What do you think?
Rate this book
Marxism and History
This edition is pre-ISBN.
157 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1969
22 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
August 10, 2011
Fleischer's analysis of Marixism and it's relation to developing a theoretical framework for history is very well done. I particularly like Fleischer's discussion of both the Soviet School of orthodox Marxism, it's relation to Leninism, and the debates held between orthodox and marxist-humanists concerning their perspectives on history.
May 6, 2016
Muito interessante!
Como livro técnico é muito focado na teoria em particular (marxismo ortodoxo e marxismo-Leninismo). Mas dentro desta teoria explica e da uma ideia bastante boa da historia na teoria Marxista. Uma analise bem efectuada embora por vezes limitada, não posso deixar de recomendar a quem quer que goste de historia.
Como livro técnico é muito focado na teoria em particular (marxismo ortodoxo e marxismo-Leninismo). Mas dentro desta teoria explica e da uma ideia bastante boa da historia na teoria Marxista. Uma analise bem efectuada embora por vezes limitada, não posso deixar de recomendar a quem quer que goste de historia.
April 1, 2022
Good analysis of Marx and Engels’s view of history, what drives it, and how it progresses. Very well thought out, and debunks a lot of criticisms and misunderstandings of Marx both from within and without the socialist movement. I will say, though, that it is rather dense.
April 26, 2024
I don't know how to feel about this work. Some of Fleischer's interpretations are highly questionable. If you go back to the source of the text he is citing, it is not that he is flat-out wrong in how he is interpreting the text, but it certainly is odd. It is not how any normal person would read what Marx is writing.
Eric Mosbacher's translation, in my view, does not serve the text well. It has led to some rather peculiar renderings, such as the following passage on primitive society:
"It was a 'wonderful social system', he says, as it left no room for domination and subjection. ... Thus what followed seemed to be a deep degradation, 'a fall from grace from the simple moral height of the old clan society'."
Whereas in the copy of the book he is referencing, The Origin of Family, Private Property and the State, it reads:
"But it was broken by influences which from the very start appear as a degradation, a fall from the simple moral greatness of the old gentile society."
The latter quoted text is a stark departure from the rendition of it contained in Fleischer's text. There are many instances of such translations and interpretations in this book.
He also claims that when Marx describes how the transition between different modes of production happened as a result of the contradiction between the forces and relations of production, that Marx only meant that that is what happened between the transition of feudalism to capitalism, and that is what will happen in the transition from capitalism to socialism, but that Marx never meant to apply such an idea to any of the previous transitory modes of production. Now, I am not completely opposed to this interpretation of the text--it is certainly interesting and plausible. However, the source material he is citing is so hard to read that way.
I will probably need to reread Marx and Engels if I am to decide whether or not I agree with Fleischer's argument here.
Regardless of those issues, though, the book takes a massive drop in quality once it starts describing what communism is in Chapter 3, Subsection "The Marxist projection of the future." The author is entrenched in humanism and has a deep-seated dislike of Hegel. For that reason, he falls into various idealisms when describing communism due to his failure to grasp the radicality of Hegel's thought that can, through a reversal, be profoundly materialist. Moreover, his failure to understand Hegel also explains why he makes wild claims, such as how Engels supposedly wrote "apologia for slavery."
Eric Mosbacher's translation, in my view, does not serve the text well. It has led to some rather peculiar renderings, such as the following passage on primitive society:
"It was a 'wonderful social system', he says, as it left no room for domination and subjection. ... Thus what followed seemed to be a deep degradation, 'a fall from grace from the simple moral height of the old clan society'."
Whereas in the copy of the book he is referencing, The Origin of Family, Private Property and the State, it reads:
"But it was broken by influences which from the very start appear as a degradation, a fall from the simple moral greatness of the old gentile society."
The latter quoted text is a stark departure from the rendition of it contained in Fleischer's text. There are many instances of such translations and interpretations in this book.
He also claims that when Marx describes how the transition between different modes of production happened as a result of the contradiction between the forces and relations of production, that Marx only meant that that is what happened between the transition of feudalism to capitalism, and that is what will happen in the transition from capitalism to socialism, but that Marx never meant to apply such an idea to any of the previous transitory modes of production. Now, I am not completely opposed to this interpretation of the text--it is certainly interesting and plausible. However, the source material he is citing is so hard to read that way.
I will probably need to reread Marx and Engels if I am to decide whether or not I agree with Fleischer's argument here.
Regardless of those issues, though, the book takes a massive drop in quality once it starts describing what communism is in Chapter 3, Subsection "The Marxist projection of the future." The author is entrenched in humanism and has a deep-seated dislike of Hegel. For that reason, he falls into various idealisms when describing communism due to his failure to grasp the radicality of Hegel's thought that can, through a reversal, be profoundly materialist. Moreover, his failure to understand Hegel also explains why he makes wild claims, such as how Engels supposedly wrote "apologia for slavery."
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews