Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Patrick M., (Doctoral Researcher)'s avatar

    I suspect evolutionary and behavioural perspectives are left seriously underappreciated in this approach to epistemology. Reichenbach’s claim that epistemology must…

  2. S. Wallerstein's avatar
  3. AG Tanyi's avatar

    Then my question is how many of ordinary mathematicians also qualify as artists of their profession…

  4. John Rapko's avatar
  5. Mark's avatar
  6. David Reidy's avatar
  7. Paul Canis's avatar

A philosophically substantial work on the history of Marxism?

Brian Leiter

A longtime reader writes:

I'm wondering if you — or even your readers, if you think it'd be fitting to pose the below question to them — could recommend a history of marxism that could serve as an alternative to Kolakowski's comprehensive yet superficial Main Currents.  Is there another work out there that covers as much ground but is more philosophically in-depth?

I can't think of anything, but will open comments for suggestions.  The best bet is probably to look at philosophically serious and informed treatments of particular thinkers/movements within the Marxist tradition.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

17 responses to “A philosophically substantial work on the history of Marxism?”

  1. David Zimmerman

    George Lichtheim: Marxism: An Historical and Critical Study.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism:_An_Historical_and_Critical_Study

    Reply
  2. David Morrice

    Kolakowski is certainly comprehensive, but is far from superficial. His treatment of various thinkers and movements is usually substantial and deep, but, of course, antagonistic to Marxism.

    Reply
  3. Brian Leiter

    I find that implausible, and that's a pretty common view among philosophers. I don't, however, want to derail this into a discussion of Kolakowski. My correspondent shares the common view, that Kolakowski is philosophically superficial. This thread is to share alternatives.

    Reply
  4. John Rapko

    A book that covers as much ground as Kolakowski's but is more philosophically in-depth would be a very large book indeed! And, assuming the book were less than a few thousand pages, how would such a book avoid being 'scholastic' in the sense of the second thesis on Feuerbach?–Although they don't amount to a philosophical history of Marxism, I've found myself returning to these philosophically penetrating works: Merleau-Ponty's Humanism and Terror and Adventures in the Dialectic; and various short pieces by Alasdair MacIntyre, firstly the reviews in Against the Self-Images of the Age relating to Lenin, Trotsky, Lukács, Lucien Goldmann, and the neo-Kantian Che Guevara, then his later essays '1953, 1968, 1995: Three Perspectives" and the essay on the roads not taken in the Theses on Feuerbach.–I have repeatedly failed to find philosophically penetrating accounts for such central events in Marxism as Luxemburg's response to Bernstein or Dewey's response to Trotsky's response to Victor Serge on Kronstadt.

    Reply
  5. tom llewellyn

    How about Class Struggle by Losurdo? Haven't read it, but the positive reviews and detailed index lead me to believe it could partially fill the bill.

    Reply
  6. Matt S

    A really exceptional book, strangely under-read, that offers a pretty systematic alternative to Kolakowski (and sometimes directly responds to him) is "Marxism and the Philosophy of Science: A Critical History," by the philosopher Helena Sheehan (now emerita, Dublin City University). The book was originally published in the 1980s but has gone through a few editions and was most recently reprinted by Verso in a 2017 edition with a new afterward that comments on later developments.

    The book (about 500 pages) is remarkable. On the one hand, it is a pretty systematic guide through intra-Marxist debates, from Marx and Engels themselves through to the 1950s, over the philosophy of science and the status of the (natural) sciences in Marxist theory. On the other hand, it is also much more, since it takes that theme as a guiding thread for a broader consideration of the development of Marxist philosophy in its historical and sociological contexts across the tradition's first hundred years. It covers Soviet philosophical debates in some detail (both the lively pre-Stalinist ones, and the more distorted intellectual developments of the Stalin years), but it also gives equal attention to "Western Marxism" in the non-socialist countries—with detailed attention not just to the usual French, German, and Italian scenes, but also to significant movements in Britain (from the pre-new-left era!) and in the United States.

    Sheehan clearly has her sympathies and favorites in the various intra-Marxist debates, but she presents the countervailing views judiciously and fairly. The book is truly remarkable; I cannot recommend it highly enough. It is the most interesting and compelling history of the development of Marxist ideas that I have read, over several years of intensive research on such questions.

    Reply
  7. Brian Leiter

    I'd be curious to hear from anyone who has actually read this Losurdo book. He strikes me as a tediously dogmatic Marxist, not very philosophically able, but that is based entirely on my perusing his Nietzsche book.

    Reply
  8. Craig Duncan

    David McLellan's *Marxism After Marx* is one work worth considering.

    Reply
  9. Fabio

    Geoff Boucher tries to cover a lot of ground while keeping it short. Here is a review:
    https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/understanding-marxism/

    Reply
  10. Matt Lister

    To complement Craig Duncan's comment, I liked McLellan's _Marx before Marxism_, in case the person looking for suggestions is interested in the "pre-history" of Marxism as well. (I haven't read the "after" book, so can't comment on that, and I'm not a specialist in the area by any means, but the "before" book was pretty interesting and not that hard of a read.)

    Reply
  11. Byron Davies

    Keeping in mind John Rapko's mention of MacIntyre's discussion of Che, it seems that Losurdo's is the only survey mentioned above that deals substantially with Latin American Marxism. From a philosophical angle, there's a lot more to be done regarding José Carlos Mariátegui (as well as his debate with Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre), José Revueltas, Adolfo Sánchez Vázquez, Enrique Dussel, and Bolívar Echeverría, just to name those figures most familiar and significant to me.

    Reply
  12. Brian Leiter

    I would be very interested to hear more about what is distinctive about the Marxist traditions in Latin America, if Mr. Davies or anyone else is so inclined to say more.

    Reply
  13. Byron Davies

    It's a big topic and I would like to hear from others as well. Several related factors come to mind: (1) A focus on indigeneity, European colonialism, and uneven development/overexploitation by the colonizing world. Thus, Mariátegui's Seven Interpretative Essays on Peruvian Reality argues that the relative inapplicability of some European Marxist thought to the Peruvian situation in the early 20th century turns on the more purely extractive and lastingly feudal situation in which Spanish colonialism left Peru. Mariátegui also argues that Incan civilization already contained the kernels of communist economic organization (albeit not political organization). But Mariátegui's Marxist considerations about indigeneity and the intractability of land reform in Peru are complex. It has been a while since I have read his debate with Haya de la Torre, but it is largely concerned with whether socialists in the colonized world should ally with their own national bourgeoisies, who have their own interests opposed to colonizing countries. (2) A focus on North American neo-colonialism, with roughly similar concerns brought up to date. (3) A connection with liberation theology. (4) An interpretation of Marxism via the lens of Latin American republicanism and questions of national autonomy against the colonizing world. (Recall that Fidel Castro was a republican in the mold of José Martí before he was a Marxist.) (5) Debates about the significance of the Cuban Revolution and the figure of Che. (6) Debates about the significance of the Pink Tide. (7) A connection to various national liberation struggles, including indigenous liberation struggles, such as the EZLN. (Above I also should have mentioned Subcomandante Marcos/Subcomandante Galeano, who also had an academic formation in Marxism.) There's a lot I'm leaving out, though.

    Reply
  14. Robert C Hockett

    Sadly there seems to be nothing now fitting the requested bill here (any such thing would indeed seem to be apt to be very long!). But one can at least piece together a preliminarily helpful patchwork of critical reassessments, by current Marxians, of past Marxians if s/he reads some of those current Marxians who are now actively engaging with the still-growing MEGA. Folk like Heinrich, Lapavitsas, and Moseley, for example, while primarily interested in putting forth their own would-be 'new' takes on Marx as informed by recently released MEGA material, spend at least some of their time laying out what they believe *earlier* generations of Marxians to have *missed* thanks to the erstwhile paucity of primary source material. Another angle that some might find helpful here is to read some of the contemporary philosophers now re-engaging in serious ways with early 19th century German philosophy and its antecedents (including Aristotle and Spinoza in particular), who while at it take seriously Marx's place in that tradition. I tend to think, FWIW, that any would-be exponent of Marx who does NOT aim to do that is virtually certain to make an embarrassing hash of things. What Jerry Cohen long ago said about Althusser is apt to be doubly true of them.

    Reply
  15. Brian Leiter

    I'll just note that, in this instance, I disagree with Bob Hockett. Heinrich is pretty good at dismissing what he calls "world view" Marxism, but his work is in no way adequate for someone looking to understand earlier Marxists; I don't know the other authors well enough to comment on them.

    Marx himself breaks pretty decisively with German Idealism in 1845. The post-Lukacs turn back to a Hegelian Marx may perhaps be illuminated by consideration of that tradition. The question is what authors and what texts would help in this regard, per the original question.

    Reply
  16. Karl Gustav

    To get a proper understanding of Marxism one has to get to know the historical attempts at realizing ideas from the socialist tradition (unions, labor movement etc.).

    That said, I would point to four texts. The first is a clearly written introduction to the ideas of socialism from the beginning of the 19th century to the beginning of the 1970s (unfortunately it never was translated into English). The second is a good overview of the labour movement spanning roughly the same time period. The third text deals with the development of Marxism in Western countries directly after the Russian Revolution, a phase of utmost importance to understand the further evolution of Marxism. The fourth text deals with the decline and dismantling of the labor movement via corporate propaganda; it focuses on the US.

    W.Hoffmann: Ideengeschichte der sozialen Bewegung.

    W. Abendroth: Short History of the European Working Class.

    P. Anderson: Considerations on Western Marxism.

    E. Fones-Wolf: Selling Free Enterprise.

    Reply
  17. Rakesh Bhandari

    Kolakowski's economic understanding is more superficial than his philosophical understanding. To deepen one's economic understanding the best place to start is with Howard and King's two-volume history of Marxian Economics, published by Princeton University Press more than 30 years ago. Karl Kühne also wrote a history of Marxian economics. For a more able philosophical analysis of his system, John Torrance's Marx's Theory of Ideas has many interesting insights. A short but interesting books that are philosophically sharp are Daniel Little's Scientific Marx and Derek Sayer's book on Marx's Capital. Both were really conceived in the 70s.

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

    Reply

Designed with WordPress