II, Germany (The Frankfurt School of Adorno, Hokheimer, Habermas) and France (Sartre, Althusser). At each point Marxist theory becomes more detached from the worker's movement and at home in the academy. May 1968, alas, did not reverse this trend; if anything the opposite happened. This is not because Marxists became enamored with philosophy but that the working class was repeatedly crushed in striving for revolution. The most important contributions in this period came from thinkers who analyzed the rise of fascism (Poulantzas) and the post-war stabilization of the capitalist world (Mandel). Anderson's text is crucial reading for understanding how Marxism might be rebuilt for a post-Communist, globalized planet.
August 3, 2022
This book didn't really need 120+ pages of history and criticism - Anderson could just have copied chapter 28 from "Quotations of Mao Tse Tung", in particular:
Nevertheless, a decent tap on the shoulder I wish I'd gotten before I'd spent so much time mucking about in Frankfurt territory. There's little to commend in Considerations outside of that fact - once you understand that the neglect of practice in western marxism, and in particular proletarian and politico-economic practice, renders its service to the cause of communism nearly nil, one automatically goes to look elsewhere.
The factors that detract from this book are twofold:
-In spite of the author acknowledging that western marxism accepts trotskyist precepts - and so implicitly separating trotskyism from revolutionary theory - he himself relies on trotskyist terminology ("Stalinism", "degenerated worker's state", the dearth of "internationalism" in AES, "bureaucracy" as the principal enemy, etcetera) and in a truly bewildering moment blames Stalin and the repression of trotskyist theoreticians in the USSR for the theoretical bankruptcy of Marxism-Leninism as conceived by him.
-Anderson's research into the Big Men of western marxism neglects the structural background and assumes every theoretician was a spontaneous, good-natured, nice guy. Questions on the connections between Adorno, Horkheimer, the Frankfurt institute and big capital (think, for instance, on the sponsors of Adorno's work on "Authoritarian Personalities" and radio studies) are not touched on, the paradox of expecting radical thinkers to sprout from universities in the imperialist core, much less these thinkers leading these institutions, is left unqueried. This is the aspect I'd have been much more interested in: a no-nonsense follow-the-money investigation of the cooptation of radical thinkers by capital.
"Communists should set an example in being practical as well as far-sighted. For only by being practical can they fulfil the appointed tasks, and only far-sightedness can prevent them from losing their bearings in the march forward."
Nevertheless, a decent tap on the shoulder I wish I'd gotten before I'd spent so much time mucking about in Frankfurt territory. There's little to commend in Considerations outside of that fact - once you understand that the neglect of practice in western marxism, and in particular proletarian and politico-economic practice, renders its service to the cause of communism nearly nil, one automatically goes to look elsewhere.
The factors that detract from this book are twofold:
-In spite of the author acknowledging that western marxism accepts trotskyist precepts - and so implicitly separating trotskyism from revolutionary theory - he himself relies on trotskyist terminology ("Stalinism", "degenerated worker's state", the dearth of "internationalism" in AES, "bureaucracy" as the principal enemy, etcetera) and in a truly bewildering moment blames Stalin and the repression of trotskyist theoreticians in the USSR for the theoretical bankruptcy of Marxism-Leninism as conceived by him.
-Anderson's research into the Big Men of western marxism neglects the structural background and assumes every theoretician was a spontaneous, good-natured, nice guy. Questions on the connections between Adorno, Horkheimer, the Frankfurt institute and big capital (think, for instance, on the sponsors of Adorno's work on "Authoritarian Personalities" and radio studies) are not touched on, the paradox of expecting radical thinkers to sprout from universities in the imperialist core, much less these thinkers leading these institutions, is left unqueried. This is the aspect I'd have been much more interested in: a no-nonsense follow-the-money investigation of the cooptation of radical thinkers by capital.
December 5, 2022
A bit of a lukewarm critique of western marxism by a fellow leftist. It works as a decent history and offers some useful criticism. I appreciate Anderson generally, though it seems that some of the objections here are perhaps too sectarian for me.
November 29, 2015
Marx ve Engels'ten sonra Marksist teorinin hangi aşamalardan geçtiğinin, başına neler geldiğinin derli toplu ve doyurucu bir özeti. Marksist fikirlerin Sovyet ve Almanya merkezinden Batı Avrupa'ya kayışında uğradığı değişiklikleri sistemli bir şekilde gözler önüne seriyor. Odak noktasının siyaset ve ekonomiden felsefe düzlemine kayışının ve Batı'da üretilen Marksist teorinin kitle hareketlerinden kopukluğunun, akademiye sıkışmışlığının teoriyi somut olanı açıklama gücünden yoksun bırakarak devrimci yönünü nasıl budadığı da görülüyor böylece.
Kitap 1976'da yazılmış. Haliyle 1980 ve sonrası için ya da günümüz Marksizmi açısından bir nebze "eskide" kaldığı söylenebilir. Gerçi Batı Avrupa Marksizmi açısından hala bir felsefe odaklılık söz konusuyken ve reel sosyalizmin çöküşünün ardından Marksizm artık zorunlu olarak bir akademik faaliyete dönüştürülmüşken ve 21. yüzyıl kitle hareketlerinin (Gezi de dahil) gündeminden sınıf siyaseti ve siyasal iktidar talepleri silinmiş haldeyken yazarın baktığı perspektiften Jessop, Harvey gibi düşünürleri ve ağırlığı Batı dışından gelmekle birlikte Bağımlılık ve Kutuplaşma teorileri ekseninde Samir Amin ve Wallerstein'ın başını çektiği literatürü düşünürsek odağın küreselleşme yorumları üzerinden bir kez daha ekonomiye ve Hobsbawm vd. eliyle tarihe doğru yönelmeye başladığını söylemek yanlış olmayacaktır.
Kitap 1976'da yazılmış. Haliyle 1980 ve sonrası için ya da günümüz Marksizmi açısından bir nebze "eskide" kaldığı söylenebilir. Gerçi Batı Avrupa Marksizmi açısından hala bir felsefe odaklılık söz konusuyken ve reel sosyalizmin çöküşünün ardından Marksizm artık zorunlu olarak bir akademik faaliyete dönüştürülmüşken ve 21. yüzyıl kitle hareketlerinin (Gezi de dahil) gündeminden sınıf siyaseti ve siyasal iktidar talepleri silinmiş haldeyken yazarın baktığı perspektiften Jessop, Harvey gibi düşünürleri ve ağırlığı Batı dışından gelmekle birlikte Bağımlılık ve Kutuplaşma teorileri ekseninde Samir Amin ve Wallerstein'ın başını çektiği literatürü düşünürsek odağın küreselleşme yorumları üzerinden bir kez daha ekonomiye ve Hobsbawm vd. eliyle tarihe doğru yönelmeye başladığını söylemek yanlış olmayacaktır.
May 29, 2020
Perry Anderson’s book is the kind of admirable work that is always necessary in the history of the left. To have a Marxist historian actually read and critique the theoretical traditions of Marxism after World War I instead of simply dismiss them is an achievement in itself. To point out innovations with Gramsci’s Hegemony, Althusser’s theory of Ideology, etc. is also an important achievement, teasing out some possible lessons. Lastly, his critique of some of the classics at the end of the book is an important reflection in taking into account what Marx may have overlooked.
However, this book runs into major problems once it tries to synthesize major, complex traditions. Perhaps its biggest limitation is relying on an optimistic Trotskyist approach, sure of its own successes in theory as greater than those of entire states or people (Vietnam, Cuba, etc. are passing footnotes in the book). The problem, in essence, is to assume that “Western” Marxism can even be separated from Algeria, Latin America, the Soviet Union, China, etc. Anderson’s dismissal of Lukacs, for example, is hard to justify except as Trotskyist bias against one of the few theorists that tried to maintain the unity of theory and praxis this book defends in the “classical” tradition. While Anderson takes into account his own limitations in the work—with the best self criticism being his own reductionism of “classical” Marxism into a monolithic bloc—its most serious limitations are its most human, those of a thinker reaching as far as possible within given conditions.
Perhaps, then, this book is more important in the questions it raises rather than the answers it provides, but it nevertheless is an essential tool to take into account the history of the left and the kind of critique that is still essential today.
However, this book runs into major problems once it tries to synthesize major, complex traditions. Perhaps its biggest limitation is relying on an optimistic Trotskyist approach, sure of its own successes in theory as greater than those of entire states or people (Vietnam, Cuba, etc. are passing footnotes in the book). The problem, in essence, is to assume that “Western” Marxism can even be separated from Algeria, Latin America, the Soviet Union, China, etc. Anderson’s dismissal of Lukacs, for example, is hard to justify except as Trotskyist bias against one of the few theorists that tried to maintain the unity of theory and praxis this book defends in the “classical” tradition. While Anderson takes into account his own limitations in the work—with the best self criticism being his own reductionism of “classical” Marxism into a monolithic bloc—its most serious limitations are its most human, those of a thinker reaching as far as possible within given conditions.
Perhaps, then, this book is more important in the questions it raises rather than the answers it provides, but it nevertheless is an essential tool to take into account the history of the left and the kind of critique that is still essential today.
July 12, 2011
Perry Anderson's 'Considerations of Western Marxism' is philosophical history at it's apex. It's nearly impossible for any author, and his/her book to share the perfect trinity of non-fiction attributes: Laconic, edifying, and clear.
The book is a mere 105 pages. In such a short scope Anderson takes the reader on a quick tour (de force) through the Halls of Marxism dating after Marx death. Engels is his starting point, and Sartre and Althusser are roughly his ending point. His focus is Western Marxism; the Marxist theorist West of the USSR.
The edification comes from the fact that in so few words, Anderson says so much. One won't be well versed on any of the thinkers discussed, but they'll at least know what they're getting into upon approaching them in the future. Moreover, the reader will learn quite a bit about the genuine history behind the history of Marxism. By this I mean political parties, revolutions, shifts in National spirit, etc. Moreover, in offering glimpses into each thinkers history and thought, he also lobs what are ostensibly cogent criticisms at said individuals and whole schools of thought.
Finally, Anderson is clear. This is a nearly impossible task given the dilemma of keeping a text both short, yet stuffing each sentence with a bloated amount of information. Read for yourself and you'll probably reach the same conclusion that Anderson pulls it off.
The book is a mere 105 pages. In such a short scope Anderson takes the reader on a quick tour (de force) through the Halls of Marxism dating after Marx death. Engels is his starting point, and Sartre and Althusser are roughly his ending point. His focus is Western Marxism; the Marxist theorist West of the USSR.
The edification comes from the fact that in so few words, Anderson says so much. One won't be well versed on any of the thinkers discussed, but they'll at least know what they're getting into upon approaching them in the future. Moreover, the reader will learn quite a bit about the genuine history behind the history of Marxism. By this I mean political parties, revolutions, shifts in National spirit, etc. Moreover, in offering glimpses into each thinkers history and thought, he also lobs what are ostensibly cogent criticisms at said individuals and whole schools of thought.
Finally, Anderson is clear. This is a nearly impossible task given the dilemma of keeping a text both short, yet stuffing each sentence with a bloated amount of information. Read for yourself and you'll probably reach the same conclusion that Anderson pulls it off.
July 27, 2019
Um dos livros mais repleto de opiniões que julgo equivocadas que já li. A maioria de análises que P.A. faz de qualquer filósofo frankfurtiano pode ser resumida como "Ah, que pena que não é Gramsci!". Anderson acha que todo mundo deveria ter as Teses sobre Feuerbach tatuadas no corpo, isto é, práxis ou nada. A crença de Anderson nas tradições de um país como fator determinante do pensamento de X intelectual também é absurda e datada. (algo na linha de "Por que não houve um espanhol como Gramsci, se os espanhóis são tão ligados aos proletários?").
E por que tô dando três estrelas? Porque, apesar de tudo, ainda é um resumo sistemático e acessível de muitas tendências da virada do marxismo para o pós-marxismo ocidental. Se descartarmos as opiniões do autor, o resultado é um dicionário pra lá de útil.
E por que tô dando três estrelas? Porque, apesar de tudo, ainda é um resumo sistemático e acessível de muitas tendências da virada do marxismo para o pós-marxismo ocidental. Se descartarmos as opiniões do autor, o resultado é um dicionário pra lá de útil.
January 30, 2021
Anderson taas omalla tyylillään. Kirja on lyhyt, ytimekäs ja esimerkillisen yksinkertainen ilmaisussaan, vaikka aina sisältää myös syviä ja laajoja kokonaisuuksia - etenkin verrattuna pituuteensa. Isoin anti itselle oli nähdä historioitsijan tarkastelevan filosofian ylivaltaa aikansa marxilaisuudessa. Superrakenteisiin iskostunut marxismi saa osakseen sekä laajaa ylistystä, että myllytystä. Filosofinen marxismi, joka on keskittynyt laajalti estetiikkaan ja epäpolitisoituun deterministiseen ylärakenteisiin, on Andersonin mielestä teorian ja käytännön institutionaalisen jaottelun tuotos, joka katoaa jos ne kohtaavat toisensa uudelleen. Kaikista mielenkiintoisinta on ajankohta: myöhäinen 70-luku. 68 ja varhainen 70-luku oli yhä ilmassa ja Thacther kohta nousemassa valtaan.
Lol aattelin alkaa kirjottaa tänne lyhyet arvostelut kaikesta lukemasta :-)
Lol aattelin alkaa kirjottaa tänne lyhyet arvostelut kaikesta lukemasta :-)
August 18, 2022
A tidy little summary of the marquee names of mid 20th century European thought. Anderson correctly argues that these figures were sundered from the working class, in part due to the stifling control of the USSR, on the other hand due to the repeated defeats of working class movements in Europe. The isolation led Marxist thinkers to pursue increasingly esoteric philosophical topics, rather than the meat and potatoes of Marxism - historical materialism.
Perry sees hope in the Trotskyist tradition. It's true, I've read some well argued historical/economic analysis by Trots in my life - all written by scholars, sequestered away from the working class, the lucky ones with tenure, many without.
The few trots I've met in political organizations seem confused. Most are downwardly mobile PMC or college grads. They try to introduce sectarian debates into organizations like, say, DSA, a place where much of the membership doesn't know the basic tenets of Marxism, let alone care about figures in the Russian revolution.
The only difference among socialists of any importance during this specific junction of history is between reformists and those who advocate a break with our political structures. Even there, I don't think it's useful to draw too hard to a line. Once people have bathroom breaks we can dive further into the details
Perry sees hope in the Trotskyist tradition. It's true, I've read some well argued historical/economic analysis by Trots in my life - all written by scholars, sequestered away from the working class, the lucky ones with tenure, many without.
The few trots I've met in political organizations seem confused. Most are downwardly mobile PMC or college grads. They try to introduce sectarian debates into organizations like, say, DSA, a place where much of the membership doesn't know the basic tenets of Marxism, let alone care about figures in the Russian revolution.
The only difference among socialists of any importance during this specific junction of history is between reformists and those who advocate a break with our political structures. Even there, I don't think it's useful to draw too hard to a line. Once people have bathroom breaks we can dive further into the details
June 5, 2015
Perry Anderson is one of my favorite essayists as well as maybe my favorite living Marxist (forget Jameson!). I'm not sure that any single volume does him justice, but this one probably comes closest. His diction can be hilariously patrician, but overall I adore his style. I love it when Marxists condescend to more establishment intellectuals (not unlike Henry James correcting the grammar of a vulgar thespian). Aderson is excellent at making connections between philosophical Marxism and the collective struggles of humanity.
December 28, 2025
A satisfactory survey of some of the best known, and lesser mentioned figures of the Western Marxist tradition (Lukács, Althusser, Gramsci, etc.). Anderson gives the reader a superficial run down of some of the often tenuous relationship between these thinkers and the "Classical" Marxists (Marx, Engels, Lenin and, yes, also Trotsky) have with each other, namely the seeming lack of Western preoccupation with the critique of political economy and political challenges of the day.
The essay also highlights the often pessimistic attitudes of some of these intellectuals and their often lackadaisical or stifling relationships with organizations of the left in their time (with the obvious exceptions of Gramsci and Lukács who were at one point or another prominent political leaders) and their often overbearing pessimistic outlook. Not sure if this alone is enough to discount what these people have to say, but it is a marked change of tune compared to the mainstream Marxists of the time. This makes perfect sense given that this broad set of traditions exist in light of the working class's most disastrous defeats post 1917.
Something that is very unsettling is the tendency that Anderson, as with many other Trotskyists, to chalk up so many bad things happening to Stalinism, even if they are at best tangentially related. Certainly, the containment of the October Revolution to the former Russian Empire was a setback, but does that really logically mean that even with the long reach of the Soviet police state that Western Marxism was destined to the oftentimes politically sterile developments and themes of its investigations? That seems hard to believe.
The effusive praise given to Trotsky vs. the Western Marxists rings a little hollow and the political genius of the former being extolled very out of place given how incorrect he was on many matters. This is why I think the afterword written by Anderson after the fact is so important to properly bookend this essay, because it tries to meaningfully grapple with the often silly pronouncements he makes about the apparently infallible classics of Marxism. His more balanced reflection upon the the limitations of many of the classicals is refreshing and does more to set up an interesting set of questions for future Marxist to investigate than simply lambasting the Western Marxists for not doing of the sort, which is refreshing.
I really don't have much more positive things to say, it does what it says on the tin, they're definitely considerations about Western Marxism and they're largely balanced, but sometimes Anderson, in typical Trot fashion, really jumps the gun with his condemnation, praise, critique of many topics covered in his text.
The essay also highlights the often pessimistic attitudes of some of these intellectuals and their often lackadaisical or stifling relationships with organizations of the left in their time (with the obvious exceptions of Gramsci and Lukács who were at one point or another prominent political leaders) and their often overbearing pessimistic outlook. Not sure if this alone is enough to discount what these people have to say, but it is a marked change of tune compared to the mainstream Marxists of the time. This makes perfect sense given that this broad set of traditions exist in light of the working class's most disastrous defeats post 1917.
Something that is very unsettling is the tendency that Anderson, as with many other Trotskyists, to chalk up so many bad things happening to Stalinism, even if they are at best tangentially related. Certainly, the containment of the October Revolution to the former Russian Empire was a setback, but does that really logically mean that even with the long reach of the Soviet police state that Western Marxism was destined to the oftentimes politically sterile developments and themes of its investigations? That seems hard to believe.
The effusive praise given to Trotsky vs. the Western Marxists rings a little hollow and the political genius of the former being extolled very out of place given how incorrect he was on many matters. This is why I think the afterword written by Anderson after the fact is so important to properly bookend this essay, because it tries to meaningfully grapple with the often silly pronouncements he makes about the apparently infallible classics of Marxism. His more balanced reflection upon the the limitations of many of the classicals is refreshing and does more to set up an interesting set of questions for future Marxist to investigate than simply lambasting the Western Marxists for not doing of the sort, which is refreshing.
I really don't have much more positive things to say, it does what it says on the tin, they're definitely considerations about Western Marxism and they're largely balanced, but sometimes Anderson, in typical Trot fashion, really jumps the gun with his condemnation, praise, critique of many topics covered in his text.
September 13, 2023
2.5*
A succinct summary of the thought of respective philosophers hauled under the umbrella typology of "Western Marxism." However, Anderson's explication of what Western Marxism really was, as a self-standing intellectual tradition, in comparison with classical/orthodox Marxism and the Soviet iteration, relies on two rather dated (1976) and reductive attributes: 1) as perpetuating, or heralding, the scission between theory and praxis, and 2) departing from economics and theory of politics towards philosophy, rooted in the intellectuals' academicism, aestheticisation, and back-mapping of Marx to the Western philosophical tradition of Hegel, Spinoza, Kant etc.
Anderson's theorising—or lack thereof—of the intricate relationship between theory and political/revolutionary practice in general is too simplistic. Despite its centrality to his analysis of Western Marxism, he reduces the complex interplay between thought and action, idealism and materialism, ideology and politics into the basic dictum that without action all theory is null and void and vice-versa. As a result, rather than engaging critically with the intellectual heritage of what he designates Western Marxism, he just wipes out its development of key concepts, such as ideology and false consciousness found in eg Marcuse and Althusser, from the registers of historical materialism, and proposes to return back to the "real" thing. Neat, right?
A succinct summary of the thought of respective philosophers hauled under the umbrella typology of "Western Marxism." However, Anderson's explication of what Western Marxism really was, as a self-standing intellectual tradition, in comparison with classical/orthodox Marxism and the Soviet iteration, relies on two rather dated (1976) and reductive attributes: 1) as perpetuating, or heralding, the scission between theory and praxis, and 2) departing from economics and theory of politics towards philosophy, rooted in the intellectuals' academicism, aestheticisation, and back-mapping of Marx to the Western philosophical tradition of Hegel, Spinoza, Kant etc.
Anderson's theorising—or lack thereof—of the intricate relationship between theory and political/revolutionary practice in general is too simplistic. Despite its centrality to his analysis of Western Marxism, he reduces the complex interplay between thought and action, idealism and materialism, ideology and politics into the basic dictum that without action all theory is null and void and vice-versa. As a result, rather than engaging critically with the intellectual heritage of what he designates Western Marxism, he just wipes out its development of key concepts, such as ideology and false consciousness found in eg Marcuse and Althusser, from the registers of historical materialism, and proposes to return back to the "real" thing. Neat, right?
September 16, 2017
Over the past couple of months I've developed a healthy obsession with Marxist Historian, social theorist, English don, Realist extraordinaire, Perry Anderson. His writings in the London Review of Books and New Left Review have really been the only things I've been reading the entire Summer. It's really incredible that one man could possess such a vast amount of knowledge about so many different parts of the world (India, Russia, European Union, Brazil, Turkey, America, China, etc.), branching off into each country's history, politics, economics, philosophy, culture and literature with such command and authority, often times consulting sources in different languages of which I'm told he's very much fluent in. His encyclopedism stems from a kind of genius that I think is not even to be aspired to. This small collection of Essays on Western Marxism only reaffirms that.
December 31, 2025
i've put off reading this for some time. i have read it now because it is short and i want to meet my year's reading goal, and because rockhill has reopened the wound it made in the tradition outpouring from the western marxists: people are arguing about it on twitter, once again. i can't find what's wrong with this book; what was meant to put me off it. it is a brisk, gleaming introduction to some of the marxist intellectual tradition, and a comparison of the different areas of focus of movements in europe before and after the second world war. the moment it is meant to get outrageous is that it diagnoses this shift as being a result of the failures of european socialism, and on this basis disparages the political significance of this kind of marxist philosophy. anyone with passing acquaintance with philosophy is sure to assent to the thought that it is not an applied science, and so it is a mystery why this disparagement of its revolutionary potential is meant to be a nasty shock. there's nothing in that fact to dissuade us from doing critical theory or whatever, as long as we acknowledge that no number of essays on the commodity will a revolution make. the real reason i think this book is disliked is that it says "boo" about some of the left's favourite names, and "hurrah" about austromarxism and trotskyism. that might not be your taste, and indeed these attitudes might be very badly reasoned. but those are not the central contentions of the book. it should be assessed for its wonderful introductory quality, managing not to be at all dull, and simply adequate observations about the course of intellectual development
August 26, 2022
I hate to say it, but despite it's antistalinism and pro-Frankfurt School "marxism" (first writings), it is a good historical synthesis of the authors that worked and tried to develop marxist theory on the XXth century.
It's critique to the more developed Frankfurt School, and other "esoteric" authors of the XXth century, is nonetheless pretty satisfying.
I suggest reading this with caution (specially because the dude loved Trotsky).
It's critique to the more developed Frankfurt School, and other "esoteric" authors of the XXth century, is nonetheless pretty satisfying.
I suggest reading this with caution (specially because the dude loved Trotsky).
September 18, 2021
Нормально. Не знаю, может сперва надо обмазаться трудами анализируемых личностей, чтобы лучше понимать, о чем говорит Андерсон и не принимать всю критику на веру. С другой стороны, анализируемые (кроме Грамши,из тех, кого я читал) сильно страдают тягой к тому, чтобы их никто нахуй никогда не понял. Так что все же лучше прочитать эту книжку до того, как вы падете в омут эзотерических речей Маркузе и его компании.
February 18, 2018
Det marxistiske skibskatalog.
September 22, 2025
un gran mapa introductorio a lugares, actores y debates del marxismo sin abundar en detalles. una buena puerta de entrada a cualquiera de las discusiones relevantes de la izquierda en el siglo xx.
July 25, 2020
whistle-stop tour going from marx all the way through to mandel. as you can generally rely on in anderson, this is very concise, well-written and even entertaining
the basic account anderson outlines is the very brief rise and protracted fall of the dynamic represented by the later years of the second international, when mass proletarian politics coincided with revolutionary theory. my use of the phrase 'second international' is even probably a bit misleading, as anderson points out that lenin, luxemburg's writings were all written, translated and popularised in different orders and rates, meaning there are long periods in which debates contemporary marxists might understand as taking place in the 'real time' of the publication record are in fact missing each other by months or years. anderson's particularly good on the chronology here. the opening chapters are the first time i've read someone on the shortcomings of the body of theory which proceeded this period in a way that seems correct, i.e. what marx gets wrong, as well as the lapses into pessimism, cultural analysis and academic philosophy that characterises much of what comes after
lenin emerges as the hero of the piece, representing as he does the first figure capable of bringing his theories into effect in his construction of the world's first worker's state, and while anderson notes where trotsky was right, he refreshingly does not go in for beatifying him, but draws real, non-moralising attention to his shortcomings and misdiagnoses. the frankfurt school and the intellectual milieu most readily summoned up when one reads the phrase 'western marxism' are the villains, for their obscurantism, distance from the working class and preference for pre, or anti-Hegelian philosophy, his take-down of althusser's philosophy, presented here as an attempt to marxify leibniz, with science doing the work formerly undertaken by god perceiving itself, is very satisfying
the major shortcoming is pointed to the title, western marxism does indeed entail a non-discussion of maoism, marxist currents within third-worldism, there are only bits here on the peasantry or underdevelopments that could be better contextualised
the basic account anderson outlines is the very brief rise and protracted fall of the dynamic represented by the later years of the second international, when mass proletarian politics coincided with revolutionary theory. my use of the phrase 'second international' is even probably a bit misleading, as anderson points out that lenin, luxemburg's writings were all written, translated and popularised in different orders and rates, meaning there are long periods in which debates contemporary marxists might understand as taking place in the 'real time' of the publication record are in fact missing each other by months or years. anderson's particularly good on the chronology here. the opening chapters are the first time i've read someone on the shortcomings of the body of theory which proceeded this period in a way that seems correct, i.e. what marx gets wrong, as well as the lapses into pessimism, cultural analysis and academic philosophy that characterises much of what comes after
lenin emerges as the hero of the piece, representing as he does the first figure capable of bringing his theories into effect in his construction of the world's first worker's state, and while anderson notes where trotsky was right, he refreshingly does not go in for beatifying him, but draws real, non-moralising attention to his shortcomings and misdiagnoses. the frankfurt school and the intellectual milieu most readily summoned up when one reads the phrase 'western marxism' are the villains, for their obscurantism, distance from the working class and preference for pre, or anti-Hegelian philosophy, his take-down of althusser's philosophy, presented here as an attempt to marxify leibniz, with science doing the work formerly undertaken by god perceiving itself, is very satisfying
the major shortcoming is pointed to the title, western marxism does indeed entail a non-discussion of maoism, marxist currents within third-worldism, there are only bits here on the peasantry or underdevelopments that could be better contextualised
December 27, 2022
Originally written as an introduction to the book "Western Marxism: A Critical Reader" which ended up being published separately. Anderson gives a critical assessment of writers such as Gramsci, Althusser, Lukacs, Goldmann. It remains an interesting short introduction to the work of these later thinkers in the Marxist canon.
I reread this as part of my preparation for reading Jeremy Gilbert's and Alex Williams' Hegemony Now, and overall the theme of hegemony https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...
I don't have much to add on this second reading. Anderson's characterisation of the thought of the thinkers grouped together under the heading "Western" Marxism remains useful, in particular the highlight placed on their disconnection from any real movement of the working class. It is though quite dated in the sections which set out the current challenges for revolutionary Marxist thought, written as it was in the 1970's and before the continuing neoliberal phase of capitalism.
It remains very much worth reading as an introduction to thinkers such as Lukacs, Gramsci, Adorno among others.
I reread this as part of my preparation for reading Jeremy Gilbert's and Alex Williams' Hegemony Now, and overall the theme of hegemony https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...
I don't have much to add on this second reading. Anderson's characterisation of the thought of the thinkers grouped together under the heading "Western" Marxism remains useful, in particular the highlight placed on their disconnection from any real movement of the working class. It is though quite dated in the sections which set out the current challenges for revolutionary Marxist thought, written as it was in the 1970's and before the continuing neoliberal phase of capitalism.
It remains very much worth reading as an introduction to thinkers such as Lukacs, Gramsci, Adorno among others.
December 28, 2020
Clear and concise review of western Marxism with naive brief explanations about the previous waves of Marxism until the third international. It still that Marxist biased insistence in calling Nazi Germany a product of the capital and burgeois society and implicitly denouncing Stalin as if he were a traitor of Marxism, so to free the ideology from murder charges while not questioning Lenin and others.
February 18, 2023
The categories and typologies here are probably not worth the trouble they invariably cause, but dispensing with them would still give you a very nice, readable short essay.
May 13, 2025
Underwhelming, though I agree with the argument. This is a short book, or long essay, of self criticism by Perry Anderson of New Left Review. NLR was largely responsible for popularizing and translating the Western Marxists to an English audience in the 60s. By 1976, when this text was published, Anderson regretted that decision. He came to see these theorists as damaging to Marxist theory. The argument goes like this: the Western Marxists developed intellectually out of an environment of defeat in Post War Europe and USA. Separating theory from practice, this group of philosophers reversed the intellectual development of Marx (philosophy-> political theory-> economics), focusing on his early writings. Their work was characterized by epistemological discourse on method, aesthetics (superstructure) and a deep-rooted pessimism. They had no connection to political practice or the working class and retreated into academic exclusivity.
"Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past." This applies very well to the Frankfurt School, whose Marxist theory, disconnected entirely from socialist political movements, instead emerged out of bourgeois academic institutions and became bourgeois itself. To be accepted by their cultural milieu, the Western Marxists left unquestioned the modern advancements of capitalism in the core, materialized in global imperialism and the bourgeois democratic state. Instead they boldly claimed "theory is a form of practice and practice itself is an eminently theoretical concept", (Adorno) diving deep into Marx's thought and the philosophical traditions that influenced him.
The modern obsession with Hegel comes from Lukacs and Marcuse reevaluating Hegel's importance to Marxist theory. The classical Marxists of the 2nd International (Lenin, Luxemburg, Kautsky) saw Hegel as no longer relevant, simply a precursor to Marx. Sartre saw Kierkegaard as the corrective to Hegel, the Italian Marxists focused on Rousseau, Althusser saw Spinoza as Marx's intellectual ancestor. Who cares. Anderson spends the last chapter describing the innovations of each of these major thinkers, which feels strange after pointing out the fatal flaws of their thinking. He holds Gramsci in higher regard than the others, I would agree. He also only discusses Lukacs early period, which I don't think is a fair reading of him.
The book ends with Anderson glazing Trotsky for 20 pages and finding a way to blame Stalinist bureaucratization inadvertently for the weakness of Western Marxist political thought. The main value of this book was to confirm the position I already held that the Western Marxist tradition needs to be put on my "Pay No Mind" list.
"Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past." This applies very well to the Frankfurt School, whose Marxist theory, disconnected entirely from socialist political movements, instead emerged out of bourgeois academic institutions and became bourgeois itself. To be accepted by their cultural milieu, the Western Marxists left unquestioned the modern advancements of capitalism in the core, materialized in global imperialism and the bourgeois democratic state. Instead they boldly claimed "theory is a form of practice and practice itself is an eminently theoretical concept", (Adorno) diving deep into Marx's thought and the philosophical traditions that influenced him.
The modern obsession with Hegel comes from Lukacs and Marcuse reevaluating Hegel's importance to Marxist theory. The classical Marxists of the 2nd International (Lenin, Luxemburg, Kautsky) saw Hegel as no longer relevant, simply a precursor to Marx. Sartre saw Kierkegaard as the corrective to Hegel, the Italian Marxists focused on Rousseau, Althusser saw Spinoza as Marx's intellectual ancestor. Who cares. Anderson spends the last chapter describing the innovations of each of these major thinkers, which feels strange after pointing out the fatal flaws of their thinking. He holds Gramsci in higher regard than the others, I would agree. He also only discusses Lukacs early period, which I don't think is a fair reading of him.
The book ends with Anderson glazing Trotsky for 20 pages and finding a way to blame Stalinist bureaucratization inadvertently for the weakness of Western Marxist political thought. The main value of this book was to confirm the position I already held that the Western Marxist tradition needs to be put on my "Pay No Mind" list.
October 31, 2021
Gran resumen introductorio del desarrollo del marxismo en Europa, desde su origen en Marx/Engels y pasando por lxs grandes exponentes de la «tradición clásica» (Lenin, Rosa Luxemburgo, Trotsky etc...) hasta culminar en el denominado «marxismo occidental» de mitades del siglo XX (Lukács, La Escuela de Frankfurt –Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcus y Benjamin–, Gramsci, Althusser, Sartre etc...).
El aspecto teórico de lxs autorxs es tratado de forma escueta debido a la naturaleza de la obra, pero es lo suficientemente interesante como para servir de guía y que la persona interesada se aproxime en un futuro a obras teóricas de carácter eminentemente marxista.
El aspecto teórico de lxs autorxs es tratado de forma escueta debido a la naturaleza de la obra, pero es lo suficientemente interesante como para servir de guía y que la persona interesada se aproxime en un futuro a obras teóricas de carácter eminentemente marxista.
April 27, 2025
very good synthesis of thinkers who often seem to be talking past each other. anderson’s critique is interesting and new but felt a little ungenerous, especially towards the frankfurt school. specifically he seemed to rely on quite a linear conception of the relationship between base and superstructure which I highly doubt he either subscribes to or seriously ascribes to them
January 29, 2020
A helpful discussion on the various Marxist traditions. Not an ‘overview’ of those traditions, but mainly discusses where and how things fit together. Originally intended as an introduction to an essay collection, the author says.
June 10, 2023
why do the photos on the goodreads cover all look like serial killer mughosts lmao
January 28, 2008
Clear, concise, accessible, and sobering historiographic account of thinkers in the Marxist trajectory from Marx through the mid-seventies of the 20th century. While not entirely exhaustive, the essays focus particularly on thinkers within the space of Western Europe (France, Germany, Italy) since the 1920s and the formal and thematic innovations and problematics that emerged following the rise of the Soviet beuracracy. Excellent introduction and highly recommended to those who wish to not only have a solid foundation of the thought of the 20th century in the line of Marx, but also for those who wish to move beyond it and create new fields of thought and practice.
Anderson's primary theses on "Western Marxism" (as differing from "classical Marxism" are threefold:
1) Western Marxism = pessimistic; classical Marxism = optimistic
2) Western Marxism's primary field is in the academy and in the realm of philosophy and art (and with the exception of Marcuse and Althusser, more recently, psychoanlaysis), as distinct from the classical Marxist's whose primary concerns where with politics and economics.
3) That Western Marxists differ from classical Marxists in that they divorced thought from practice, and because they remained within the ideological space of the university, were disconnected from the proletariat in practice. Classical (earlier) Marxists, on the contrary, rarely held academic positions and were themselves engaged in the practical struggles along side of the workers.
Anderson's primary theses on "Western Marxism" (as differing from "classical Marxism" are threefold:
1) Western Marxism = pessimistic; classical Marxism = optimistic
2) Western Marxism's primary field is in the academy and in the realm of philosophy and art (and with the exception of Marcuse and Althusser, more recently, psychoanlaysis), as distinct from the classical Marxist's whose primary concerns where with politics and economics.
3) That Western Marxists differ from classical Marxists in that they divorced thought from practice, and because they remained within the ideological space of the university, were disconnected from the proletariat in practice. Classical (earlier) Marxists, on the contrary, rarely held academic positions and were themselves engaged in the practical struggles along side of the workers.
August 28, 2019
The author who is himself a prominent Marxist clearly confesses that Marx studied philosophy and economy but not bourgeois state and nationalism. Secondly, because of frustration that created by Stalin during the surge in 1930's and bureaucratic state that formed by him Western Marxists mostly focused on culture- philosophy- not economy. Instead of conducting their researches in communist parties at the time, they preferred studying at universities. So, until 1968 movement most of Marxist intellectuals had no connection with working classes and people. Some have never restored the relationship with revolutionaries for life.
In conclusion, Anderson says that without practice theory is meaningless in terms of Marxist historical and political understanding. However, in order to change the world we have to understand it very well so that people do not repeat the same mistakes that happened in the past century.
Those who studied culture, I think, look like the Stoics who lost their hope to realize themselves. Because in Greek city-states public and political domains were the same. But ın the world state there was no room for the citizens in the political domain. That is why, they turned to themselves and they tried to discover their inner world. It is a sort of self-realization. That is all.
In conclusion, Anderson says that without practice theory is meaningless in terms of Marxist historical and political understanding. However, in order to change the world we have to understand it very well so that people do not repeat the same mistakes that happened in the past century.
Those who studied culture, I think, look like the Stoics who lost their hope to realize themselves. Because in Greek city-states public and political domains were the same. But ın the world state there was no room for the citizens in the political domain. That is why, they turned to themselves and they tried to discover their inner world. It is a sort of self-realization. That is all.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews