Marx and Marxism

Pelican Books #19

by Gregory Claeys

An illuminating history of Marx's thought and intellectual influence from a leading historian of socialism

Why was Marx so successful as a thinker? Did he have a system and if so, what does it consist of? How did Marxism develop in the twentieth century and what does it mean today?

Karl Marx remains the most influential and controversial political thinker in history. The movements associated with his name have lent hope to many victims of tyranny and aggression but have also proven disastrous in practice and resulted in the unnecessary deaths of millions. If after the collapse of the Soviet Union his reputation seemed utterly eclipsed, a new generation is reading and discovering Marx in the wake of the recurrent financial crises, growing social inequality and an increasing sense of the injustice and destructiveness of capitalism. Both his critique of capitalism and his vision of the future speak across the centuries to our times, even if the questions he poses are more difficult to answer than ever.

In this wide-ranging account, Gregory Claeys, one of Britain's leading historians of socialism, considers Marx's ideas and their development through the Russian Revolution to the present, showing why Marx and Marxism still matter today.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Economics, Biography, Classics

544 pages, Mass Market Paperback

First published April 5, 2018

About the author

Gregory Claeys was born in France and educated in Canada and the United Kingdom. He has taught in Germany and the United States and is now Professor of the History of Political Thought at Royal Holloway, University of London.

Reviews

[Morgan Blackledge · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book reads like a Mr. Toads wild ride featuring: the bullet point basics of Marxist thinking and theory, mini biographies of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Min, and more, as well as post-it note histories of Marxist revolutions, Marxist states, and the myriad atrocities, including mass murder, and famine etc. committed under their sanction.

It sounds ridiculous to cover all of that in one volume, but it’s so well done, that it ends up being a bountiful feast of nutritious food for thought.

My personal history with Marxism goes back to my earliest childhood.

My parents were 1960’s era radicals.

We lived in a commune.

My mom went to Cuba to support the revolution when I was a baby.

My dad was an activist Marxist professor (aka drug dealer) at the University of Illinois during the summer of love.

My family harbored Marxist revolutionaries from domestic and international organizations in our home throughout the 60s and 70s.

Then the 80s happened.

My dad went to work at GM after he got out of prison, and my mom ditched politics for psychotherapy and new age spirituality.

We moved to Lansing Michigan, a rust belt university/factory town, where academic Marxism and trade unionism were as abundant as filthy muddy snow and opaque gray overcast 🌫 (yes that’s an overcast emoji and coincidentally the official logo for Lansing).

As a teen, the tiered old weirdo Marxist activists (with the occasional chomo strewn in there for good measure) would show up at our parties and punk shows trying to convert us with their lame newspapers and brainwashed rhetoric.

When I went to art school in San Francisco in the early 90s, I didn’t actually make much art, but I sure did try to look smart by reading Frankfurt school post-Marxist post-modern critical theory.

Or at least I tried to.

That shit was almost entirely unintelligible.

Then, right around 2000, someone, or actually sort of everyone, declared communism dead, and Marx irrelevant.

The rhetoric of dialectical materialism (diamat) instantaneously became “obsolescent Sanskrit”.

PoMo theory was (correctly) reveled to be an elaborate, nonsensical, pseudo intellectual, undergraduate mating strategy.

And just like that.

It was over.

Done ✅

I guess that had a lot to do with the collapse of the USSR, and the defunding of communist satellite states like Cuba and Viet Nam, and the near total reification of China into the capitalist juggernaut that it is today.

Right around the same time, Ronald Regan became a posthumous cowboy saint, and Google and Facebook “democratized the media.”

And like WOW man.

We’re living in a capitalist utopia.

I distinctly remember feeling somewhat uneasy about all of that.

I remember thinking that Soviet and Maoist governments were NOT synonymous with Marx, and maybe the left was chucking the baby out with the bath water by joining in with the wholesale rejection of Marx based on the atrocities and ultimate failures of those states.

But in retrospect, I was simply WAY too distracted by my 15 hour a day job, and the terrifying political and cultural aftermath of 911, and the manic gold rush of the pre 2008 Southern California housing market, and the Great Recession, and Game of Thrones etc to pay any of those ideas too much never mind.

Plus we elected Obama and America was a ‘post-racist technocracy’, so fuck it right?

And then suddenly TRUMP 😳

And he’s using Twitter like a cross between Andrew ‘Dice’ Clay and Joseph Gobbles.

And it’s WORKING!

IT’S WORKING!!!!

People are actually believing that nonsense.

All those lumpen proletariat types in the fly over states that the left pretty much took for granted and left for dead went mass MAGA and Kid Rock became the new poet laureate.

And like, nobody, NOBODY on the left can think clearly or do ANYTHING about any of it.

There’s no critical theory or precise language to deconstruct what’s happening, there’s no ideas or methodology or organization of resistance.

Just a bunch of pussy hats and Burnie Bro’s.

Revisiting Marx, even in this hypo-manic fast forward from, suddenly feels useful and fresh again.

Don’t get me wrong.

I’m not feeling compelled to grab a red book and revolt.

But aspects of Marxist critique are prescient and still useful AF!

Maybe more so today than ever.

It’s true.

Many of the right’s most histrionic criticisms of Marxism actually did happen (and then some).

And they were legitimately god awful.

Like, I actually get why people were so uptight about containing the spread of communism in the Cold War.

Marx omitted the clearly important “thou shalt not kill” injunction, and that ended up being a catastrophe of the highest order, no if ands or buts.

But conversely.

Many of the left’s most outlandish predictions are also coming true.

Capitalism does currently seem like a mindless, veraciously hungry machine that is devouring the earth, with polar bears and ice caps as an appetizer.

And, I can SO relate to the observation that sufficient free time, fair wages, medical care and education are worthy values for a society.

And I actually really really don’t want to be crushed under the stone wheel of wage slavery.

Particularly as I approach retirement age, with around 200k in student debt, and not one penny saved.

I guess the book is still open.

I hope we find a (peaceful, non violent) way to synthesize the dialectic between personal freedom and communal security.

Can someone smarter than me get to work on that?

Hurry please.

[howl of minerva · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent primer on Marx and Marxism upto about the second international. (After that the coverage is so cursory I'm not sure why it was included at all.)

I'm no expert on Marx but I know enough to appreciate that writing simply, concisely and accurately about him is an extraordinary feat and Claeys has pulled it off. He has a lucid and no-nonsense style and resists getting swept up in Marx's dazzling displays of intellectual acrobatics or getting lost in the details of his voluminous works. He always keeps the big picture in mind. It's actually quite entertaining to see him interrupt a stream of high-flown Marxian brilliance with something like: "...which all sounds enormously impressive. But what does it actually mean concretely for the role of the state / political agitation / industry in post-capitalist society". Which is of course where Marx so often falls down.

As Justin notes, the book is weak on philosophy. In the depths of world war one, Lenin excitedly scribbled that you cannot understand a word of Marx without having read and understood all of Hegel. That's obviously dramatic overstatement but he sort of has a point. Recall those early dry chapters of Capital, chock-full of definitions that you tried to get through as quickly as possible. Reading them with a little Hegel on board is a quite different experience. You might see the appearance and evolution of notions like commodity, value, money and capital as having a certain logical inexorability. You might think they illuminate ideas like being and essence, reflection, inversion, aufhebung. You might start to see the M-C-M' circuit (i.e. capital) as the self-valorisation of value, as substance becoming self-moving substance, substance becoming subject, subject becoming not-itself to become more-than-itself, subject engaged in a vital and irresistible process of self-discovery and self-transcendence...

Claeys turns his weakness to a strength by not talking about any of that stuff and sticking to practical issues. As he says, "the radical critique of everything in existence is not enough." (!) If you're interested there's always Kolakowski or about 600,000 academic monographs. The fact that one set of complex abstractions can be mapped to another set of complex abstractions doesn't tell us whether any of them bake bread. Marx took from Hegel not just a method but a totalising frame of mind. Maybe the problem with being a genius is that you're convinced you're always right about everything and you present your flimsiest whimsies with as much desk-pounding certainty as your most considered and evidenced theories.

So let's take a look at a few of these problematic notions. It's well and good to say that communism is not an ideal societal system that we are aiming for, but rather a process of societal self-knowledge and increasing freedom. But really if we want to be midwives to the process shouldn't we have some idea of what's being born? Marx's predictions were largely off and his programme seems either undesirable or more achievable in a capitalist society than any other.

False-consciousness is a powerful and useful idea, but we should take care if it means we are going to decide what's best for others, whatever their objections. Marx's idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat had little to do with its later uses and abuses but it's nonetheless, as Cleays points out, "perhaps the worst thought-out major concept in the history of political thought".

Marx wasn't overly interested in theories of ethics and truth, he had his own: 'ethics' and 'truth' reflect socio-economic interests. (A brilliant and deeply influential theory, no doubt). But his passion is surely fueled by a sense of injustice, illusion and unfreedom that implies notions of justice, truth and freedom.

Claeys examines all these issues and more to address the question of what is living and what is dead in the thought of Marx today. You can quibble; I think he exaggerates the importance of "all-round development" and underestimates the importance of Marx's process thinking. However you slice it, there's plenty for the ledger on both sides. To understand capital, ideology and alienation in history through to the 21st century, Marx is indispensable. As Claeys says, "we still have crisis and we still have critique: it is programme and agency which seem to be missing." For that we need to go through Marx and beyond him.

[Justin Evans · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not the way I would have written the book, but I found it fascinating for that very reason: Claeys is poor on the philosophy (i.e., on my specialty) and fascinated by the positive programs put forward by the various socialists and Marxists (his specialty is utopianism, where mine is critique). Adjusting for those two perfectly reasonable biases, then, this is an excellent introduction and reference work. Too few people treat these two phenomena (Marx, on the one hand, and 'Marxism', on the other) side by side, which makes it too easy for people to conflate them, or to pretend that they're entirely unrelated; Kolakowski being the obvious exception, and in many ways he's too close to Marxism to offer an entirely fair judgment.

So, highly recommended, as long as you distrust what Claeys says about the philosophical side of Marx and Western Marxism; and as long as you keep in mind that what is important about Marx is probably his criticisms, and not his positive political suggestions. It's excellently written.

[Mz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Παρουσίαση και σχολιασμός του βιβλίου από εμένα στον σύνδεσμο: https://bookpress.gr/kritikes/idees/1...

[Benjamin Eskola · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was going to give this two stars by the end of the first half but it only got worse in the second.

Part one, Marx, is a combination biography and intellectual history. The biography part is mediocre; if you want to read about Marx's life then probably a dedicated biography is better and more interesting. (e.g., Karl Marx, A World to Win: The Life and Works of Karl Marx, Karl Marx: Greatness and Illusion.)

The intellectual history aspect is a little better: tracing the development of Marx's work over time and its interrelations with other writers. There's a tiny bit too much insistence on the unoriginality of Marx's thought, presumably aimed at the potential reader who imagines Marx's ideas sprang fully-formed out of nowhere. The bigger problem is Claeys' fixation on Marx's posthumously-published 1844 notebooks which, throughout this section and the rest of the book, he seems convinced are the most significant of Marx's works.

Far be it from me to say that an author has the final say in how to interpret their work; certainly value can be found in aspects that Marx himself thought less significant. But I think we can at least learn something from the fact that Marx abandoned these themes after this point; that he never published nor attempted to expand on them elsewhere. So when Claeys laments that Marx doesn't explain how such-and-such relates to his 1844 ideas about alienation, surely we can assume that the reason is that the older Marx no longer thought in the same way or that the concept was important/useful. He may well have been wrong about that, but the wishful thinking by Claeys is just weird and annoying; he seems to want Marx to have been someone he wasn't, for better or worse.

The second half, Marxism goes really downhill. Frankly it's a complete mess; even accounting for the political differences, it's badly done. The first chapter here deals with the German social democrats. Claeys' sympathies are clearly with Kautsky and Bernstein, to the point of self-contradiction: he first criticises Luxemburg for opposing democracy (contra Bernstein) yet then, a few pages later, holds her up as a defender of democratic values against Lenin. The German Communist Party is held to blame for the rise of Hitler for refusing to ally itself with the Social Democratic Party; but Luxemburg and Liebknecht "died in an abortive putsch" with no mention of the role of the SDP in this, and its literal, overt alliance with the protofascist Freikorps.

The chapters on the Russian Revolution and USSR are, predictably, even worse, and hardly worth commenting on. What would have improved this section would have been more depth to the intellectual history aspect of this, but there's barely more than simple assertion that Lenin et al. had deviated from Marxism.

China and Mao get relegated to "Other Marxisms", of less significance than the Frankfurt School. Fifteen pages on China, three each on Cuba, Vietnam, and the entirety of Africa; one each for Cambodia and Korea. Presumably Claeys just got bored; it seems like the significance of Marxist movements outside of Europe is primarily in the inspiration they may have provided for European student radicalism and not any impact they had in their own right.

The final chapter, "Marxism in the 21st century", is basically just useless — a long list of problems with Marxism (conflating problems with the theory itself with problems of various implementations — Claeys equivocates on whether Stalinism is actually Marx's fault or not) followed by what Claeys thinks is still useful from Marx. 1844's humanism and theory of alienation is in, surplus value is out (several times during the book he's insisted that nobody finds it useful and/or interesting, without really backing this up). In particular Marxism is alleged to have nothing useful to say about the climate crisis, which would probably surprise the many Marxists who find Marxism useful on ecological matters (e.g., Jason W. Moore, John Bellamy Foster) — we are told that climate crisis is more likely than capitalist crisis, without either evidence or a consideration of the possibility that the two are inextricably linked (are we to believe that capitalism would continue to function perfectly in such circumstances?).

He also provides a list of his suggestions for a left-wing political agenda of the future — primarily consisting of things that would have seemed unambitious for the Labour Party of 2015–19, with little consideration of the possibility that implementing this programme worldwide might provoke some degree of capitalist resistance, and remaining on brand by apparently only addressing or considering the Global North in all of this.

There's ironically little in the way of consideration of alternative viewpoints on Marx and Marxism; throughout the book it's taken for granted that what Claeys considers important, interesting, or relevant is what everyone should/does consider so. Althusser is dismissed in a paragraph or two with little engagement beyond noting that "anti-humanism" was an "unfortunate" label. Marxism may not be globally popular, may have been given a bad name by some of its implementors; but there are still people engaging with Marx in good faith, and coming to conclusions different to Claeys, and none of these are even considered worthy of an offhand dismissal.

All in all not worth the 99p I spent on this.

[Roberto Yoed · Rating 1 out of 5]

More than a book about marxism, this seems like a list of all of Stalin's "crimes".

[Kaushik · Rating 4 out of 5]

I took my time to read this book... It is quite dense and theoretical in places, and can be slow reading.

However, I found this book incredibly well written. Marx is not dealt with as a philosopher-king or a saint, but as a man who was a product of his time. Marx was affable, cheerful, belligerent, kind, prejudiced, angry and took badly to criticism. It's a hodgepodge of words, but the author manages to capture the portrait of a man as complex as you and me, with a genuine commitment to change, liberation and humanism.

The section on Marxism(s) was quite enlightening, rushing quickly through various developments on the theoretical level as well political. We see snapshots of the erstwhile USSR, PRC, Cuba, African Marxism as well as the philosophy of the New Left and the Frankfurt School. It is amazing to see how prescient and potent a tool of analysis Marxism and historical materialism are, and how so many thinkers were influenced by both by the theories of alienation and free association of the Young Marx and the misread "dictatorship of the proletariat".

The author wildly misstates the death tolls under communist regimes, using disputed figures despite so much new evidence (for more accurate figures look up Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder). But that's the only major gripe I have with the book.

This is a phenomenal and non-partisan introduction to Marx, Marxism and everything about them. Highly recommended.

[Tammam Aloudat · Rating 5 out of 5]

A clear eyed gaze at the man and his legacy is certainly overdue, and Claeys does it as well as it can be done: level-headed, non-partisan, and with the ability to distinguish both the legend of Marx from his actual self, and the essence of Marxism from the horrid oppressive application put in its name by the Soviets.

I have enjoyed the clear and detailed description of Marx's life and work, particularly, the differentiation Claeys uses between the young and the mature Marx, this is critical as citing Marx will lead to different results depending on which of the two is quoted. Also, the focus on the work of Engels after the death of Marx and how that often different interpretation and revision of Marx's work affected the later Marxist movement is critical to understand.

The second part, on Marxism, is a sweeping view of the history of those who claimed the name of Marx (often without having ever read him in any level of detail).

I have been preparing to read Marx (think Capital) for a long time, it was great to read this before. I will first read the Paris manuscripts of the young Marx before I plunge into the Capital.

[Bobby B · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really wanted to give this a higher rating but it falls short so very short.

In parts it tells a good story and history, but it’s use of dubious sources with short and poorly explain counter arguments just stands as anti Marxist propaganda.

It’s laughable that it’s blames capitalist failings post USSR, Mao, and across Europe on Marx.

I don’t know how I can rightly give this two stars after the author blames the rise of the right wing on that fact that some countries were once Marxist.

The generic left leaning ramblings at the end sound more like wishful thinking than a call to action. Libs would lick the boots of fascists before actually attempting to help better the world.

Don’t waste your time or money.

[Wouter Wijbrands · Rating 5 out of 5]

I absolutely adore this book. It is a perfect ensemble of the merits and tragedies Marxism and its variations brought to the world. The book is brimming with quotes and thoughtful analyses and observations. Claeys is careful in his wording, but does not shy away from making statements when he deems that necessary. Even though not topical, the design of the Pelican books is straight up fabulous and makes reading a treat. I recommend this book to every even slight leftist - Hell, to everyone interested in politics and willing to enrich their world views.

[Rosa Handscomb · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very informative but I definitely got lost as soon as things became too philosophical

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

"Marx´s vision of a fulfilling life after and beyond work is perhaps now more valuable than ever."
"Marx's analysis of capitalism, suitably updated, remains extremely relevant."
"Marx's theory of ideology, bolstered by the insights of Gramsci, the Frankfurt School and other theorists of hegemonic mass manipulation, as well as those of its satirists like Aldous Huxley and George Orwell, is more uselful than ever."

Gregory Claeys

[Titus Hjelm · Rating 3 out of 5]

A solid, if necessarily at times superficial intro to Marx and Marxism. Written from what hardcore Marxists would probably call a social democratic perspective, Claeys puts emphasis on Marx's utopianism (instead of 'scientific' Marxism insisted on by more orthodox views) and his and Engels's later turn from revolutionaries to supporters of parliamentary change (anathema to revolutionary Marxists today). Claeys well dismisses the weak links between Marx and later Soviet Marxism, while showing where Marx can be read in multiple ways. More than three stars for someone who's reading about the topic for the first time, but as intro books come, solidly in the midrange for those who are more familiar with Marx and Marxism.

[Ayan Dutta · Rating 5 out of 5]

superb introduction to Marx and Marxism . the author distills the core tenets of Marxism for general consumption. pick the book as your Marx 101

[Joseph Spuckler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Marx and Marxism by Gregory Claeys is a detailed study of Marxism in historical context. Claeys is Professor of the History of Political Thought at Royal Holloway, University of London and author of books on British intellectual and political history. He gained his Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge, where he studied at Jesus College.

Marx is a dirty word in America. It is tied to socialism, the Soviet Union, and North Korea. Socialism is seen as stealing wealth. It is hated except for public roads, police, fire departments, the standing military, and farm subsidies (that make food cheaper than market value). Granted, public schools, welfare, libraries, and the arts are often targets. Rationalized, justified, or just ignored the goods of socialism that make the nation work are pushed aside.

Claeys does something that needed to be done for some time. He wrote a book on Marxism that puts Marx (and Engels) in historical context. Nineteenth-century capitalism in Europe was not a good thing for the vast majority of the population. Overworked, subsistence pay, child labor, terrible and dangerous working conditions, made life, for most, dreadful. Conditions were so bad that pro-slavery forces in America's south used the English factory system and conditions to defend the humanity of slavery. Slaves were fed, housed, cared for (to some extent) and factory workers were left to starve and die. Of course, it was propaganda but propaganda with elements of truth.



Marx is put into his place in history. His intention was not a Soviet system. He did not want to care for the poor, but rather abolish poverty. His desire was to create a system where men were equal. The exploitation of the working class was real. Unskilled labor flooded into the cities for factory work. The glut of labor allowed the system to continue. Workers were not organized; they were expendable.  Marx went much farther with theories on private property and alienation.  Alienation is the removal of a person from their work.  The factory systems put people in positions were their work was not a whole.  Piecemeal work created separation from the product.  No longer did one build something completely; he built part of something in exchange for money.  He sold his time.  

Marx also believed in education.  If one was a child of a cobbler, one would grow to be a cobbler.  The problem comes when there are too many cobblers and not enough tailors.  The idea that education could be used to train workers to learn multiple skills and work where needed.  Of course, Marx did believe that man would rise to the challenge and become a willing part of a community where all is shared and all contribute.  Unfortunately, this was not the case.  To correct these problems various versions of Marxism evolved after his death.  Since Marx saw the industrialization of the economy the mechanism for change, he thought his theories would come to play industrialized countries, namely England.  

Where Marxism took hold, however, was in peasant class societies like the Russia and China.  Hence, Marxism became Leninism and then Stalinism in Russia and Maoism in China.  Did Marx have an effect in industrialized countries?  Yes and a very big influence.  Organized labor challenged industry.  The "Spectre of Communism" brought change.  Rather than risk revolution and lose everything, industry bent.  Leisure time, safe working conditions, collective bargaining, end of child labor, limited work weeks all became a reality.  Workers enjoyed more than they ever had before.  Western Europe began adapting ideas that became Democratic Socialism. 

Marx and Marxism is a very readable account of Marxism in history.  It discusses the complete theory and the evolution of the theory in easy to understand way.  Unlike the complex writings on Leninism, Marxism is fairly easy to understand without dumbing it down as it usually is in contemporary America.   All the controversy is included in this work and presented in an accurate way.  It is not a propaganda piece praising Marx but an honest examination.  Very much worth reading for anyone with an interest in history or political science. 

[Reuben Woolley · Rating 3 out of 5]

The ‘Marx’ section is severely let down by the ‘Marxism’ section — which you would expect, as the entire history of Marxism in 240 pages is a big ask. That said, 100 of those pages are spent lamenting about how Lenin and Stalin weren’t real Marxists, and then you get a string of tiny sections on other movements that are far too short to get anything of use from — the entirety of South America is represented in 4 pages on Cuba, African socialism gets 3 pages entirely on Ghana, Senegal and Algeria. The conclusion then weakly mentions that Marx never mentioned climate change and basically gives up hope for real political change while trying to say it isn’t giving up hope for real political change. Also he basically appears to think Marcuse and Habermas were the only worthwhile European theorists after Gramsci died, which I can’t verify without reading some other stuff, but it seems suspect.

EDIT: I can’t believe I forgot to point out the world’s easiest symbol which is that this book literally started disintegrating as I finished it, pages falling out and all. I’d attach a photo but idk how

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

I started reading Capital and got to the end of the introduction and my brain hurt. So, I thought I needed more of a primer, something to give me a better understanding of the man and the terminology, and I picked up this Pelican edition to do the job. It does that job pretty well, broken down into two parts, the first is a chapter by chapter progression through Marx's life. Explaining his theories and thoughts by tying them to his publications. The second part is perhaps even more useful, in that it takes the Marxism already explained and compares that to the Russian revolution through Leninism and Stalinism, it also skims over other implementations (including Cuba), the rise of Marxism's popularity in modern western-Europe and so on. While it doesn't ever feel like Clayes is a true believer - it does feel like an honest and balanced approach to the subject and I feel (more) ready to try the man himself now...

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half of this book looks briefly at Marx's life, and analyzes the philosophical background and content of his work. This part was hard for me to follow, as I have no background or schooling in philosophical thought. This book was not a good place to start for someone like me. The second half of the book looks at Communist governments in various parts of the world, but especially in Russia. Again, it's less history and more of an analysis of various Communist thinkers in those environments.

Marx and his version of Communism, I have many doubts about. I am sure I am missing much of the nuance, but it is difficult for me to support what I understand of Marx's writing. I haven't seen examples of Communist governments that are anything I would want for anyone, though I'm not sure any accurately represented Marx's vision for Communism. My husband and I own a home and have college degrees. I think that makes us bourgeoisie. It is very self-interested, but I hate the thought of what our lives would have been like under Mao in China. (I have read more about China than Russia.) I do not think that violent revolution is a positive way forward. I support unions, small businesses, public education, and every version of safety nets for people. I think that the government's job is to take care of its citizens and immigrants, not wage war and strive for dominion over the world.

Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I don't think we can avoid people having power in large countries like we have today. The question is how to get the right people in power, and guide them towards the best decisions for the populace. American Capitalism (the system I live under) is not perfect, but what I've read of Communism does not make me want to go in that direction either. It seems to me the proletariat spoke and voted for Trump in the latest election. We'll see how that goes, but I don't have high hopes.

From page 57, "...it may clarify Marx's otherwise startling later comment that he could not actually envision himself living in the future society." What little I've read of Marx, this is very true. He wasn't good at managing his life or his family's lives, and he did not manage to support himself by working. He and his family definitely needed the safety nets that I'm in favor of. It's hard for me to admire or follow someone whose life choices I don't respect.

It makes sense to me to begin with what someone knows of life when envisioning a future world. I can't and won't envision a world for other people to live in. All I know is that my life felt most meaningful when I was able to get out of the house and teach. I worked with students with special needs, refugees, and (probably) undocumented immigrants. My ideal world is the one I can reach out and touch. Past that, is beyond me.

I have learned so much from reviewers I follow on here and appreciate what they have shared. Thank you!

[Rohan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A history of Marx's thought that situates the genesis of his philosophy in the historical context of his time. The young Marx was inspired not only by the Parisian Communards but also from contemporary social reformers like Robert Owen and Henri de Saint Simon. Claeys charts the evolution of Marx's thought from Young Hegelianism to dialectical materialism via his fateful meeting with Engels. Marx's conception of alienation seems to be the most insightful component of his work and one that has enduring relevance. This combined with his detailed description of the process of enclosure are incredibly rigorous and are still material more so than his later work on the historical inevitability of communism which has a distinct millenarian/messianic flavour. The author makes sure to mention his over-confidence and stubbornness especially in debates with fellow leftists(Bakunin etc). His under emphasis of the idea of meaningful democratic opposition within a future worker's state combined with his disdain for the rural peasantry were fatal conceits that(likely) lead to the horrific authoritarian excesses in the Soviet Union and China. Most insightful was the section on "Conversions" wherein the reasons for the universal appeal of Marxism are discussed. It is notable that a philosophy that was primarily for the emancipation of the urban proletariat held such wide purchase among intellectuals.

"..the system it presented appealed primarily because of a mesmerizing combination of simplicity and complexity. The educated were alternatively challenged, delighted and perplexed by a new language brimming with concepts that flattered them"

Claeys likens Marxism to a kind of 'gnostic' knowledge that teased potential believers with the promise of power, prospective converts with the promise of justice. It offered the allure of being scientific, modern and on the side of history.

It was a culmination of both History and Philosophy that was a 'total' worldview that purported to answer every question. The 'rationalism' that pervaded it with was the inevitable outcome of a nineteenth century scientific worldview taken to its logical conclusion.

The latter half of the book is a catalogue of the litany of failures of the various Marxist projects of the 20th century. Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolshevists are especially targeted for criticism for their opportunistic vanguardism and their role in normalizing mass terror and authoritarian bureaucracies that set the tone for the successor movements that drew inspiration from them. The dream of a humanist and democratic communist state seems to have ended at Kronstadt in 1921. The rehabilitation of Marx in the Frankfurt School in the United States and among the French Existentialists is briefly noted.
Overall, a good critical introduction to Marx's body of work and a fair assessment of his lasting legacy.

[Will James · Rating 2 out of 5]

Quite good as an introductory text at times. I thought Claeys was at his best when he was describing the evolution of early socialism and the development of Marx's ideas. His brief descriptions of Marxist ideas playing out in practice in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cuba and North Korea were generallly sound.

I have few criticisms though. Firstly, Claeys probably attributes too much credit to Marx's best ideas which were not entirely his. As Terry Eagleton argued in Culture and the Death of God, Marx's ideasof commodity fetishism quite clearly came from his interest in Old Testament notions of idol worship. Moreover, the idea of 'false consciousness' is surely just another conception of Plato's 'noble lie', albeit grounded dialectical materialism. Having said this, I don't deny that the whole of Marx's theoretical landscape and the way in which he related all his theories together was genuinely unique and impressive in scope.

Secondly, he also falls into the trap of talking about 'capitalism' as if it were the only political alternative to socialism, as if countries as different as Britain, France, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Brazil were all essentially the same, because after all, they are capitalist countries. It is a common trap that communist propagandists intended for people to fall into.

Finally, his concluding remarks revealed that his critique of Marxism as a whole was remarkably shallow. It could be summarised as: "Marx was wrong on a number of minor details which unfortunately had rather devastating consequences, however, his heart was essentially in the right place." It comes across as a consequentialist critique despite hindsight being superfluous.

At the end of the book, Claeys breaks out into a pretty generic spiel about what he believes are the major problems of the day: inequality, global warming, right wing media, etc. That it is all well and fine, but it is almost as if he hopes that one day in the near future, a genius, or perhaps more appropriately, a messiah, might write a great political treatise that could guide us out of humanity's continuous malaise into a brand new world to live happily ever after.

No sense of irony, no sense of the tragic, he continues the vitally flawed hidden assumption that the only thing separating humanity from harmony is a perfectly good political system that can be applied everywhere, like an item of clothing, as if countries don't have any reason to remain true to their unique historical roots or that individuals who live in them don't have to try to be good themselves. In this sense, his position quickly became inexcusably naive and optimistic.

[Jay · Rating 3 out of 5]

In Achieving Our Country, the American social philosopher Richard Rorty says that had V. I. Lenin's 'sealed train' arrived at Finland Station in 1917 and immediately been sent back the way it had come, Karl Marx would be remembered today as a historical footnote similar in significance to Malthus and Spencer. (SPOILER ALERT: That's not how things worked out.)

Unless you're a Marxist, and perhaps even then, the actual reading of Marx constitutes an unrewarding, often painful experience. Imagine a cookbook, in which half the ingredients and steps for each dish are cross-references to other recipes. If you ever get so far as to cook something, you'll find your product too bland, too runny, too glutinous and spicy to eat yourself, let alone set before guests. Consult the online forums discussing the cookbook's recipes and you will discover furious, voluminous, and largely incomprehensible debate. Although all you want to learn is how to cook a few decent dishes, you find yourself losing hope this goal can be attained without years of study and practice.

I exaggerate, of course. But Marx is tough going for most. The gifts of Claeys's Marx and Marxism are 1) to contextualize Karl Marx in the highly competitive culture of academic philosophy as studied in the 19th-century German university generally, and among the so-called Young Hegelians in particular; 2) to highlight significant turning points in the young Marx's life, and to join these to changes in his thought; 3) to show the unique contributions of Friedrich Engels to Marx's work; 4) to tease out themes and ideas (i.e. alienation, atheism, freedom) running throughout Marx's entire career; 5) to point out some of Marx's most shocking omissions and blind spots (i.e. Marx wrote very little about socialism and seems to have gone far into his economics research without understanding much about how factories produced goods, to say nothing of how nation states operated day to day); 6) to emphasize the theoretical variety among individuals and groups claiming the name 'Marxist' in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

[Kai Mustakoski · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5/5

This book is intimidating by sheer scope of it, but also very rewarding, it paints a coherent and easy to follow narrative from Marx to what is called Marxism, the birth of social democracy in opposition to communism, Lenin’s rise to power, Stalin, Mao and so on, to the collapse of the soviet block and beyond.

To me this book was objective as a book can be, very informative, maybe even excesses in detail; most importantly, it gave very good over all image of the whole history of Marxism and touched all the aspects of it from philosophy, culture, politics, world history and so forth.

A fascinating book that does not lack any importance in urgency. It is indeed crucial to understand what went wrong with communism, and how its collapse gave ideological free ticket in the name of “the freedom of the individuals” and "liberty” to reach a point where 20 individuals have now the liberty to own as much as the bottom 50% owns of all the wealth in the united states - the situation globally is even worse.

History has not ended, capitalism is not the end stage or purpose of the planet earth, there are many things that Marx saw correctly, capitalism will end itself sooner or later, maybe not the way Marx saw it, but when automatisation is capable of doing nearly all the work, there is less and less people who will receive any salaries. Also, a lot of work is already totally not necessary. We work way too much hours and days per year. In any case, capitalism was created by technology, and it will not survive technology's unforseeable effects forever.

The above mentioned is the reason why news articles of the 4 hour work day and universal basic income (UBI) has entered even to the mainstream media only due the fact that techonological developments' increacing pace leaves no choise.

4.5/5

[Rory Armstrong · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great overview of Marx and Marxism.
Split between these two large concepts, the book first description Marx the man; his philosophy from a young man, and how his theory grew from an Hegelian viewpoint of the Sythesis of Capitalism and it's main critique, to a more nuanced understanding of the pitfalls of capitalism for the working class, how this removes the freedom to be human, and will lead to inevitable (he supposes) revolution to the next 'mode of production' after capitalism.
The book follows each of Marx's major works, along with his collobration with Engels describing his current theoretical viewpoint, and it's context in his system as his live progresses. It adds insight into the context of the socialist intellectual climate at the time; his main critiques against first against Hegel, then following that, the young Hegelists, other socialists thinkers such as Owen, and economists such as Smith, Ricardo, and Malthus. He certainly loved to criticise.
It explores his theories giving a good overview and understanding of the various terms such as historical materialism, modes of production, and surplus value.

The second part then investigates the application of Marxism in real world politics, looking into Bolshevism, Chinese communism, and modern socialism, along with how Marxism has progressed.

The book is a facinating one to read as the first part does a great job of describing the philosophy and reasons, and sells the idea. The second part then shows how it's be maligned, twisted, and hijacked by Autocrats, rendering it's original purpose void.

[Vignir Másson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Fékk ekki mikið út úr þessari. Henni er skipt í 2 hluta. Fyrsti um Marx og seinni um marxisma.

Ekkert nýtt né áhugavert kemur fram í fyrsta hlutanum. Bara ævisöguleg umfjöllun um Marx og yfirborðskennd umfjöllun um hugmyndir hans sem endurtekur suma meginstraums fordóma er varða Marx.

Seinni hlutinn olli miklum vonbrigðum þar sem hugmyndasagan fellur alveg í bakgrunninn og frásögnin fer að líkjast eins konar svartbók marxismans. Farið er yfir endalausan lista hroðaverka bolsévikanna, Lenín, Stalín, Mao o.s.frv. Það koma fram nokkrir áhugaverðir hlutar þar sem farið er stuttlega yfir hugmyndir minna þekktra rússneskra marxista eins og Plekhanov og Bakhtin.

Undir lokinn er rennt mjög hratt og á ófullnægjandi hátt yfir marxisma í alþjóðlega suðrinu sem hefði verið miklu áhugaverðara en að fá þreyttu romsuna um hroðaverk kommúnistaríkja 20. aldarinnar enn eina ferðina.

Mæli ekkert sérstaklega með nema að maður sé algjör byrjandi en þá myndi ég para þessa bók með öðrum bókum um Marx og marxisma sem fer dýpra í hugmyndirnar.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good overview of Marx’s thinking and how it ways taken up and transformed over the course of the latter nineteenth and the long twentieth century. Not a substitute for the primary sources—but a good general blueprint of Marx’s thinking and influence. I particularly enjoyed the “Utopia” chapter, where Claeys identifies the utopian characteristics of Marx’s thinking (distinguished, by Engels and others, for its supposed “scientific” and “practicable” basis). There’s (1) Marx’s “persistent hostility to specialization,” for instance. Marx wants “all-round” development, but “this concept was simply not thought through carefully.” “As the scalpel is poised do we really want heart surgeons whose heart is in poetry?” There’s (2) a utopian assumption that “social behavior would improve dramatically once private property ended.” To assume this is to overlook a range of issues that continue to divide people and have little to do with property proper. There’s (3) Marx’s unwillingness to “confront the full reality of the very principles he himself supported.” Marx “was once told by a house guest, “I cannot picture you in an egalitarian period since your inclinations and habits are so thoroughly aristocratic.” Marx replied “Neither can I; those times must come but we must be gone by then.” There’s (4) Marx’s assumption that “advances in socialization” would be achievable “could be emulated at the level of the nation state.

“On the negative side of the ledger, the failings of Marxism include: an overly determinist idea of progress, especially respecting the “inevitability of socialist revolution; the belief in what Bertrand Russell termed a “militant certainty,” which bought pompous arrogance to both policy and outlook; adherence to the “scientific” nature of the theory of surplus value, while excluding other theories of exploitation; an overly vague and optimistic conception of the end-point, “communist society”; a romanticized view of the proletariat, which wrongly assumed that it was more virtuous than other groups, coupled with antagonism towards “class enemies”; the simple-minded, cruel morality of “the end justifies the means,” which with an inflation of the description of the end has meant justifying mass murder repeatedly; an over-optimistic assumption that the state might disappear in a future democratic society; a lack of sympathy with the peasantry; a weak theory of personal, civil, and personal liberty and the inability to conceive of these as anything but “bourgeois morality”; too little stress on the value of individuality; a tendency to reduce human motives to the economic… extreme economic centralization and bueracratization; a poorly conceived theory of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” which has been used to excuse the excesses of arbitrary power”… an overemphasis on the centrality of life to work… a fetishized concept of “revolution” as a panacea for all existing woes, and an incapacity to comprehend the recurrent power of nationalism and ethnic and religious identity.”

Important points to keep in mind when assessing Marx’s exceptional legacy.

[Josh · Rating 3 out of 5]

The audiobook genre does not serve well (at least to me) for philosophical texts, and the first half of this book was more an overview and analysis of Marx's writings rather than a biography of his life. The second half on Marxism was easier to follow in audio format.

However, I'm not persuaded by the author's overall conclusion that Marx is "prophetic" and relevant for addressing the problems of our day. His survey of the various Marxist regimes in the 20th century reads something like, "These regimes all claimed Marx as their inspiration, and murdered untold masses of their citizens, but they didn't really understand Marx." One cannot be blamed for all the failures of one's disciples - but if all one's disciples look remarkably like a Stalin...

[Alina Jardan · Rating 5 out of 5]

engl / rus

A very detailed and comprehensive explanation of the Marxist and socialist movement. It briliantly includes theoretical and also practical information as well as the relationship between K. Marx and Engels.
I apreciate the fact that the author stayed neutral during criticising the aspects of the Marxism.
It is surely worth reading, 10/10 I recommend it.

Очень подробное и всестороннее объяснение Маркситского и социалистического движения. Блестяще содержит и теоретическое и практичное сведения, так же как и отношение между К. Маркса и Енгельса.
Мне нравится то что автор оставался нейтральным критиковая аспекты Марксизма.
Несомненно стоит прочтения, 10/10 я рекомендую.

[Sylvian J · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the most comprehensive books on Marx and Marxism that I have read. This voluminous book is filled with historical facts and events cleverly scrutinised by Gregory to give a comprehensive understanding of Marx. He also helps us to understand how Marxism was misappropriated by the 20th-century leaders. For instance, I learnt that Marx never subscribed to the nationalisation of industries.

My criticism on the book is the lack of philosophical enquiry of Marx and the Hegelian influence. Maybe he could have dealt in some detail. Having said that, this is one of the comprehensive accounts on Marx and Marxism.

[LeoQuiroa · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think the first three chapters, where the author discusses young Karl, conversion, and alienation, are the easiest to digest. Then, the history of Germany begins, and either because it is too deep or so uninteresting, I felt entirely lost on it. After that, I was able to get back on track starting with chapter 9, which discusses the mature Marx and Engels in a way that is simple to understand. The chapters on Stalin and Lenin taught me a lot. Finally, I believe the chapter on Marxism in the twenty-first century is too brief. Overall, an excellent overview of the Marxism. I am considering re-reading a 2nd time.

[Kyrill · Rating 3 out of 5]

Takes a very long time to get into any kind of momentum. I found the first quarter hard to read. It was a lot of descriptions of disagreements between factions I knew nothing about in the first place and thus did not care about. It is however thorough. The author does however lose his historical objectivity as he approaches the present day, worrying about fake news and generally giving with authority the kind of received wisdom one might pick up from a Guardian article. The middle though, is great.