What do you think?
Rate this book
Listen, Marxist!
μπροσούρα
48 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1971
1 person is currently reading
266 people want to read
About the author
Murray Bookchin
122 books644 followersMurray Bookchin was an American libertarian socialist author, orator, and philosopher. A pioneer in the ecology movement, Bookchin was the founder of the social ecology movement within anarchist, libertarian socialist and ecological thought. He was the author of two dozen books on politics, philosophy, history, and urban affairs as well as ecology. In the late 1990s he became disenchanted with the strategy of political Anarchism and founded his own libertarian socialist ideology called Communalism.
Bookchin was an anti-capitalist and vocal advocate of the decentralisation of society along ecological and democratic lines. His writings on libertarian municipalism, a theory of face-to-face, assembly democracy, had an influence on the Green movement and anti-capitalist direct action groups such as Reclaim the Streets.
Bookchin was an anti-capitalist and vocal advocate of the decentralisation of society along ecological and democratic lines. His writings on libertarian municipalism, a theory of face-to-face, assembly democracy, had an influence on the Green movement and anti-capitalist direct action groups such as Reclaim the Streets.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
July 12, 2016
Although this book is now over 50 years old it is still worth reading. Murray Bookchin's critique of the Marxist approach to the political struggle is no less necessary now than it was then as it unfortunately does not appear that the left have recognised the problems he identified.
His recognition that "The idea that a man whose greatest theoretical contributions were made between 1840 and 1880 could “foresee” the entire dialectic of capitalism is, on the face of it, utterly preposterous" is indeed correct and he clearly shows how this is the case. He relates the failures of the "vanguard" and gives a good historical assessment of the failure of Marxist thinking to the progression of society.
Bookchin recognised the development of state capitalism, both in the east and in the west, and saw also that "capitalism itself ..(can).. perform many of the tasks (including the development of a technology of abundance) which were regarded as socialist; we have seen it “nationalize” property, merging the economy with the state wherever necessary. " He also saw that a theory built during a time of scarcity was not appropriate for societies with potential abundance as "Any society that could promise little more materially than equality of poverty invariably engendered deep-seated tendencies to restore a new system of privilege." whereas anarchist movements can "attracts all those who feel the burdens of exploitation, poverty, racism, imperialism and, yes, those whose lives are frustrated by consumerism, suburbia, the mass media, the family, school, the supermarket and the prevailing system of repressed sexuality"
Like many other writers from the anarchist tradition he knew the dangers of the state inherent in Marxist thinking and "instead of "withering away," the state controlled by the "glorious party" preserves the very conditions which "necessitate" the existence of a state-and a party to "guard" it.".
Although he felt "Marxism is dead because it was rooted in an era of material scarcity, limited in its possibilities by material want. " he did agree with Marx that, regarding the world, "the point, however, is to change it" but in this regard "Marxism has ceased to be applicable to our time not because it is too visionary or revolutionary, but because it is not visionary or revolutionary enough"
His recognition that "The idea that a man whose greatest theoretical contributions were made between 1840 and 1880 could “foresee” the entire dialectic of capitalism is, on the face of it, utterly preposterous" is indeed correct and he clearly shows how this is the case. He relates the failures of the "vanguard" and gives a good historical assessment of the failure of Marxist thinking to the progression of society.
Bookchin recognised the development of state capitalism, both in the east and in the west, and saw also that "capitalism itself ..(can).. perform many of the tasks (including the development of a technology of abundance) which were regarded as socialist; we have seen it “nationalize” property, merging the economy with the state wherever necessary. " He also saw that a theory built during a time of scarcity was not appropriate for societies with potential abundance as "Any society that could promise little more materially than equality of poverty invariably engendered deep-seated tendencies to restore a new system of privilege." whereas anarchist movements can "attracts all those who feel the burdens of exploitation, poverty, racism, imperialism and, yes, those whose lives are frustrated by consumerism, suburbia, the mass media, the family, school, the supermarket and the prevailing system of repressed sexuality"
Like many other writers from the anarchist tradition he knew the dangers of the state inherent in Marxist thinking and "instead of "withering away," the state controlled by the "glorious party" preserves the very conditions which "necessitate" the existence of a state-and a party to "guard" it.".
Although he felt "Marxism is dead because it was rooted in an era of material scarcity, limited in its possibilities by material want. " he did agree with Marx that, regarding the world, "the point, however, is to change it" but in this regard "Marxism has ceased to be applicable to our time not because it is too visionary or revolutionary, but because it is not visionary or revolutionary enough"
May 19, 2021
Can be read here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/book...
December 21, 2020
A lot of his early claims were not in line with the reality of Capitalism I have experienced, but as the piece progresses Bookchin shows a deep, materialist understanding of organization. It has been a while since my views have been challenged as much as this piece has challenged them, and I am grateful for the experience.
August 9, 2021
“By destroying the power of the factory committees in industry and by crushing the Makhnovtsy, the Petrograd workers and the Kronstadt sailors, the Bolsheviks virtually guaranteed the triumph of the Russian bureaucracy over Russian society. The centralized party — a completely bourgeois institution — became the refuge of counterrevolution in its most sinister form. This was covert counterrevolution that draped itself in the red flag and the terminology of Marx.
The fact is, the Bolsheviks did not merely suppress a “sailors’ mutiny”; they crushed the working class itself. It was at this point that Lenin demanded the banning of factions in the Russian Communist Party. Centralization of the party was now complete — and the way was paved for Stalin.
To these people we address ourselves as brothers and sisters and ask for a serious discussion and a comprehensive re-evaluation. We believe that Marxism has ceased to be applicable to our time not because it is too visionary or revolutionary, but because it is not visionary or revolutionary enough. We believe it was born of an era of scarcity and presented as a brilliant critique of that era, specifically of industrial capitalism, and that a new era is in birth which Marxism does not adequately encompass and whose outlines it only partially and onesidedly anticipated.
We argue that the problem is not to “abandon” Marxism, or to “annul” it, but to transcend it dialectically, just as Marx transcended Hegelian philosophy, Ricardian economics, and Blanquist tactics and modes of organization. We shall argue that in a more advanced stage of capitalism than Marx dealt with a century ago, and in a more advanced stage of technological development than Marx could have clearly anticipated, a new critique is necessary, which in turn yields new modes of struggle, or organization, of propaganda and of lifestyle.”
The fact is, the Bolsheviks did not merely suppress a “sailors’ mutiny”; they crushed the working class itself. It was at this point that Lenin demanded the banning of factions in the Russian Communist Party. Centralization of the party was now complete — and the way was paved for Stalin.
To these people we address ourselves as brothers and sisters and ask for a serious discussion and a comprehensive re-evaluation. We believe that Marxism has ceased to be applicable to our time not because it is too visionary or revolutionary, but because it is not visionary or revolutionary enough. We believe it was born of an era of scarcity and presented as a brilliant critique of that era, specifically of industrial capitalism, and that a new era is in birth which Marxism does not adequately encompass and whose outlines it only partially and onesidedly anticipated.
We argue that the problem is not to “abandon” Marxism, or to “annul” it, but to transcend it dialectically, just as Marx transcended Hegelian philosophy, Ricardian economics, and Blanquist tactics and modes of organization. We shall argue that in a more advanced stage of capitalism than Marx dealt with a century ago, and in a more advanced stage of technological development than Marx could have clearly anticipated, a new critique is necessary, which in turn yields new modes of struggle, or organization, of propaganda and of lifestyle.”
May 31, 2022
"In his day Marx was occupied not only with the problems of the "proletarian revolution" but also with the problems of the bourgeois revolution, particularly in Germany, Spain, Italy and Eastern Europe. He dealt with the problems of transition from capitalism to socialism in capitalist countries which had not advanced much beyond the coal-steel technology of the Industrial Revolution, and with the problems of transition from feudalism to capitalism in countries which had scarcely advanced much beyond handicrafts and the guild system. To state these concerns broadly, Marx was occupied above all with the preconditions of freedom (technological development, national unification, material abundance) rather than with the conditions of freedom (decentralization, the formation of communities, the human scale, direct democracy). His theories were still anchored in the realm of survival, not the realm of life.
Once this is grasped it is possible to place Marx's theoretical legacy in meaningful perspective—to separate its rich contributions from its historically limited, indeed paralyzing, shackles on our own time. The Marxian dialectic, the many seminal insights provided by historical materialism, the superb critique of the commodity relationship, many elements of the economic theories, the theory of alienation, and above all the notion that freedom has material preconditions—these are lasting contributions to revolutionary thought."
Once this is grasped it is possible to place Marx's theoretical legacy in meaningful perspective—to separate its rich contributions from its historically limited, indeed paralyzing, shackles on our own time. The Marxian dialectic, the many seminal insights provided by historical materialism, the superb critique of the commodity relationship, many elements of the economic theories, the theory of alienation, and above all the notion that freedom has material preconditions—these are lasting contributions to revolutionary thought."
September 25, 2021
Pretty phenomenal and important read. Bookchin not only recovers the Marx that Marx knew and transcended the Marx that others forged, but many of his ideas here prophesize what was to come in revolutionary theory. He called for the creation of the class which declared itself unclass, predicting destitutent power, he outlined the anti-work sentiment which stands as vital to modern theory and practice, and embraced the Dyonesian attitude in theory before it was fashionable in the left. Along the way he tacks on a mourning for the degeneration of Lenin, exacting historical analysis, and a critique of both the Marxists and Anarchists that came before him.
March 25, 2025
Interesante sobre todo la sección "El mito del partido", en la que analiza los propios límites del partido político como herramienta prerrevolucionaria y establece una comparativa entre la configuración tradicional de este (aspirante a formar parte de la política parlamentaria de la democracia liberal), y el papel que jugó el partido bolchevique (siendo una rara avis en su tipo al estar la mayor parte del tiempo ilegalizado, conformándose como una especie de "partido de nuevo tipo" en su momento).
Muy interesante sobre todo el análisis y la visión que realiza, junto a las lecturas y enseñanzas que ofrece, de las dinámicas sociopolíticas durante la Revolución Rusa.
Es un texto súmamente enriquecedor para cualquier persona libertaria o comunista que quiera realizar un acercamiento serio y formal, en clave crítica y autocrítica ante todo, de lo que supone la política revolucionaria más allá de lo institucional y los dogmas ideológicos.
Muy interesante sobre todo el análisis y la visión que realiza, junto a las lecturas y enseñanzas que ofrece, de las dinámicas sociopolíticas durante la Revolución Rusa.
Es un texto súmamente enriquecedor para cualquier persona libertaria o comunista que quiera realizar un acercamiento serio y formal, en clave crítica y autocrítica ante todo, de lo que supone la política revolucionaria más allá de lo institucional y los dogmas ideológicos.
October 18, 2023
Como buen anarcosindicalista, comete sus mismos errores: nula comprensión lectora (difícilmente hay alguna afirmación sobre Marx que sea verdad), anticomunismo de toda la vida y hablar bien de la CNT del 1937. Tonterías a destajo.
June 2, 2021
Muy útil aún, en general estoy de acuerdo.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews