What do you think?
Rate this book
A World to Win: The Life and Works of Karl Marx
Epic new biography of Karl Marx for the 200th anniversary of his birth.
In this essential new biography—the first to give equal weight to both the work and life of Karl Marx—Sven-Eric Liedman expertly navigates the imposing, complex personality of his subject through the turbulent passages of global history. A World to Win follows Marx through childhood and student days, a difficult and sometimes tragic family life, his far-sighted journalism, and his enduring friendship and intellectual partnership with Friedrich Engels.
Building on the work of previous biographers, Liedman employs a commanding knowledge of the nineteenth century to create a definitive portrait of Marx and his vast contribution to the way the world understands itself. He shines a light on Marx’s influences, explains his political and intellectual interventions, and builds on the legacy of his thought. Liedman shows how Marx’s masterpiece, Capital, illuminates the essential logic of a system that drives dizzying wealth, grinding poverty, and awesome technological innovation to this day.
Compulsively readable and meticulously researched, A World to Win demonstrates that, two centuries after Marx’s birth, his work remains the bedrock for any true understanding of our political and economic condition.
In this essential new biography—the first to give equal weight to both the work and life of Karl Marx—Sven-Eric Liedman expertly navigates the imposing, complex personality of his subject through the turbulent passages of global history. A World to Win follows Marx through childhood and student days, a difficult and sometimes tragic family life, his far-sighted journalism, and his enduring friendship and intellectual partnership with Friedrich Engels.
Building on the work of previous biographers, Liedman employs a commanding knowledge of the nineteenth century to create a definitive portrait of Marx and his vast contribution to the way the world understands itself. He shines a light on Marx’s influences, explains his political and intellectual interventions, and builds on the legacy of his thought. Liedman shows how Marx’s masterpiece, Capital, illuminates the essential logic of a system that drives dizzying wealth, grinding poverty, and awesome technological innovation to this day.
Compulsively readable and meticulously researched, A World to Win demonstrates that, two centuries after Marx’s birth, his work remains the bedrock for any true understanding of our political and economic condition.
768 pages, Hardcover
First published September 11, 2015
120 people are currently reading
922 people want to read
About the author
Sven-Eric Liedman
43 books23 followersSven-Eric Liedman (born 1939) is a Swedish author and Professor Emeritus of History of Ideas at the University of Gothenburg in Gothenburg, Sweden.
He received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Theoretical Philosophy at Lund University in 1959. In 1961 he received a Licentiate of Philosophy degree in the same subject. His most important teacher in Lund was Gunnar Aspelin. He then moved to the University of Gothenburg where he received his Ph.D. in History of Ideas in 1966.
In 1966-1968 he worked at Sydsvenskan, a major newspaper in southern Sweden. In 1968 he held a temporary position at Lund University. In 1979 he was appointed Professor of History of Ideas at the University of Gothenburg, where he remained until his retirement in 2006.
Sven-Eric Liedman is the author of a well-known Swedish textbook on the history of political ideas, with the prefix "Från Platon till..." in its title. The textbook has since its first edition in 1972 been updated many times. The title has also changed to reflect the changes. The first edition was called "Från Platon till Lenin" (from Plato to Lenin). The last edition is called "Från Platon till kriget mot terrorismen" (from Plato to the War against terrorism).
He received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Theoretical Philosophy at Lund University in 1959. In 1961 he received a Licentiate of Philosophy degree in the same subject. His most important teacher in Lund was Gunnar Aspelin. He then moved to the University of Gothenburg where he received his Ph.D. in History of Ideas in 1966.
In 1966-1968 he worked at Sydsvenskan, a major newspaper in southern Sweden. In 1968 he held a temporary position at Lund University. In 1979 he was appointed Professor of History of Ideas at the University of Gothenburg, where he remained until his retirement in 2006.
Sven-Eric Liedman is the author of a well-known Swedish textbook on the history of political ideas, with the prefix "Från Platon till..." in its title. The textbook has since its first edition in 1972 been updated many times. The title has also changed to reflect the changes. The first edition was called "Från Platon till Lenin" (from Plato to Lenin). The last edition is called "Från Platon till kriget mot terrorismen" (from Plato to the War against terrorism).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews
June 17, 2018
Marx lived through interesting times by any standard and was an active participant in events of stunning importance. As a journalist and writer he produced lively and often extraordinary accounts of his times; as a politician he was capable of the most remarkable appeals to action – not least the Communist Manifesto – as well as being up to his elbows in practical organisation – notably with the first International; as a philosopher he engaged critically with major authorities on fully equal terms; as a Classical Economist he produced a substantial account of the capitalist economy which retains merit today. His ideas have had applications in many different fields of culture, social science and politics. He could be judged wrong about everything and not lose his importance; the reality is that he has been proven right about very much of what he actually did say and has been misrepresented in many errors for which he has unfairly taken the blame.
I have to say that the book’s title is depressingly unoriginal and, just as a story, the biography itself is somewhat flat. It covers the ground at a brisk pace and is not tedious to read but it lacks the warmth and the sense of excitement that is conveyed, for example, in Tristram Hunt’s biography of Engels, in which Marx is of course a major figure. This is a shame because the fact is that we do need an impression of the person and we look for that in a biography.
Instead, it serves as a serious effort to unravel and explain a body of ideas which is too important to neglect and too encrusted with the baggage of some 150 years for most of us to feel competent to disentangle the wheat from the chaff. It does this very well, giving insights into all of Marx’s writings, though such succinct descriptions are inevitably insufficient and readers cannot avoid being driven to other sources for more detail. But the author knows this: It should be a pleasure to read Marx – an intellectual and emotional adventure. If I succeed in infecting any of my readers with this love of adventure, I will be satisfied.[p29]
This book’s USP seems to be the assurance that its author has exhaustively studied the writings of Karl Marx and is therefore better placed to give an authoritative account of Marx’s ideas than any rival. A great deal of the book is thus concerned with the way others have interpreted, extrapolated from, borrowed, misunderstood or misrepresented his ideas, or falsely attributed their own very different ideas to Marx, while offering the author’s alternative and more authentic reading.
I think it is very probably the case that this book does break new ground in at least some of these investigations, bringing to light errors that have been allowed to persist for far too long, while offering useful, fresh ways to frame and appreciate Marx. It took me some time to decide if this exercise was really going to change things, outside of the academic environment in which Sanskrit and the poetry of Sappho are still matters of lively debate.
The issue boiled down in my tiny mind to the rhetorical sneer so beloved of the internet: #NoTrueMarxist. Surely, if so many people have misunderstood Marx so egregiously, and not all of them fools or rascals, then that is because Marx got so much wrong or because he left so much out. Indeed, to go straight to the strongest line of attack [not mentioned – it is my thoughts here], the idea that Marxism will lead inevitably to totalitarian rule and tyranny was set out very credibly by Karl Popper in The Open Society and its Enemies, a concept so beloved of Soros today with his Open Society Foundation.
This biography demonstrates that Marx himself would almost certainly have endorsed Soros’ campaigns for an open society, but even that does not defeat Popper’s argument. After all, when Marx pointed out in a letter that he was not a Marxist, he was disowning ideas that he did not endorse but that were, in practice, attributed to him. Is it possible that his own theories led inevitably in directions that he personally would not welcome?
It is of course relevant and important that much of Marx’s writing was not generally available and that most people only encountered him indirectly. ( relatively few of Marx’s written works were yet known in 1918 [p21] The first major edition of both Marx’s and Engels’s works was the Marx-Engels-Werke, or MEW, which was published in East Germany from 1956 onwards. It was not a critical edition. [p26] ) This gave the opportunity for others to provide an account of Marx that might not just be inaccurate, but distorted out of recognition. When Marx moaned that he was not a Marxist, he was referring to contemporaries in France and in Britain who were using the Marxist label to lend credibility to their own very different opinions. Such false branding was to continue indefinitely.
In fact, a major source of distortion turned out to be the writing of Engels, who had his own quite distinct preoccupations and theories, which were not consistent with Marx’s thinking and which had long lasting consequences for the history of what should be called not Marxism but Engelsism. (what is called Marxism, I argue, should by rights be called Engelsism. Marx did not create a system.)[p23] By the time Lenin, and later Stalin, set about a major transformation of Marxism to suit their political projects, the changes had become perfectly conscious and intentional. Indeed, many opponents of Stalin and ‘actually existing socialism’ within the Soviet Union itself, in the wider communist movement and on the Left generally, relied on Marx as their source with which to undermine and attack orthodox communist ideology. In short, it has never been a secret that much of what passes itself off as Marxism is only incidentally a product of anything Marx actually said or proposed. It has not stopped people attributing the blame to Marx.
But the point I finally understood was that this is not an argument of the #NoTrueMarxist type. It is not the case, as Popper argued, that Marx’s utopian thinking leads inexorably to closed systems and unthinking ideologies. What has been happening is quite different.
Marx’s reputation and status within the working class movements of his time was so dominating – even among people with a very limited appreciation of his philosophical and economic theories – that those seeking power and influence in the working class movements found it helpful to borrow his name and his reputation, no matter how much their own thinking diverged from his. This explains some of the false branding in his time and later.
Others made every effort to assimilate ideas borrowed from Marx with their own ideas, resulting in confusing and ultimately unsuccessful hybrids. An example seems to be the evolution of social democracy in Germany, which became unrecognisable under the influence of nationalism. These seem to me to fit the category of reader referred to by JK Rowling: ‘Books are like mirrors: when a fool looks in don’t expect a genius to look out.’
Others imagined they were developing Marx’s ideas to meet new situations which he did not or could not anticipate. The most important of these, of course, were the architects of the new communist regimes in their attempts to design and operate non-capitalist economic systems, while tending instead to develop forms of state capitalism. These were autocratic and totalitarian before they were Marxist, and it was not permissible to deviate from the established ideology of those in command, so the resulting ideologies were entirely unlike anything Marx considered. As already mentioned, Marx was often cited against them.
Others, like say the Frankfurt School, concentrated on particular aspects of Marxism, in this example cultural criticism, and developed various strands of thought which, however consistent with the writings of Marx, really were innovations. What they arguably demonstrate is the fertility of Marx’s ideas, their capacity to spark off original and deep insights. However, while that may reflect Marx in a better light, this should not distract from the point that it was not Marx who produced the writings of the Frankfurt School and they addressed newly emerging scenarios – especially the consumer society of Post World War 2 USA – which Marx did not experience.
In short, the reason so many diverse strands of thought all lay claim to the label Marxist is because what Marx actually did write was so powerful, so useful and so relevant that anyone wanting to think differently to the dominant ideology in a capitalist society turned to Marx for guidance, at best, or at least to gain some borrowed credibility. Whatever they managed to make of that encounter with Marx, there was no doubting the importance of Marx’s critique of capitalist society. It was so influential because it was so good. For the same reasons, any serious critique of contemporary capitalism must, unavoidably, take Marx fully into account and would do well to make use of the tools Marx supplied.
Some quotes:
The political game has changed numerous times over the last hundred and fifty years. The tools Marx developed for his analysis of society and history are still sharp but lie unused far too often, despite the fact we live in a period of striking similarity to Marx’s own. [p11]
Rosa Luxemburg’s famous criticism of Lenin and his view on the dictatorship of the proletariat: ‘Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.’ [p106]
Marx never arrived at any summation of his work, much less any system. He followed a thread, which guided his path through the labyrinth of society. But the map his followers began sketching out as soon as he had died was not his work... On the other hand, he developed an entire toolbox of critical instruments. The central element in his work, as we have seen, is criticism of political economy and of the ideas and theories, the institutions and cults and myths, that develop out of the system. [p726]
It is no longer Marx the supposed system-builder who attracts people. It is instead the Marx who constantly sought to push deeper into the labyrinths of the age he lived in, the Marx who was never content with the magnificent discoveries he made but who saw new horizons opening over the top of every hill and therefore had to continue on his way. [p728]
Marx allied himself with the working class. He wanted to work for the liberation of the workers; in their liberation, he saw the liberation of all humanity. He has no unequivocal answer to the question of the path to such liberation: the ballot box, bloody uprisings, or a combination of both. But it is not with his answers that he maintains his contemporaneity. He lives on as the great critic of capitalism. As a critic, he sometimes lets us imagine a positive contrasting picture of human activity, in which solidarity can coexist with freedom, and pleasure with seriousness. It is a possible utopia for our time as well. [p729]
I have to say that the book’s title is depressingly unoriginal and, just as a story, the biography itself is somewhat flat. It covers the ground at a brisk pace and is not tedious to read but it lacks the warmth and the sense of excitement that is conveyed, for example, in Tristram Hunt’s biography of Engels, in which Marx is of course a major figure. This is a shame because the fact is that we do need an impression of the person and we look for that in a biography.
Instead, it serves as a serious effort to unravel and explain a body of ideas which is too important to neglect and too encrusted with the baggage of some 150 years for most of us to feel competent to disentangle the wheat from the chaff. It does this very well, giving insights into all of Marx’s writings, though such succinct descriptions are inevitably insufficient and readers cannot avoid being driven to other sources for more detail. But the author knows this: It should be a pleasure to read Marx – an intellectual and emotional adventure. If I succeed in infecting any of my readers with this love of adventure, I will be satisfied.[p29]
This book’s USP seems to be the assurance that its author has exhaustively studied the writings of Karl Marx and is therefore better placed to give an authoritative account of Marx’s ideas than any rival. A great deal of the book is thus concerned with the way others have interpreted, extrapolated from, borrowed, misunderstood or misrepresented his ideas, or falsely attributed their own very different ideas to Marx, while offering the author’s alternative and more authentic reading.
I think it is very probably the case that this book does break new ground in at least some of these investigations, bringing to light errors that have been allowed to persist for far too long, while offering useful, fresh ways to frame and appreciate Marx. It took me some time to decide if this exercise was really going to change things, outside of the academic environment in which Sanskrit and the poetry of Sappho are still matters of lively debate.
The issue boiled down in my tiny mind to the rhetorical sneer so beloved of the internet: #NoTrueMarxist. Surely, if so many people have misunderstood Marx so egregiously, and not all of them fools or rascals, then that is because Marx got so much wrong or because he left so much out. Indeed, to go straight to the strongest line of attack [not mentioned – it is my thoughts here], the idea that Marxism will lead inevitably to totalitarian rule and tyranny was set out very credibly by Karl Popper in The Open Society and its Enemies, a concept so beloved of Soros today with his Open Society Foundation.
This biography demonstrates that Marx himself would almost certainly have endorsed Soros’ campaigns for an open society, but even that does not defeat Popper’s argument. After all, when Marx pointed out in a letter that he was not a Marxist, he was disowning ideas that he did not endorse but that were, in practice, attributed to him. Is it possible that his own theories led inevitably in directions that he personally would not welcome?
It is of course relevant and important that much of Marx’s writing was not generally available and that most people only encountered him indirectly. ( relatively few of Marx’s written works were yet known in 1918 [p21] The first major edition of both Marx’s and Engels’s works was the Marx-Engels-Werke, or MEW, which was published in East Germany from 1956 onwards. It was not a critical edition. [p26] ) This gave the opportunity for others to provide an account of Marx that might not just be inaccurate, but distorted out of recognition. When Marx moaned that he was not a Marxist, he was referring to contemporaries in France and in Britain who were using the Marxist label to lend credibility to their own very different opinions. Such false branding was to continue indefinitely.
In fact, a major source of distortion turned out to be the writing of Engels, who had his own quite distinct preoccupations and theories, which were not consistent with Marx’s thinking and which had long lasting consequences for the history of what should be called not Marxism but Engelsism. (what is called Marxism, I argue, should by rights be called Engelsism. Marx did not create a system.)[p23] By the time Lenin, and later Stalin, set about a major transformation of Marxism to suit their political projects, the changes had become perfectly conscious and intentional. Indeed, many opponents of Stalin and ‘actually existing socialism’ within the Soviet Union itself, in the wider communist movement and on the Left generally, relied on Marx as their source with which to undermine and attack orthodox communist ideology. In short, it has never been a secret that much of what passes itself off as Marxism is only incidentally a product of anything Marx actually said or proposed. It has not stopped people attributing the blame to Marx.
But the point I finally understood was that this is not an argument of the #NoTrueMarxist type. It is not the case, as Popper argued, that Marx’s utopian thinking leads inexorably to closed systems and unthinking ideologies. What has been happening is quite different.
Marx’s reputation and status within the working class movements of his time was so dominating – even among people with a very limited appreciation of his philosophical and economic theories – that those seeking power and influence in the working class movements found it helpful to borrow his name and his reputation, no matter how much their own thinking diverged from his. This explains some of the false branding in his time and later.
Others made every effort to assimilate ideas borrowed from Marx with their own ideas, resulting in confusing and ultimately unsuccessful hybrids. An example seems to be the evolution of social democracy in Germany, which became unrecognisable under the influence of nationalism. These seem to me to fit the category of reader referred to by JK Rowling: ‘Books are like mirrors: when a fool looks in don’t expect a genius to look out.’
Others imagined they were developing Marx’s ideas to meet new situations which he did not or could not anticipate. The most important of these, of course, were the architects of the new communist regimes in their attempts to design and operate non-capitalist economic systems, while tending instead to develop forms of state capitalism. These were autocratic and totalitarian before they were Marxist, and it was not permissible to deviate from the established ideology of those in command, so the resulting ideologies were entirely unlike anything Marx considered. As already mentioned, Marx was often cited against them.
Others, like say the Frankfurt School, concentrated on particular aspects of Marxism, in this example cultural criticism, and developed various strands of thought which, however consistent with the writings of Marx, really were innovations. What they arguably demonstrate is the fertility of Marx’s ideas, their capacity to spark off original and deep insights. However, while that may reflect Marx in a better light, this should not distract from the point that it was not Marx who produced the writings of the Frankfurt School and they addressed newly emerging scenarios – especially the consumer society of Post World War 2 USA – which Marx did not experience.
In short, the reason so many diverse strands of thought all lay claim to the label Marxist is because what Marx actually did write was so powerful, so useful and so relevant that anyone wanting to think differently to the dominant ideology in a capitalist society turned to Marx for guidance, at best, or at least to gain some borrowed credibility. Whatever they managed to make of that encounter with Marx, there was no doubting the importance of Marx’s critique of capitalist society. It was so influential because it was so good. For the same reasons, any serious critique of contemporary capitalism must, unavoidably, take Marx fully into account and would do well to make use of the tools Marx supplied.
Some quotes:
The political game has changed numerous times over the last hundred and fifty years. The tools Marx developed for his analysis of society and history are still sharp but lie unused far too often, despite the fact we live in a period of striking similarity to Marx’s own. [p11]
Rosa Luxemburg’s famous criticism of Lenin and his view on the dictatorship of the proletariat: ‘Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.’ [p106]
Marx never arrived at any summation of his work, much less any system. He followed a thread, which guided his path through the labyrinth of society. But the map his followers began sketching out as soon as he had died was not his work... On the other hand, he developed an entire toolbox of critical instruments. The central element in his work, as we have seen, is criticism of political economy and of the ideas and theories, the institutions and cults and myths, that develop out of the system. [p726]
It is no longer Marx the supposed system-builder who attracts people. It is instead the Marx who constantly sought to push deeper into the labyrinths of the age he lived in, the Marx who was never content with the magnificent discoveries he made but who saw new horizons opening over the top of every hill and therefore had to continue on his way. [p728]
Marx allied himself with the working class. He wanted to work for the liberation of the workers; in their liberation, he saw the liberation of all humanity. He has no unequivocal answer to the question of the path to such liberation: the ballot box, bloody uprisings, or a combination of both. But it is not with his answers that he maintains his contemporaneity. He lives on as the great critic of capitalism. As a critic, he sometimes lets us imagine a positive contrasting picture of human activity, in which solidarity can coexist with freedom, and pleasure with seriousness. It is a possible utopia for our time as well. [p729]
January 17, 2019
Liedman begins by complaining that nobody has yet properly synthesized Marx's life and his works, taking swipes at big, recent biographies like Sperber's and Stedman-Jones'... and then proceeds to not synthesize the life and works in any interesting way. Never before have I felt the force of the cliche that such and such "reads like a novel"; Liedman's book reads like the exact opposite. Marx's life is barely here, and the first half of the book is a real trial of strength; mostly, it made me excited to read Stedman-Jones' apparently insufficient account, in the hope that it would at least have some life to it.
Thankfully, Liedman's expertise appears to be ideas, rather than biography; his discussions of Marx's ideas, particularly in the Grundrisse and Capital do make the book worth a look. They're clear, concise, and generally solid. They're also amusingly 'Marxist,' in the sense that everyone and anyone who doesn't exactly agree with Liedman is dismissed in hysterical terms, as if all the history of the world hung on whether you read Marx like some German guy you've never heard of, or like some American you've never heard of, or like Liedman, who, let's be honest, you hadn't heard of until you started this book. Guys (always guys, too): you're on the same side. Stop being so ridiculous.
Thankfully, Liedman's expertise appears to be ideas, rather than biography; his discussions of Marx's ideas, particularly in the Grundrisse and Capital do make the book worth a look. They're clear, concise, and generally solid. They're also amusingly 'Marxist,' in the sense that everyone and anyone who doesn't exactly agree with Liedman is dismissed in hysterical terms, as if all the history of the world hung on whether you read Marx like some German guy you've never heard of, or like some American you've never heard of, or like Liedman, who, let's be honest, you hadn't heard of until you started this book. Guys (always guys, too): you're on the same side. Stop being so ridiculous.
February 25, 2022
If you are after a survey on "the intellectual origins of Marx & Engels' thought", this is a nice book. Based on the recent findings of Marxiology, Liedman exhaustively digs into the intellectual connections of M&E, and reveals a great deal about their circle of philosophers, economists, chemists, politicians, revolutionaries, journalists, publishers, who in turn augmented the intellectual world of our heavy-bearded comrades. I liked how Marx, in the beginning of 1850s, wrote to Engels that his studies on political-economy would be completed in a couple of months, but then lost himself in a large pile of notebooks to barely complete the first volume of Capital, in 1864.
But if what you are looking for is an exposition of Marx's main works and contributions, this is a book to avoid as the author's terribly unsystematic way of interpreting his and Engels' corpus would do nothing but to confuse you. Especially the part about Capital is a total mess with a lot of repetitions. Apparently, Liedman spent less time reflecting on how to deconstruct Marx's works in a reader-friendly way than exploring the origins of his thought. There are better academic and non-academic works to get such an information.
Liedman is your typical post-collapse, anti-Soviet, "Marx did not mean that", "Engels was a reductionist", "Lenin was a brute" type of intellectual, who always existed but now happily looks down on Marxism-Leninism. I am sure one can learn a great deal from Liedman, but it comes at a great cost of Scandinavian naïveté, intellectualism, and lack of revolutionary zeal.
Exactly what Marx, Engels and Lenin used to despise.
But if what you are looking for is an exposition of Marx's main works and contributions, this is a book to avoid as the author's terribly unsystematic way of interpreting his and Engels' corpus would do nothing but to confuse you. Especially the part about Capital is a total mess with a lot of repetitions. Apparently, Liedman spent less time reflecting on how to deconstruct Marx's works in a reader-friendly way than exploring the origins of his thought. There are better academic and non-academic works to get such an information.
Liedman is your typical post-collapse, anti-Soviet, "Marx did not mean that", "Engels was a reductionist", "Lenin was a brute" type of intellectual, who always existed but now happily looks down on Marxism-Leninism. I am sure one can learn a great deal from Liedman, but it comes at a great cost of Scandinavian naïveté, intellectualism, and lack of revolutionary zeal.
Exactly what Marx, Engels and Lenin used to despise.
May 2, 2018
A long and difficult book, albeit interesting and insightful.
Liedman is nothing if not erudite, and his meticulous coverage of Marx’s changing opinions on philosophy is interesting and important, although it makes for slow reading for anyone not well-versed in the subtleties of Hegelian logic! It usefully explains many of the key ideas and phrases of Marxism - such as the dictatorship of the proletariat, the transformation of quantity into quality, commodity fetishism, etc - and describes the evolution of these ideas over the course of Marx’s life (and beyond).
The greatest achievement of the book lies in its compelling demonstration of the continued relevance of Marx’s critique of capitalism. In a post-Soviet era where capitalist liberalism is supposed to have triumphed for once and for all, and where politicians routinely label Marxism as obscure and antiquated, Liedman is able to show that the contradictions of capitalism identified by Marx are as present as ever.
Another key point that Liedman emphasises is that Marx didn’t really set out to build ‘Marxism’; he delved into numerous areas of knowledge and developed several important theses, but he “never arrived at any summation of his work, much less any system.” The -ism was added to Marx by his followers after his death. This insight is helpful as a warning against dogma; as a reminder that Marx’s work was not ‘complete’ and that socialism is not a closed book but a living body of knowledge in need of constant development. However, Liedman’s objections to ‘system-building’ come across as being rooted in a rather stuffy academic perspective that has limited interest in the practical, real-world application of Marx’s analysis. The dismissive approach to 'existing socialism' feels a little, well, un-Marxist.
Defects notwithstanding, Liedman’s book is a thorough, well-researched and valuable contribution.
Liedman is nothing if not erudite, and his meticulous coverage of Marx’s changing opinions on philosophy is interesting and important, although it makes for slow reading for anyone not well-versed in the subtleties of Hegelian logic! It usefully explains many of the key ideas and phrases of Marxism - such as the dictatorship of the proletariat, the transformation of quantity into quality, commodity fetishism, etc - and describes the evolution of these ideas over the course of Marx’s life (and beyond).
The greatest achievement of the book lies in its compelling demonstration of the continued relevance of Marx’s critique of capitalism. In a post-Soviet era where capitalist liberalism is supposed to have triumphed for once and for all, and where politicians routinely label Marxism as obscure and antiquated, Liedman is able to show that the contradictions of capitalism identified by Marx are as present as ever.
Another key point that Liedman emphasises is that Marx didn’t really set out to build ‘Marxism’; he delved into numerous areas of knowledge and developed several important theses, but he “never arrived at any summation of his work, much less any system.” The -ism was added to Marx by his followers after his death. This insight is helpful as a warning against dogma; as a reminder that Marx’s work was not ‘complete’ and that socialism is not a closed book but a living body of knowledge in need of constant development. However, Liedman’s objections to ‘system-building’ come across as being rooted in a rather stuffy academic perspective that has limited interest in the practical, real-world application of Marx’s analysis. The dismissive approach to 'existing socialism' feels a little, well, un-Marxist.
Defects notwithstanding, Liedman’s book is a thorough, well-researched and valuable contribution.
May 19, 2019
‘A World to Win - The Life and Works of Karl Marx' (VERSO, 2018, translated from a 2015 Swedish original) is not only a biography but an extremely useful overview and summary of Marx’s epic work. In only 630 or so pages, the book takes the reader through Marx’s (and much of Engels’) life vis-a-vis the historic context (primarily the 1830s to 1870s) and all of Marx’s key writings. Highlighting the evolution of Marx’s thought, ideological breaks and breakthroughs as well as major, major thoughts that slowly evolved and changed over decades.
I think the book’s great achievement is that it’s very accessible for people who never read Marx or only the Communist Manifesto lol. It gives the reader a great overview of all major works, how they relate to the time during which they were written and received and the key new thoughts or concepts they contain. It’s also a great starting point for those who ‘would like to read Marx’ but can’t decide where to start. In some way you need to at least have an idea of the ‘totality’ of Marx in order to make sense of any of Marx’s writings.
The book organizes Marx’s work - 19th century Marx’s actual writing not 20th century Marxism and degenerated political experiments a la Soviet Russia - and neatly summarizes key writings and brings out critical concepts and dynamics of capitalism and capitalist societies which remain useful for making sense of 21st century capitalism. The books says at some point that 19th century Marx has more to say about 21st capitalism than 20th century Marxism, I think this is fairly accurate.
Now, 30 years after the end of the cold war there continues to be a renewed interest in Marx, especially since the Global Financial Crisis 2008, liberated from Soviet Marxism-Leninism and Cold War anti-communist propaganda of the 20th century.
There’s a whole new generation of people born and socialized after 1989 who are engaging with Marx and Marxist thought to develop a critique of capitalism and socialist alternatives for the 21st century. People who also can’t spend (or afford) years to inch their way through Marx’s colossal and at times overwhelming work. So this accessible summary of life and work is excellent to do justice to the complexity of Marx’s analyses but also allow people who (still) don’t get Hegel’s dialectic to glean necessary tools from Marx's anti-capitalist tool box to build truly anti-capitalist alternative political projects.
I think the book’s great achievement is that it’s very accessible for people who never read Marx or only the Communist Manifesto lol. It gives the reader a great overview of all major works, how they relate to the time during which they were written and received and the key new thoughts or concepts they contain. It’s also a great starting point for those who ‘would like to read Marx’ but can’t decide where to start. In some way you need to at least have an idea of the ‘totality’ of Marx in order to make sense of any of Marx’s writings.
The book organizes Marx’s work - 19th century Marx’s actual writing not 20th century Marxism and degenerated political experiments a la Soviet Russia - and neatly summarizes key writings and brings out critical concepts and dynamics of capitalism and capitalist societies which remain useful for making sense of 21st century capitalism. The books says at some point that 19th century Marx has more to say about 21st capitalism than 20th century Marxism, I think this is fairly accurate.
Now, 30 years after the end of the cold war there continues to be a renewed interest in Marx, especially since the Global Financial Crisis 2008, liberated from Soviet Marxism-Leninism and Cold War anti-communist propaganda of the 20th century.
There’s a whole new generation of people born and socialized after 1989 who are engaging with Marx and Marxist thought to develop a critique of capitalism and socialist alternatives for the 21st century. People who also can’t spend (or afford) years to inch their way through Marx’s colossal and at times overwhelming work. So this accessible summary of life and work is excellent to do justice to the complexity of Marx’s analyses but also allow people who (still) don’t get Hegel’s dialectic to glean necessary tools from Marx's anti-capitalist tool box to build truly anti-capitalist alternative political projects.
January 3, 2021
Det tog sin lilla tid. Väldigt väldigt bra. Språket är lätt att följa även i de delar som är svår (och kräver absolut omläsning haha). Balanserar mellan samhället i stort till Marx’ privatliv! Rikt!
December 7, 2022
Tough book, probably pretty obvious as it took me about one year to get through (with various prolonged breaks, obviously). It's quite lively at points and always really fascinating, but especially the parts about Hegel made my head spin.
Still, I recommend this book to everyone who wishes to get a better understanding of Marx and to see his works in their context. I took it as an entry to Marx's life and works, and one of the most important things it told me is how little I understand of Marx, and that people who nonchalantly dismiss him in a few sentences know even less. It was great in giving me an overview about how to approach Marx, but many of his works where treated in such detail that I would have gotten mire out if the explainations if I had already read them - I think the ideal way to read this book for me is to come back to it every time I read another work from Marx, so that I can see the broader context of it.
I would therefore say I recommend this book even more to people who already know a great deal of Marx's work, it's only the right place for novices if they bring a lot of curiosity and patience. The thing that made all this effort worth it was the last chapter, where he briefly but effectively reflects on Marx position in the modern world and the differences (and similarities) between the many Marxism's and the historical Marx.
This book left me with a lot of admiration for what an impressive scholar Marx was. Definitely happy about having read it, even if it cost me some effort.
Still, I recommend this book to everyone who wishes to get a better understanding of Marx and to see his works in their context. I took it as an entry to Marx's life and works, and one of the most important things it told me is how little I understand of Marx, and that people who nonchalantly dismiss him in a few sentences know even less. It was great in giving me an overview about how to approach Marx, but many of his works where treated in such detail that I would have gotten mire out if the explainations if I had already read them - I think the ideal way to read this book for me is to come back to it every time I read another work from Marx, so that I can see the broader context of it.
I would therefore say I recommend this book even more to people who already know a great deal of Marx's work, it's only the right place for novices if they bring a lot of curiosity and patience. The thing that made all this effort worth it was the last chapter, where he briefly but effectively reflects on Marx position in the modern world and the differences (and similarities) between the many Marxism's and the historical Marx.
This book left me with a lot of admiration for what an impressive scholar Marx was. Definitely happy about having read it, even if it cost me some effort.
March 9, 2019
This is much more than a biography. It’s also a dense but readable overview and analysis of all of Marx’s major works. This book is about the Marx of the nineteenth century and not the Marxism of the twentieth, but also clears the weeds to allow us to bring Marx into the 21st. A very worthwhile read.
March 1, 2023
1. Good book for what it is, but:
1.1. Boring;
1.2. Ruined my life trying to finish this.
1.1. Boring;
1.2. Ruined my life trying to finish this.
July 17, 2018
This book is billed as "the life and works of Karl Marx". However despite it's size it is not a comprehensive story of the life of Marx and his family. Liedman covers the basics, tracing Marx's travels across Europe before ending in London, touching on the poverty of his early years there. As soon as the story reaches the beginning of the drafting of Capital, the personal side begins to fall away, and Liedman concentrates more closely on the construction of Marx's master work. The story of Marx's personal life is better told by Francis Wheen's biography ("Karl Marx"), or possibly (and with more theoretical rigour) by David McClellan's "Karl Marx, His Life and Thought".
Liedman's is better at working through the development of Marx's theory. This he treats as a single continuous process and dismisses the idea of an "epistemological break" in his thought, as proposed by Althusser among others. Marx's thought clearly did change, and Liedman does well at tracing how his use of constructions such as "essence" changed over time.
It takes a while for Liedman to get into his stride - the discussion of some of the earlier work feels somewhat cursory - but once he reaches the core economic work, beginning with the "Grundrisse", the book hits its stride. While nowhere near as close or comprehensive reading as David Harvey's "Companions" books, this is a well written outline of the development of Marx's analysis of economy and society. Liedman does well at bringing out a number of crucial concepts, including internal relations, and the (in)famous dialectic, but also things like the contrast between form and content for example. He also seeks to place Marx within the contemporary intellectual context, including his relationship to Darwin, and developments in science which Liedman presents as having a significant influence on Marx's thought. As an overview of Marx's theoretical approach and method, the book broadly works albeit at a relatively high level.
The evaluation of Marx is very obviously positive, and while this isn't necessarily a problem in the discussion of Marx's work itself it becomes more so in the chapter which covers his successors and "marxism" in general. For example Liedman clearly disavows Stalin as bearing no relation to Marx - a fairly standard line on the political left, but one which is (rightly in my view) challenged by Slavoj Zizek. The Stalinist terror remains one possible historical outcome from Marx's work, and the modern followers of Marx have to find a way to deal with that.
It is marred by a small number of errors of either copy editing or translation, which jar the experience of the reader from time to time. Other than that, it is a coherent and useful introduction to Marx's theoretical approach, with a bit of biographical detail attached.
This review is also on my blog https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...
Along with a post on religion as "opium of the people" picking up points made by Liedman https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...
Liedman's is better at working through the development of Marx's theory. This he treats as a single continuous process and dismisses the idea of an "epistemological break" in his thought, as proposed by Althusser among others. Marx's thought clearly did change, and Liedman does well at tracing how his use of constructions such as "essence" changed over time.
It takes a while for Liedman to get into his stride - the discussion of some of the earlier work feels somewhat cursory - but once he reaches the core economic work, beginning with the "Grundrisse", the book hits its stride. While nowhere near as close or comprehensive reading as David Harvey's "Companions" books, this is a well written outline of the development of Marx's analysis of economy and society. Liedman does well at bringing out a number of crucial concepts, including internal relations, and the (in)famous dialectic, but also things like the contrast between form and content for example. He also seeks to place Marx within the contemporary intellectual context, including his relationship to Darwin, and developments in science which Liedman presents as having a significant influence on Marx's thought. As an overview of Marx's theoretical approach and method, the book broadly works albeit at a relatively high level.
The evaluation of Marx is very obviously positive, and while this isn't necessarily a problem in the discussion of Marx's work itself it becomes more so in the chapter which covers his successors and "marxism" in general. For example Liedman clearly disavows Stalin as bearing no relation to Marx - a fairly standard line on the political left, but one which is (rightly in my view) challenged by Slavoj Zizek. The Stalinist terror remains one possible historical outcome from Marx's work, and the modern followers of Marx have to find a way to deal with that.
It is marred by a small number of errors of either copy editing or translation, which jar the experience of the reader from time to time. Other than that, it is a coherent and useful introduction to Marx's theoretical approach, with a bit of biographical detail attached.
This review is also on my blog https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...
Along with a post on religion as "opium of the people" picking up points made by Liedman https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...
August 11, 2018
Been reading this book for a few weeks now and finished it today.
In fact, read the last paragraph sitting in my car stopped for a moment at a stoplight.
Which felt appropriate, as I now understand Marx’s life work to be an inquiry into the dynamic processes in which our lives inhere.
It was very good, and I learned a lot.
Including:
What was Marx’s life basically like?
Who was Freidrich Engels and what is his relationship to Marx’s legacy?
How did Marx’s understanding of things evolve through his life and how can that be seen in his writing?
What were the major contemporary events that inspired and informed his writing and political work?
Who were some of Marx’s contemporaries they he interacted with and what was his relationship to them?
What was Marx’s orientation to Hegelianism?
How are the various traditions called Marxism related or unrelated to Marx’s actual thought?
What can the work and lives of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao be understood in relation to Marx?
And, finally, why is there now such a resurgence of interest in Marx and what might this mean and how might Marx’s thought be relevant and important for us now.
This was a truly great book and I highly recommend it to all.
In fact, read the last paragraph sitting in my car stopped for a moment at a stoplight.
Which felt appropriate, as I now understand Marx’s life work to be an inquiry into the dynamic processes in which our lives inhere.
It was very good, and I learned a lot.
Including:
What was Marx’s life basically like?
Who was Freidrich Engels and what is his relationship to Marx’s legacy?
How did Marx’s understanding of things evolve through his life and how can that be seen in his writing?
What were the major contemporary events that inspired and informed his writing and political work?
Who were some of Marx’s contemporaries they he interacted with and what was his relationship to them?
What was Marx’s orientation to Hegelianism?
How are the various traditions called Marxism related or unrelated to Marx’s actual thought?
What can the work and lives of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao be understood in relation to Marx?
And, finally, why is there now such a resurgence of interest in Marx and what might this mean and how might Marx’s thought be relevant and important for us now.
This was a truly great book and I highly recommend it to all.
September 22, 2020
Perfect blend of biography and analysis of Karl Marx's life and works. Liedman writes authoratively and with tact, not afraid to interject with his opinion when required. The book reads extremely fluently and depicts quite vibrant imagery suprisingly, giving quite an exciting journey for the reader to embark on.
Hegel is given a more than adequate exploration for the reader to be able to properly access Marx's thought, reflecting the weight Hegel has on left thought in general. In doing so, the book represents Marx the philosopher with seamless integration as to Marx in other walks of life. Liedman, through repetition and terse explanation, ensures that a sturdy foundational knowledge of philosophy and economics is not required to access Marx's thought.
A particular highlight of the book was reminiscence of Marx taking his family up to Hampstead Heath and him and Jenny (his wife) re-enacting scenes from Shakespeare - wholesome.
Hegel is given a more than adequate exploration for the reader to be able to properly access Marx's thought, reflecting the weight Hegel has on left thought in general. In doing so, the book represents Marx the philosopher with seamless integration as to Marx in other walks of life. Liedman, through repetition and terse explanation, ensures that a sturdy foundational knowledge of philosophy and economics is not required to access Marx's thought.
A particular highlight of the book was reminiscence of Marx taking his family up to Hampstead Heath and him and Jenny (his wife) re-enacting scenes from Shakespeare - wholesome.
June 6, 2019
The only biography of Karl Marx that i have read so i have nothing to compare to. But it's an interesting primer , a vigorous warmup to all Karl Marx's works including the Communist Manifesto. So reading this before approaching Karl Marx's works is a good idea.
January 15, 2022
This is a sympathetic biography of Marx (and that is to its credit). But it is in many ways not a good one, in my opinion. Before explaining my dissatisfaction with it, I'll explain what I hoped for from the book and then offer some credit where it is due...
In looking for a biography of Marx, there were a few criteria that brought me to this book and perhaps with some unfair expectations which it is only reasonable for me to share:
1. I wanted a book that could give a detailed presentation of Marx's political activities and the contexts for his political work. I have studied Marxism for more than a decade, and so his ideas are familiar to me. While I was familiar with his life in outlines, I wanted more detail especially about his political interventions.
2. I wanted a book that could give me a good sense of the state of contemporary scholarship on Marx. While there is clearly value in reading an old classic like Mehring's biography, I wanted to get to grips with the key arguments made in the 21st century eg about Marx's relationship with Engels.
3. I wasn't keen on reading a book that proceeded from the claim that Marx is irrelevant or wrong. I have heard quite enough arguments from anti-Marxists about what's wrong with Marx to find such scepticism fruitless. I have made up my mind that Marx was fundamentally correct in his method and prognosis and see little point in wading through a biography proceeding with directly contrary arguments.
Given these criteria, this Liedman's book seemed a good fit, and in some ways it has been.
First of all, I am deeply respectful of the skill it takes to write any book of this size and ambition. Liedman has composed a work of 600+ pages that is coherent and at times compelling. That is not a mean feat. I have complaints about the style of Liedman's writing, but fundamentally this book is an engaging one. In part, my enjoyment is derived from my passion for Liedman's topic, but the author clearly deserves some credit for it.
The book also provides ample amounts of interesting and useful information about Marx's life and world. I did get a stronger sense of Marx's political world and his interventions, especially in 1848 and in the debates in the International.
There is also some clear-sighted exposition on Marx's key ideas: Liedman's summary of Capital is good, as are some of the passages about Marx's philosophical outlook and method. These are clearly where Liedman's primary interests and expertise lay, and though at times his presentation is idiosyncratic, it can be very good.
Finally, Liedman is basically sympathetic Marx; he is clearly anti-capitalist and at times defends Marx against unfair detractors. He can be a fair-minded commentator on Marx's work, for instance in his evaluation of where The Grundrisse stands in relation to Capital and other works. Even more notably, Liedman rejects pretty firmly the claims that Marx was Eurocentric. However, the flipside of this is that he spends almost no time dwelling on the role and significance of Marx for global anticolonial and anti-imperialist struggles, thereby implicating himself in precisely the Eurocentrism that he absolves Marx of.
This is one of many other significant problems and annoyances that have limited my enjoyment of this book.
Liedman makes an effort to align himself with feminist critics of Marx and Marxism, but he does so in ways that are to me perplexing and very uneven. He interrogates early on Marx's use of male pronouns when discussing the working class, pointing out that the working class even at this time was disproportionately women. I don't find anything especially wrong with this, though he doesn't do much with the observation analytically. More annoyingly, he ignores clear and obvious opportunities for fruitful and interesting feminist analysis. For instance, he mentions in passing that the only person Marx discussed his ideas with more regularly than Engels was Jenny (Marx's wife). He takes for granted that Jenny transitioned from minor aristocracy to revolutionary social democracy, and testifies to her intelligence and dedication. But Liedman provides no sense of Jenny's own intellectual and political journey, nor offers any thoughts (even speculative ones) about how important an intellectual partner she was for Marx. Of course, this is a biography of Karl and not Jenny, but if one is to approach a biography of Karl Marx with a feminist commitment, it seems to me that these are the interesting questions that should be asked.
This unevenness in Liedman's engagement with feminism also affects his discussion of Capital. Much of the chapter on Capital is dedicated to the later (mostly scholarly) interpretations of the book. In particular, the economic questions are given attention that I found helpful. However, really significant commentaries are neglected. To my mind, if Liedman was to provide a summary of later Capital interpretations, he under no circumstances could neglect the trend known as Political Marxism (adherents of which often identify instead as Capital-centric Marxists). Robert Brenner, Ellen Meiskins Wood, Charlie Post, and others are among the most influential and important Marxist historians of recent decades. They have lots to say about Capital as a work of history. Perhaps even more egregiously, Liedman also ignores the major feminist critique of Capital as a work that fails to interrogate the conditions of social reproduction. This is surely one of the most serious limitations to Capital as a work and surely it commands some direct commentary?
(to be completed later...)
permanent revolution
View of Engels and "Marxism"/Kautsky/Lenin/Leninism
writing style
factual inaccuracies
A Marx fit for an intellectual
In looking for a biography of Marx, there were a few criteria that brought me to this book and perhaps with some unfair expectations which it is only reasonable for me to share:
1. I wanted a book that could give a detailed presentation of Marx's political activities and the contexts for his political work. I have studied Marxism for more than a decade, and so his ideas are familiar to me. While I was familiar with his life in outlines, I wanted more detail especially about his political interventions.
2. I wanted a book that could give me a good sense of the state of contemporary scholarship on Marx. While there is clearly value in reading an old classic like Mehring's biography, I wanted to get to grips with the key arguments made in the 21st century eg about Marx's relationship with Engels.
3. I wasn't keen on reading a book that proceeded from the claim that Marx is irrelevant or wrong. I have heard quite enough arguments from anti-Marxists about what's wrong with Marx to find such scepticism fruitless. I have made up my mind that Marx was fundamentally correct in his method and prognosis and see little point in wading through a biography proceeding with directly contrary arguments.
Given these criteria, this Liedman's book seemed a good fit, and in some ways it has been.
First of all, I am deeply respectful of the skill it takes to write any book of this size and ambition. Liedman has composed a work of 600+ pages that is coherent and at times compelling. That is not a mean feat. I have complaints about the style of Liedman's writing, but fundamentally this book is an engaging one. In part, my enjoyment is derived from my passion for Liedman's topic, but the author clearly deserves some credit for it.
The book also provides ample amounts of interesting and useful information about Marx's life and world. I did get a stronger sense of Marx's political world and his interventions, especially in 1848 and in the debates in the International.
There is also some clear-sighted exposition on Marx's key ideas: Liedman's summary of Capital is good, as are some of the passages about Marx's philosophical outlook and method. These are clearly where Liedman's primary interests and expertise lay, and though at times his presentation is idiosyncratic, it can be very good.
Finally, Liedman is basically sympathetic Marx; he is clearly anti-capitalist and at times defends Marx against unfair detractors. He can be a fair-minded commentator on Marx's work, for instance in his evaluation of where The Grundrisse stands in relation to Capital and other works. Even more notably, Liedman rejects pretty firmly the claims that Marx was Eurocentric. However, the flipside of this is that he spends almost no time dwelling on the role and significance of Marx for global anticolonial and anti-imperialist struggles, thereby implicating himself in precisely the Eurocentrism that he absolves Marx of.
This is one of many other significant problems and annoyances that have limited my enjoyment of this book.
Liedman makes an effort to align himself with feminist critics of Marx and Marxism, but he does so in ways that are to me perplexing and very uneven. He interrogates early on Marx's use of male pronouns when discussing the working class, pointing out that the working class even at this time was disproportionately women. I don't find anything especially wrong with this, though he doesn't do much with the observation analytically. More annoyingly, he ignores clear and obvious opportunities for fruitful and interesting feminist analysis. For instance, he mentions in passing that the only person Marx discussed his ideas with more regularly than Engels was Jenny (Marx's wife). He takes for granted that Jenny transitioned from minor aristocracy to revolutionary social democracy, and testifies to her intelligence and dedication. But Liedman provides no sense of Jenny's own intellectual and political journey, nor offers any thoughts (even speculative ones) about how important an intellectual partner she was for Marx. Of course, this is a biography of Karl and not Jenny, but if one is to approach a biography of Karl Marx with a feminist commitment, it seems to me that these are the interesting questions that should be asked.
This unevenness in Liedman's engagement with feminism also affects his discussion of Capital. Much of the chapter on Capital is dedicated to the later (mostly scholarly) interpretations of the book. In particular, the economic questions are given attention that I found helpful. However, really significant commentaries are neglected. To my mind, if Liedman was to provide a summary of later Capital interpretations, he under no circumstances could neglect the trend known as Political Marxism (adherents of which often identify instead as Capital-centric Marxists). Robert Brenner, Ellen Meiskins Wood, Charlie Post, and others are among the most influential and important Marxist historians of recent decades. They have lots to say about Capital as a work of history. Perhaps even more egregiously, Liedman also ignores the major feminist critique of Capital as a work that fails to interrogate the conditions of social reproduction. This is surely one of the most serious limitations to Capital as a work and surely it commands some direct commentary?
(to be completed later...)
permanent revolution
View of Engels and "Marxism"/Kautsky/Lenin/Leninism
writing style
factual inaccuracies
A Marx fit for an intellectual
August 29, 2020
Leidman's focus is not really on the details of Marx's life, but more so the development of his thought and theories. So while there may be better biographies as regards his life story, Leidman's book is a thorough introduction to Marx's ideas, presenting them in prose that is accessible and light on the jargon, while not simplifying his thought too much. As such, this would serve as an excellent primer for those who are just beginning their exploration of Marx and Marxism.
September 2, 2024
Inte någon juicy biografi men ett idéhistoriskt storverk. Lågmält, resonerande och kunskapstätt.
Read
December 16, 2020Star ratings are so weird, because it feels like I'm judging "how good is it?" but Goodreads defines the stars as "how much did you like it?" This book, and many others, is a great execution of a worthwhile project, but I didn't hugely enjoy reading it. It's often very abstract stuff. As the subtitle says, it is the "Life and Works" of Marx, and much of that guy's life was about his writing and ideas, so there is discussion about his personal life and such, but a LOT of this is discussion of what he believed and wrote and argued and how other people responded at the time or since. It can be kind of a slog at times, but it's nobody's fault, and this book does well what it's supposed to.
June 21, 2018
Deeply appreciate the way this bio presents deep intellectual complexities of the life and works of Marx accessibly yet not reductively. And Liedman comes across as having spent decades inside the material and writing for multiple audiences rather than any particularly ideologically-flavored one.
Read
January 10, 2022One of my New Year's resolutions is to develop a better understanding of Marx beyond having read a couple of his major works (namely The Communist Manifesto, Eighteenth Brumaire and the first volume of Capital, the latter two of which I certainly didn't read as closely as I should have) and being familiar with the famous quotes. That makes for a nice start and all, but I think it's left me a with a pretty shallow understanding of a major strain of political, philosophical, and economic thought, and I suspect that a better understanding of Marx will also lend itself to sharpening my own anti-capitalist critique of the world (a "ruthless criticism of all that exists" should surely go beyond muddled denunciations of how capitalism is bad to truly count as ruthless criticism, after all). The problem is that reading Marx can be pretty daunting in my experience; understanding how his work informed, and was vulgarized or transcended by later Marxist writers is markedly more daunting.
I found Liedman's biography immensely helpful in explaining Marx's thought in all its complexity and contradictions (and the many controversies that have arisen therefrom), including how different strands of Marxists have interpreted those thoughts in the 140 years since his death. Liedman has his biases as regards Marx's interpreters, which he makes clear; his sympathies clearly lie with those who do not see Marx as a systematizer, and thus he almost universally views orthodox Marxist-Leninists more dimly than Marxists critical of the Marxism of the USSR (which happily for me accords with my own considerably less-well-informed biases). It's a long book, and not a breezy read, especially if you (like me) come to the book with only a vague conception of the philosophical milieu of 19th Century Europe. The book conveys the frequently fascinating events of Marx's life in a fairly dry fashion (although I don't know how much of this is owed to the English translation, which contains a number of obvious grammatical errors, and clearly could have used another pass over by the copy editor at the very least), and as such the book is probably more successful as a survey of its subject's thought than it is as a narrative of his life. In addition, while, as I said, Liedman devotes considerable time to discussing interpretations of Marx by Marxists, he devotes less than a page to interpretations of Marx by members of other ideological traditions after his lifetime; a very quick overview of anarchist and liberal assessments of Marx would have been nice in addition to the author's justly dismissive account of McCarthyism.
On the whole, I enjoyed this a great deal, and, in my opinion, found it not overly in awe of and certainly not overly critical of its subject. So not a bad place for me to start this undertaking, I hope.
I found Liedman's biography immensely helpful in explaining Marx's thought in all its complexity and contradictions (and the many controversies that have arisen therefrom), including how different strands of Marxists have interpreted those thoughts in the 140 years since his death. Liedman has his biases as regards Marx's interpreters, which he makes clear; his sympathies clearly lie with those who do not see Marx as a systematizer, and thus he almost universally views orthodox Marxist-Leninists more dimly than Marxists critical of the Marxism of the USSR (which happily for me accords with my own considerably less-well-informed biases). It's a long book, and not a breezy read, especially if you (like me) come to the book with only a vague conception of the philosophical milieu of 19th Century Europe. The book conveys the frequently fascinating events of Marx's life in a fairly dry fashion (although I don't know how much of this is owed to the English translation, which contains a number of obvious grammatical errors, and clearly could have used another pass over by the copy editor at the very least), and as such the book is probably more successful as a survey of its subject's thought than it is as a narrative of his life. In addition, while, as I said, Liedman devotes considerable time to discussing interpretations of Marx by Marxists, he devotes less than a page to interpretations of Marx by members of other ideological traditions after his lifetime; a very quick overview of anarchist and liberal assessments of Marx would have been nice in addition to the author's justly dismissive account of McCarthyism.
On the whole, I enjoyed this a great deal, and, in my opinion, found it not overly in awe of and certainly not overly critical of its subject. So not a bad place for me to start this undertaking, I hope.
January 16, 2021
Este apabullante intento de biografía de la mayor figura histórica del mundo moderno es en mi opinión un éxito mixto. Está increíblemente bien documentado, y uno obtiene una imagen precisa de la vida de Marx y de su evolución intelectual a través de sus obras, sobre las cuales Liedman elucubra con acierto cuestionable. Se centra demasiado en puntos tangenciales de la filosofía marxista, y a mitad del libro parece una disertación del autor sobre las teorías de Marx... ¡estamos aquí por él, Liedman, no por ti! Es más ameno cuando describe la vida 'física' de Marx, sus relaciones personales, su célebre personalidad, la tragedia que le embarga en Londres, etc. El capítulo que le dedica a su carrera como periodista es singularmente destacado, pues es una vertiente que la posteridad apenas conoce. Sin embargo la gran falla llega cuando denuncia a lo que llama 'ortodoxia soviética', pintando una imagen terrible de un régimen que supuestamente apenas permitía variaciones a la línea ideológica que los intelectuales podían seguir (QUÉ TRAGEDIA), condenándola una y otra y otra y otra vez a lo largo del libro, sin una palabra a su favor, obviando las inconmensurables mejoras a la vida de la clase trabajadora que trajo consigo la revolución de octubre. Nosotros los pobres no estamos dispuestos a desestimar la experiencia soviética por lo que digan los papanatas burgueses como Liedman que ven en el socialismo únicamente un campo de estudio sobre el cuál presumir de su intelecto, cuyas críticas deleznables saben un poco a mierda, y quien encima cae directito en otra ortodoxia marxista: la occidental, que a diferencia de la rusa (o la china, o la cubana, o la que sea que estos liberaluchos disfrazados tengan en sus sucias bocas) jamás ha logrado nada. Es muy poco materialista si me lo preguntan a mí.
March 25, 2024
Man this one really took me a minute. This is my year of biographies- I recently read the Wittgenstein bio and am hoping to get to a Derrida bio and a John Brown one that are both sitting on my shelf. I was very excited for this one, to my knowledge it’s really the only definitive English language bio that does a good job of analyzing Marx’s life and work (though I think Heinrich is working on a multi volume one that I’m sure we’ll become the definitive one). I am finding though that I struggle to maintain a high reading pace with bios that I think is much more about the form than the content.
One main thing I’m noticing about this biography form is that I’m really getting a lot out of reading about these figure’s lives, emotions, loves, hardships, developments etc. This was especially true for Marx. It was great reading about his relationship with his parents, his love for his wife/children, his friendship with Engles, his many intellectual and political rivalries (Bakunin particularly stood out here.) What makes this bio especially good is that there are also extensive commentaries on the major works and very good summaries of various interpretations, all placed in a format that clearly articulates the developments and changes that took place over Marx’s career. And Leidman definitely isn’t afraid to take a position. In general he presents a Marx that is an anti systemic thinker, always moving towards the open horizon of critical research and thought. Liedman is certainly closer to the Neue Marx-Lekture reading and is not a fan at all of much of the 20th century (Russia, China, “Marxist Leninist”) interpretations and uses of Marx.
All in all I would highly recommend this for anyone new or old to Marx. Though I still recommend starting first with Marcello Musto’s Last Years of Karl Marx.
One main thing I’m noticing about this biography form is that I’m really getting a lot out of reading about these figure’s lives, emotions, loves, hardships, developments etc. This was especially true for Marx. It was great reading about his relationship with his parents, his love for his wife/children, his friendship with Engles, his many intellectual and political rivalries (Bakunin particularly stood out here.) What makes this bio especially good is that there are also extensive commentaries on the major works and very good summaries of various interpretations, all placed in a format that clearly articulates the developments and changes that took place over Marx’s career. And Leidman definitely isn’t afraid to take a position. In general he presents a Marx that is an anti systemic thinker, always moving towards the open horizon of critical research and thought. Liedman is certainly closer to the Neue Marx-Lekture reading and is not a fan at all of much of the 20th century (Russia, China, “Marxist Leninist”) interpretations and uses of Marx.
All in all I would highly recommend this for anyone new or old to Marx. Though I still recommend starting first with Marcello Musto’s Last Years of Karl Marx.
September 9, 2019
This is not a book for those who want an in depth look at Marx the man, but instead a text with Marx the theorist in mind. Liedman places the focus of his biography not on acedotes or dates or intricacies of Marx’s life, but rather places the development of his ideas at the forefront. This is where the book is strongest. From this, the reader can glance the context of his works, their content, and even later interpretations of this work. I’d go as far to say that the chapter on Capital would make a great introduction for those wanting to read that book. My fault with the text is mainly an ideological one. Liedman tends to follow the thesis of Marxism as Engelsism. As a result I believe he does a disservice to not only Engels as a thinker, but to many Marxists with their own original thoughts thus ironically ending up in his own sort of orthodoxy that he criticizes others for. I do also suppose, while not the focus of the book, I would have liked more on the second half of Marx’s life outside of his ideas as well he well develops a discussion of young Marx’s life, the life of Marx in the International and with German Social Democracy feels a bit lacking.
I’d rate it 3.5/5 stars or 7/10.
I’d rate it 3.5/5 stars or 7/10.
August 26, 2023
this is a compelling and readable contemporary biography, with something for both newcomers and students of marx and marxism alike. it is my first marx biography--i chose to read it before dipping into Heinrich's--and i found lots to love. Liedman is a clear writer, though not without his annoying idiosyncracies, who seems to have some adjacency to NML. the book is an intellectual biography for sure, with the focus largely on published writings. in particular, i wanted something that could guide me through marx's political and journalistic writings, as well as his letters, and the book performed admirably in that regard.
Liedman also has a few unexpected tools to offer. he's something of a historian of science, i think, and so his perception of how marx and engels related to biology, chemistry, and other sciences is insightful. he also seems well versed in Hegel, which i found helpful (though i'm sure is only an introduction). i found myself less interested in his opinions about 20th c marxism, and marxicology, which seemed rather limited and european. but these parts were relatively easy to skim beyond, and obviously serve an introductory purpose.
Liedman also has a few unexpected tools to offer. he's something of a historian of science, i think, and so his perception of how marx and engels related to biology, chemistry, and other sciences is insightful. he also seems well versed in Hegel, which i found helpful (though i'm sure is only an introduction). i found myself less interested in his opinions about 20th c marxism, and marxicology, which seemed rather limited and european. but these parts were relatively easy to skim beyond, and obviously serve an introductory purpose.
March 31, 2020
A book from the 'New Reading of Marx', to quote the author it 'shifts the emphasis to capitalism with its inherent ability for renewal. Attention has thus been directed towards features of his theory Marx himself did not completely draw out. He was entirely too keen on imagining a revolution behind the next corner.'
In other words class struggle, dialectical materialism are toned down, focus on capitalism as a force is toned up. It all feels very Schumpeterian. Some unconvincing arguments for Marx as a liberal democrat utopian spoil the book, you can almost hear the insidious sounds 'imagine all the people.' It's at its worst trying to blame Engles, Kautsky and Lenin for ruining Marx by creating a closed system out of Marx's closed system.
But the chapters discussing Capital, Grundrisse, TCM and some of his other works are so consise and insightful you can forgive the weaknesses. The chapter on Capital in particular summarises thousands of pages in text brilliantly. I'd reccomend it for this reason alone.
In other words class struggle, dialectical materialism are toned down, focus on capitalism as a force is toned up. It all feels very Schumpeterian. Some unconvincing arguments for Marx as a liberal democrat utopian spoil the book, you can almost hear the insidious sounds 'imagine all the people.' It's at its worst trying to blame Engles, Kautsky and Lenin for ruining Marx by creating a closed system out of Marx's closed system.
But the chapters discussing Capital, Grundrisse, TCM and some of his other works are so consise and insightful you can forgive the weaknesses. The chapter on Capital in particular summarises thousands of pages in text brilliantly. I'd reccomend it for this reason alone.
December 13, 2020
This is a brilliant, if somewhat dry Marx biography. It has the advantage of being the latest one, so the recent string of biographies is put well into context in the introduction. Liedman is strongest in the analysis of Marx's texts and of those, Capital becomes almost like a teleological end point against which everything else is contrasted. That said, Liedman better than any of the others, emphasises the openness of Marx's writings. Refreshing is also the discussion of Marx's influence, which is untainted by the cold warrior sentiments of Sperber and Stedman Jones. Yet, SWP types will be rankled by Liedman's suggestion that after the 1850s (certainly by the 60s) revolution became just one option among many (including the ballot box) in Marx's arsenal for social change. One thing I would have hoped the English translation would have taken into account was adding the English-language editions to the biography, which now only lists Swedish translations.
November 7, 2021
Best when he’s in the thick of Marx’s intellectual development, bringing out important aspects - the categories of form, substance and content, for example, or ecology and organic chemistry research - and at its worst when he tries to offer larger synthesis & take-aways. Has the benefit over older Marx bios of including Marxological research from previously-unpublished manuscripts which are now available in the Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe. This will be a good book for critically-minded readers unfamiliar with the threads of development of Marx’s work, but do take Liedman’s conclusions about things like the relationship between Marx’s opportunistic political maneuverings & his scientific work, or the permanence of the division of labor, with many grains of salt - read Marx yourself & do your own research.
February 27, 2019
Alongside a new spate of biographies of Marx, this one stands out for its combination of analysis of texts and the life itself, as well as the enduring reputation as well as (mis)understanding(s) of Marx. Liedman's examination of the relationship between Marx and Engels seems to trace new ground, a middle way between exact similitude and radical difference. Also, his discussion of how Lenin, Stalin, and Mao differ from Marx himself even though they claim that their inspiration and direction come from him is important. Finally, his argument for the enduring importance of Marx in the twenty-first century fits my own.
March 18, 2021
I did not finish this book, I'm stopping at chapter 6. I guess I'll return to it when I have a better understanding of Hegel?
Liedman bashes or backstabs every other biographer of Marx, promises a synthesis of biography and analysis, and can't deliver.
I'm exhausted and confused. I've got too many books to read in this lifetime to be giving myself a headache over sentences such as, "Humanity is bound up with nature, and thereby also with itself, for it is in itself a part of nature. But alienated labour alienates it from itself, and thereby from nature." [page 143]
C'mon, man.
Liedman bashes or backstabs every other biographer of Marx, promises a synthesis of biography and analysis, and can't deliver.
I'm exhausted and confused. I've got too many books to read in this lifetime to be giving myself a headache over sentences such as, "Humanity is bound up with nature, and thereby also with itself, for it is in itself a part of nature. But alienated labour alienates it from itself, and thereby from nature." [page 143]
C'mon, man.
October 21, 2020
A very good but general overview of the life and major ideas of Karl Marx. It was useful to read alongisde the Marx-Engels Reader which followed the same logic and structure of Liedman's line of inquiry. Liedman does a good job, too, of assessing the multiplicity of tendencies which sprung from Marx's ideas over the last 150 years.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews