What do you think?
Rate this book
Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx
In Karl Marx's early writing (first made available many years after his death) his economic interpretation of history and his concept of communism were set in a comprehensive philosophical framework. Marx's main preoccupation at this time was with man estranged from himself in an alienated world: a subjective, almost religious theme.Taking full account of these earlier writings, Robert Tucker critiques and reinterprets Marx's thought. He shows how its origins can be located in earlier German philosophers, in particular Kant, Hegel, and Feuerbach. Reconstructing the genesis of Marxism in its founder's own mind, he clarifies Marx's mystifying contention that Marxism represented Hegelianism turned 'on its head'. He then presents a new interpretation, based on close textual analysis, of the relation between Marx's early philosophical system and the subsequent materialist conception of history as expounded in the later and best known writings of Marx and Engels. Against this background, Tucker presents Das Kapital as a work belonging to the post-Hegelian mythical development of Germany philosophy. Considering in turn the genesis of Marxism and the underlying continuity of his thought from the early writings to Das Kapital, Tucker shows the theme of alienation is central throughout.In the years since the book was first written, comments and criticism have encouraged Tucker to change his position somewhat. This is explained in a new introduction that goes beyond the interpretative enterprise of the rest of the book to assess Marx in relation to contemporary concerns: first it presents a critique of Marx's treatment of alienation and then it comments on the moot problem of the continuing relevance of his social and economic thought. On the latter point his views have matured and altered during the intervening years and he now finds the economic and social aspects of Marx's thought considerably more relevant than he did before.
272 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 1, 1961
9 people are currently reading
168 people want to read
About the author
Robert C. Tucker
35 books25 followersA scholar of Marxism and the Soviet Union, Robert Tucker studied at Harvard University. While working on a doctorate in philosophy, he spent two years as a translator for the United States Embassy in Moscow, where he met his wife Evgeniya Pestretsova. His inability to gain an exit visa for her when he returned to the United States in 1946, which proved a key experience in stimulating his studies.
After completing his dissertation, Tucker worked for the RAND Corporation and taught at Indiana University. He wrote a number of books about Marxism and Stalinism, most notably a two-volume biography of Josef Stalin which adopted a psychological interpretation to explain how Stalin gained and used power.
After completing his dissertation, Tucker worked for the RAND Corporation and taught at Indiana University. He wrote a number of books about Marxism and Stalinism, most notably a two-volume biography of Josef Stalin which adopted a psychological interpretation to explain how Stalin gained and used power.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
August 7, 2016
"Fiind cel mai influent profet al noii religii a secolului al XIX-lea, socialismul, Marx și-a găsit adepți pentru care ideile sale au devenit un sistem de credințe și baza unei noi culturi. Prin grupul marxist care a venit la putere în timpul revoluției din Rusia din 1917, învățăturile lui au devenit unealta comunismului ca nouă formațiune socio-culturală [...]
Marx a creat prin marxism o evanghelie a depășirii alienării prin mijloace diferite de cele care pot într-adevăr să ducă la reușită, o soluție care ratează soluția, o pseudosoluție. De aceea, marxismul este un eșec."
Marx a creat prin marxism o evanghelie a depășirii alienării prin mijloace diferite de cele care pot într-adevăr să ducă la reușită, o soluție care ratează soluția, o pseudosoluție. De aceea, marxismul este un eșec."
December 27, 2017
Searching for an essential argument and thread of internal continuity binding together the writings of Karl Marx across the span of his career as a theorist and polemicist of social revolution, Robert Tucker turns to Marx's posthumously-published Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. He discerns there the genealogical traces indivisibly linking Marx's image of political economy to Hegel's philosophy of Geist realizing itself in world history, albeit transposed by Marx into the trajectory by which humanity alienates, and ultimately reclaims, its own essential nature as creative producer.
Looking forward then to Marx's influential later writings, Tucker offers a critical analysis of their explicit historical materialism as it relates to the theory of self-alienation formulated in 1844. He finds not only continuity, but indeed presents a bold – if contentious – argument for a radically mythic mode of thought informing Marx's analysis of class antagonism in Capital, projecting the internal alienation of productive potentiality from absolutist ego onto the relational structure of society itself.
Tucker's original reading of Marx, if not readily assimilable to most orthodox interpretations, is nonetheless quite thought-provoking. Moreover, it is integrally joined to expositions of both Hegel and Marx's dialectical theories, and the nature of the relationship between the two, that are most welcome in their clarity and coherence.
Looking forward then to Marx's influential later writings, Tucker offers a critical analysis of their explicit historical materialism as it relates to the theory of self-alienation formulated in 1844. He finds not only continuity, but indeed presents a bold – if contentious – argument for a radically mythic mode of thought informing Marx's analysis of class antagonism in Capital, projecting the internal alienation of productive potentiality from absolutist ego onto the relational structure of society itself.
Tucker's original reading of Marx, if not readily assimilable to most orthodox interpretations, is nonetheless quite thought-provoking. Moreover, it is integrally joined to expositions of both Hegel and Marx's dialectical theories, and the nature of the relationship between the two, that are most welcome in their clarity and coherence.
September 20, 2020
If you want to see Tucker speak to get a feel for him:
Robert Tucker - Russia Since the Communist Revolution - 1984 Interview [29 min]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85gY7...
January 2, 2015
A very difficult book but worth the effort.
April 22, 2021
Good analysis of the framework and background of the German philosophies that influenced Karl Marx’s “mythological” conceptions of the struggles between capital and labor forces in capitalism.
October 28, 2023
A truly excellent book in understanding the Hegelian influence through Feuerbach into Marx. Marx did not study economics in order to come to this theory, he adapted his modified Hegelianism into his theory and then later looked through economic literature to justify his theory. Which means Marxism is doubly or trebly disconnected from reality. The author makes the point that Hegelianism was itself a neurotic psychological projection of Hegel into the realm of philosophy, it is a pseudo philosophy at best and does not correspond to reality to begin with. So by the time it get's the dialectic gets to Marx it is a hot neurotic mess.
Kant: Seems to begin the alienation process that is to become so central to the latter thinkers by separating the phenomenal and noumenal aspects of man. The phenomenal aspect is the physical and imperfect aspect compared to the noumenal which is the perfect spirit aspect. Man can transcend his phenomenal condition by adhering to transcendent principals determined by reason with an iron will.
Hegel: Tries to unite all of philosophy in a single theory and to transcend this alienation from self that originates in Kant. Hegelianism is a tortured and overly complex way of deifying man. The Geist comes to know itself as Geist in the consciousness of man through history. This happens by subject incorporating the foreign object into itself and thus transcending itself and experiencing itself as unlimited. This subject sees the foreign object as part of itself although in alienated form. The object is incorporated into the subject through the process of negation and overcoming. This negation process when played out in history is a brutal process that is fueled by the demiurge of the Geist trying to overcome it's limitedness and self alienation so it can experience itself as a whole.
Feuerbach: Begins the materialization of the dialectic that was found to be mystical in Hegel. It is said that Marx turned Hegel on his head but it seems that Feuerbach did so first. He did this by turning the realm of alienation towards religion and seeing in the Christian God man's attributes and the best of himself alienated from himself. God is just man projecting his best qualities into heaven. While in Hegel God comes to know himself as God in man's consciousness, in Feuerbach man comes to realize God is alienated man and by realizing this he can end his alienation.
Marx: Adapted the dialectic that had been materialized and centered around man by Feuerbach and applied it to economics. Man was no longer alienated from himself by the external object or man's projection into the heavens but through the process of labor. Man produces the world around him through material production. During production man incorporates his labor power into the material object in order to produce a commodity. Under capitalistic mode of production (and every form of production that has come before it) the commodity is appropriated from the worker and the worker is thus alienated from himself. This alienation from self that was originated in his early manuscripts of 1844 and not released till the 20th century then becomes a social relation in his mature writings. The self alienation becomes socialized and expressed through the class struggle that dominates his later work.
Kant: Seems to begin the alienation process that is to become so central to the latter thinkers by separating the phenomenal and noumenal aspects of man. The phenomenal aspect is the physical and imperfect aspect compared to the noumenal which is the perfect spirit aspect. Man can transcend his phenomenal condition by adhering to transcendent principals determined by reason with an iron will.
Hegel: Tries to unite all of philosophy in a single theory and to transcend this alienation from self that originates in Kant. Hegelianism is a tortured and overly complex way of deifying man. The Geist comes to know itself as Geist in the consciousness of man through history. This happens by subject incorporating the foreign object into itself and thus transcending itself and experiencing itself as unlimited. This subject sees the foreign object as part of itself although in alienated form. The object is incorporated into the subject through the process of negation and overcoming. This negation process when played out in history is a brutal process that is fueled by the demiurge of the Geist trying to overcome it's limitedness and self alienation so it can experience itself as a whole.
Feuerbach: Begins the materialization of the dialectic that was found to be mystical in Hegel. It is said that Marx turned Hegel on his head but it seems that Feuerbach did so first. He did this by turning the realm of alienation towards religion and seeing in the Christian God man's attributes and the best of himself alienated from himself. God is just man projecting his best qualities into heaven. While in Hegel God comes to know himself as God in man's consciousness, in Feuerbach man comes to realize God is alienated man and by realizing this he can end his alienation.
Marx: Adapted the dialectic that had been materialized and centered around man by Feuerbach and applied it to economics. Man was no longer alienated from himself by the external object or man's projection into the heavens but through the process of labor. Man produces the world around him through material production. During production man incorporates his labor power into the material object in order to produce a commodity. Under capitalistic mode of production (and every form of production that has come before it) the commodity is appropriated from the worker and the worker is thus alienated from himself. This alienation from self that was originated in his early manuscripts of 1844 and not released till the 20th century then becomes a social relation in his mature writings. The self alienation becomes socialized and expressed through the class struggle that dominates his later work.
May 28, 2019
This was a pleasant surprise and I think a much underrated study of Marx. To be honest I found out about this book from reading a short essay by Murray Rothbard in witch he recomends this book and borrows Tucker's talking points on Marx.
The main things I got from this book is a clear picture of Hegel and Feuerbach; mostly on Hegel and how Tucker summarizes his work as a grand apology of pride; and their influence on Marx.
If the introduction was about Hegel the next parts are the presentation of the original Marxism and then proceeding to show that mature marxism is the same and consistent with the original.
First thing I did not know about was this 2 apparent different versions of the marxism of Marx; Tucker challenges the mainstream notion that original Marxism was incomplete or an early sketch of mature marxism or that mature Marxism is a rejection or steeping backward from hegelianism.
But before this the interesting observation is that original marxism was made public much more later, after Marx's death and significant parts even after the first Marxist states aroused. The marxist right after Marx did not have access to original marxism and later soviet and western scholars were baffled by it and made the assumption that it is not the same as mature marxism. This leads me, and also the author alludes to this thought, that most later 20th century marxists did get Marx wrong and than rejected his earlier writings as blueprints for what marxism is.
Yet Tucker challenges this and shows what I would say in more simpler terms that Marx after creating his system of thought in the language of German idealistic philosophy; witch by the way gives away the strong links with hegelianism; decides to study British political economy and translates the language of his system to British political economy. The translation is a forceful one as he changes the meaning of the terms from political economy; thus as an example the concept of alienation is translated in mature Marxism as division of labor; "division of labor" dose not keep the same meaning as it had in political economy. For Tucker all the myths that marx integrated into original marxism are present in mature marxism yet Marx misuses a scientific language to give us a myth.
The main things I got from this book is a clear picture of Hegel and Feuerbach; mostly on Hegel and how Tucker summarizes his work as a grand apology of pride; and their influence on Marx.
If the introduction was about Hegel the next parts are the presentation of the original Marxism and then proceeding to show that mature marxism is the same and consistent with the original.
First thing I did not know about was this 2 apparent different versions of the marxism of Marx; Tucker challenges the mainstream notion that original Marxism was incomplete or an early sketch of mature marxism or that mature Marxism is a rejection or steeping backward from hegelianism.
But before this the interesting observation is that original marxism was made public much more later, after Marx's death and significant parts even after the first Marxist states aroused. The marxist right after Marx did not have access to original marxism and later soviet and western scholars were baffled by it and made the assumption that it is not the same as mature marxism. This leads me, and also the author alludes to this thought, that most later 20th century marxists did get Marx wrong and than rejected his earlier writings as blueprints for what marxism is.
Yet Tucker challenges this and shows what I would say in more simpler terms that Marx after creating his system of thought in the language of German idealistic philosophy; witch by the way gives away the strong links with hegelianism; decides to study British political economy and translates the language of his system to British political economy. The translation is a forceful one as he changes the meaning of the terms from political economy; thus as an example the concept of alienation is translated in mature Marxism as division of labor; "division of labor" dose not keep the same meaning as it had in political economy. For Tucker all the myths that marx integrated into original marxism are present in mature marxism yet Marx misuses a scientific language to give us a myth.
Read
November 21, 2022Comment:
I am especially fond of chapter 9, "Alienation and Money-Worship". If you accept a Hegelian influenced interpretation of the thought of Marx, at least the early Marx, this chapter will be interesting. If not, it will be largely nonsense.
But I find it interesting. Just as Nietzsche thinks one thing and does another so too does Marx. What does that mean? The Young Marx thinks alienation a characteristic of Man. But since, he believes, it can be alleviated / altered / ended(?) by human activity, Marx alters how he speaks of Alienation. Marx knows that each and every individual suffers from it; but the capitalist class enjoys (to an extent) their alienation and fears losing their (alienated) privileges. It is thru proletarian revolution (according to Marx) that the alienation of each of us is overcome (alleviated / altered / ended). So Marx stops speaking of the alienation of each individual in order to attack the prevalent and worst form of it in the modern world. And this is the passage from the philosophical Marx to the 'mature' one.
There is no difference in thought in this passage; there is difference in activity. Regarding pure Theory, all individuals are alienated to an extent. But practical purposeful activity demands an end to the current Alienation under Capitalism. And so the mature Marx only speaks of the workers Alienation. Purpose always obscures Philosophical Knowledge. Always. We see this in Nietzsche and we see it in Marx. And anywhere else (within the work of genuine philosophers) we dare look.
Nietzsche's Purpose arises with the advent of Zarathustra and its intended effect of creating a new religious ethos. Everything after Zarathustra is said and done in order to destroy modernity so that this new Religious Ethos will rise. With Marx, the arrival of purpose occurs with his study of Economics. He realizes that the current form of alienation could be overcome with the overthrow of the Capitalist System. (And its replacement by Socialism / Communism.) After that, he is only speaking Purposefully. Everything said and done is to bring about the downfall of Capitalism.
The genuine philosopher always pays for practical effectiveness in this manner; ...some Knowledge is always lost.
I am especially fond of chapter 9, "Alienation and Money-Worship". If you accept a Hegelian influenced interpretation of the thought of Marx, at least the early Marx, this chapter will be interesting. If not, it will be largely nonsense.
But I find it interesting. Just as Nietzsche thinks one thing and does another so too does Marx. What does that mean? The Young Marx thinks alienation a characteristic of Man. But since, he believes, it can be alleviated / altered / ended(?) by human activity, Marx alters how he speaks of Alienation. Marx knows that each and every individual suffers from it; but the capitalist class enjoys (to an extent) their alienation and fears losing their (alienated) privileges. It is thru proletarian revolution (according to Marx) that the alienation of each of us is overcome (alleviated / altered / ended). So Marx stops speaking of the alienation of each individual in order to attack the prevalent and worst form of it in the modern world. And this is the passage from the philosophical Marx to the 'mature' one.
There is no difference in thought in this passage; there is difference in activity. Regarding pure Theory, all individuals are alienated to an extent. But practical purposeful activity demands an end to the current Alienation under Capitalism. And so the mature Marx only speaks of the workers Alienation. Purpose always obscures Philosophical Knowledge. Always. We see this in Nietzsche and we see it in Marx. And anywhere else (within the work of genuine philosophers) we dare look.
Nietzsche's Purpose arises with the advent of Zarathustra and its intended effect of creating a new religious ethos. Everything after Zarathustra is said and done in order to destroy modernity so that this new Religious Ethos will rise. With Marx, the arrival of purpose occurs with his study of Economics. He realizes that the current form of alienation could be overcome with the overthrow of the Capitalist System. (And its replacement by Socialism / Communism.) After that, he is only speaking Purposefully. Everything said and done is to bring about the downfall of Capitalism.
The genuine philosopher always pays for practical effectiveness in this manner; ...some Knowledge is always lost.
September 19, 2024
The first two sections of the book thread the thought Kant to Hegel to Marx together really well . Probably worth a reread of the first 100 pages at some point. Got kinda bogged down after that
April 3, 2009
Better than reading Marx himself.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews