Why Marx Was Right by Terry Eagleton | Goodreads

Why Marx Was Right by Terry Eagleton | Goodreads




Want to Read

Rate this book
1 of 5 stars2 of 5 stars3 of 5 stars4 of 5 stars5 of 5 stars
Preview

Why Marx Was Right

by
Terry Eagleton
3.90 · Rating details · 2,271 ratings · 203 reviews
In this combative, controversial book, Terry Eagleton takes issue with the prejudice that Marxism is dead and done with. Taking ten of the most common objections to Marxism—that it leads to political tyranny, that it reduces everything to the economic, that it is a form of historical determinism, and so on—he demonstrates in each case what a woeful travesty of Marx's own thought these assumptions are. In a world in which capitalism has been shaken to its roots by some major crises, Why Marx Was Right is as urgent and timely as it is brave and candid. Written with Eagleton's familiar wit, humor, and clarity, it will attract an audience far beyond the confines of academia. (less)

GET A COPY
Kobo
Online Stores ▾
Book Links ▾

Hardcover, 258 pages
Published April 12th 2011 by Yale University Press
Original Title
Why Marx Was Right
ISBN
0300169434 (ISBN13: 9780300169430)
Edition Language
English
Characters
Aristotle, Karl Marx, Che Guevara, Mel Gibson, Donald Trump...more

Other Editions (29)






All Editions | Add a New Edition | Combine...Less Detailedit details





FRIEND REVIEWS
Recommend This Book None of your friends have reviewed this book yet.



READER Q&A
Ask the Goodreads community a question about Why Marx Was Right



Be the first to ask a question about Why Marx Was Right


COMMUNITY REVIEWS
Showing 1-30
3.90 ·
Rating details
· 2,271 ratings · 203 reviews




Filter
|
Sort order

May 14, 2011Martyn rated it it was amazing
Recommends it for: Marxists, Lefties, Anyone who cares
Shelves: five-stars, non-fiction, politics, philosophy, 2011, best-in-show, socialism,marx-and-engels, economics
This is a fabulous book. It’s not an apology for Marxism but rather a reinvigoration of the original philosophy of the man, a philosophy which has been unfairly maligned over the last century due mainly to the twin state-capitalist monstrosities built in its name by Stalin and Mao. There is nothing in Marx’s writing that leads one to think of state terror and closed societies, quite the contrary.

In this book, Eagleton takes a different, commonly held criticism about Marxism for each chapter heading and then explains why this view is misguided or, mostly, false. As usual his writing comes across as fully rounded and inclusive – he never backs away from admitting when the critics may have a point but neither does he shy away from slamming them when their facts are clearly awry. I was impressed at the careful and deliberate way in which the author picks through each explanation, each question that the text raises being fully answered at a later point in the chapter. Terry Eagleton also has a natural humor, which makes some of the more difficult themes seemingly easier to process.

It’s fairly easy for modern Marxists to criticize Stalin’s Russia and Maoist China, as they clearly have more to do with right-wing totalitarianism than they have with true socialism. But what is more difficult for the average Marxist is to have the tools to argue down some of the more shrill criticisms that we have to endure – this book provides a great toolkit and allows the reader to think “No, I’m not abnormal for believing in these ideas”.

It’s clear to me that the reason Marx’s ideas are slammed and ridiculed by the current ruling classes is not because they’re wrong but because the ruling elite, like Terry Eagleton, knows exactly ‘Why Marx Was Right’.
(less)
flag33 likes · Like · comment · see review



Dec 11, 2011Randal Samstag rated it really liked it
Shelves: philosophy, economics
Ever need a handy compendium to use when you were in discussions with tiresome right-wingers about how Marx and Marxism was a “Fatal Conceit” or “The Road to Serfdom”? (The quoted references are, of course, to anti-socialist tracts by F. A. Hayek.) Well, if you live in the United States, there would be plenty of individuals who would so debate you. But then again, probably not so many of you would want to. But, for those who would, Terry Eagleton has provided such a compendium. His new book, Why Marx Was Right, provides thoughtful and often amusing responses to ten common objections to Marx and Marxism. Each chapter addresses one of these claims:

1) Marxism’s time has passed. We are in a post-industrial, classless world now.

2) Marxism may be well in theory, but whenever it has been put into practice, the result has been terror, tyranny, and mass murder.

3) Marxism is a form of determinism. It doesn’t allow for human freedom.

4) Marxism is a dream of utopia. It believes in the possibility of a perfect society. In reality, humans are naturally selfish, aggressive, and competitive.

5) Marxism reduces everything to economics. Marx was simply an inverted image of the capitalist system he opposed.

6) Marx was a materialist. He had no interest in the spiritual aspects of humanity.

7) Marx was tediously obsessed with class. Nothing could be more out-dated.

8) Marxists are advocates of violent political action. They reject a sensible course of moderate reform. The end justifies the means. This is why so many lives were ground out by the communist revolutions of the twentieth century.

9) Marxism believes in an all-powerful state. Liberal democracy may have its faults, but it is much better than being locked up in an psychiatric hospital for daring to criticize an authoritarian government.

10) The most interesting radical movements of the last four decades have grown up outside Marxism. Feminism, environmentalism, gay rights, ethnic politics, the peace movement; all of these have left Marxism behind.

For each of these objections, Eagleton rehearses replies, often with great humor, always with great sympathy for the man, Karl Marx. His method usually includes one or more of the following: 1) Pointing out that the claim is irrelevant to what Marx actually said, 2) Recognizing the truth in the claim and demonstrating how this truth is compatible with what Marx actually said, 3) Pointing out that the negative consequences highlighted in the claim apply often more strongly to capitalism than to socialism, or 4) Pointing out that the claim is untrue.

I won’t try to rehearse his replies to all of these claims but will focus in on two: Claim Number 8 and Claim Number 2.

Claim Number 8 – Marxists are advocates of violence

Eagleton’s full statement of this objection is as follows:

"Marxists are advocates of violent political action. They reject a sensible course of moderate, piecemeal reform and opt instead for the bloodstained chaos of revolution. A small band of insurrectionists will rise up, overthrow the state and impose its will on the majority. This is one of several senses in which Marxism and democracy are at daggers drawn. Because they despise morality as much as mere ideology, Marxists are not especially troubled by the mayhem their politics would unleash on the population. The end justifies the means, however many lives may be lost in the process."

Eagleton’s approach here is first to point out that many reform movements that did not lead to revolution, including the US civil rights movement and liberal reform movements in Latin America during the nineteenth century, in fact involved brutal violence initiated by the government to which the reform movement was opposed. In addition, many actual revolutions, including the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 and the subsequent fall of the Communist state in the Soviet Union 70 years later, were accomplished with little blood being spilled. Of course a bloody civil war followed the Bolshevik revolution, as the new social order came under attack by conservative forces in Russian society, with support from the Western powers. While Eagleton recognizes that Stalin and Mao Zedong were “mass murderers on an almost unimaginable scale” he points out that the severest critics of Stalinism have been Marxists (he is thinking of Trotsky).

A general line of response that Eagleton doesn’t make much of is to consider the death and destruction resulting from NOT having a revolution. This is the tack taken by Barrington Moore in his study of revolutions, Social Origins of Democracy and Dictatorship. Moore’s book studied revolutions: Capitalist revolutions in Britain, France, and the United States; Fascist revolutions in Germany and Japan; and Communist revolutions in China and Russia. Moore compares the death and suffering resulting from the violent modernization instrumented by Mao to the equally destructive suffering that is still going on in India, where a socialist revolution has not (yet) taken place.

Eagleton does mention the destruction of Dresden and Hiroshima (he doesn’t mention the bombing of Tokyo), bloody suppression of colonial uprisings in African and South Asia, and the million deaths in the Great Irish Famine of the 1840s, which he attributes in large measure to the fact that “. . . the British government of the day insisted on observing the laws of the free market in its lamentable relief policy.” He writes that “Marx writes with scarcely suppressed outrage in Capital of the bloody, protracted process by which the English peasantry were driven from the land (during the enclosures of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century). It is this history of violent expropriation which lies beneath the tranquility of the English rural landscape. Compared to this horrendous episode, one which stretched over a lengthy period of time, an event like the Cuban revolution was a tea party.”

A last line of discussion in this chapter is to the effect that Marx himself and many followers were not opposed to peaceful reform in countries like England, Holland, and the United States. Believing, as they did, that the best interests of the majority of the populations of these capitalist societies were not served by the ongoing march of capitalism to mechanization, unemployment, and regular crisis, Marx and Engels supported reform movements and at times allowed that these could lead to a non-violent revolution in the ownership of social production. The owners of these enterprises, however, protected by the state, have had no such intention.

Claim Number 2 – Theory and practice of Marxism

An important element of the argument in favor of capitalism is the claim that it has “delivered the goods”; that it is the most efficient system for generation of the surplus that can make mankind’s life on this planet less harsh. These goods include not just pop tarts and video games, but a heritage of “liberty, democracy, civil rights, feminism, republicanism, scientific progress, and a good deal more.”

Marx, of course, agreed. He “never imagined that socialism could be achieved in impoverished conditions” nor that it could be achieved in isolated. backward countries in the face of imperialist capitalist opposition. And while the communist governments of Eastern Europe managed to provide “cheap housing, fuel, transport and culture, full employments and impressive social services for half the citizens of Europe, as well as an incomparably greater degree of equality and (in the end) material well-being than those nations had previously enjoyed” the “gains of Communism scarcely outweighed the losses. It may be that some kind of dictatorial government was well-nigh inevitable in the atrocious conditions of the early Soviet Union; but this did not have to mean Stalinism, or anything like it. Taken overall, Maoism and Stalinism were botched, bloody experiments which made the very of idea of socialism stink in the nostrils of many of those elsewhere in the world who had most to benefit from it.”

Capitalism has worked to deliver the goods. But to whom, how, and at what cost? It has produced fabulous affluence very unequally divided. While multi-billionaires purchase islands in the Caribbean or (to their taste) mount widespread charitable campaigns, a staggering 2/3 of the world’s population today subsist on less than $2 dollars per day and, even in the richest capitalist country, the United States, immense wealth exists side by side with crushing poverty, made worse by periodic crises and an overarching tendency to unemployment for more and more members of the society. The question is rarely asked why a society that requires charity to feed its poor is justified in calling itself a successful one. Capitalism faces the greatest contradiction today that it, more and more, both does and does not need human beings. While it has delivered the goods outlined above, it has also brought us “a history of slumps, sweatshops, fascism, imperial wars, and Mel Gibson.”(!)

What is worse, the un-checked greed for resources that capitalism celebrates is threatening today to consume the entire planet. Eagleton quotes economist Slavov Zizek to the effect that climate change may be seen as “the greatest market failure in history.”

Eagleton’s closing consideration in this chapter is to try to visualize how the incentive qualities of the market could be combined with democratic control of socialized production. He considers a mixed socialist market economy in which “goods which are of vital concern to the community (food, health, pharmaceuticals, education, transport, energy, subsistence products, financial institutions, the media and the like) need to be brought under democratic public control, since those who run them tend to behave antisocially if they sniff the chance of enlarged profits in doing so. Less socially indispensable goods, however (consumer items, luxury products), could be left to the operations of the market.”

In the end, Eagleton recognizes that this is a work in progress. “Socialists will no doubt continue to argue about the detail of a post-capitalist economy. There is no flawless model currently on offer.”

Conclusion

In his brief concluding remarks he summarizes his arguments. “Marx had a passionate faith in the individual and a deep suspicion of abstract dogma. He had no time for the concept of a perfect society, was wary of the notion of equality, and did not dream of a future in which we would all wear boiler suits with our National Insurance numbers stamped on our backs. It was diversity, not uniformity, that he hoped to see. Nor did he teach that men and women were the helpless playthings of history. He was even more hostile to the state than right-wing conservatives are, and saw socialism as a deepening of democracy, not as an enemy of it. His model of the good life was based on the idea of artistic self-expression. He believed that some revolutions might be peacefully accomplished, and was in no sense opposed to social reform. He did not focus narrowly on the manual working class. Nor did he see society in terms of two starkly polarized classes.”

He ends his book with the question, “Was ever a thinker so travestied?” There are many possible alternate candidates here (Jesus of Nazareth, anyone?) but Eagleton has provided a brisk and convincing argument to for his case for “why Marx was right.” (less)
flag21 likes · Like · 5 comments · see review



Oct 31, 2016David M added it
Thing is, Eagleton tries to have it both ways when he says that the great thing about Marxism, more than any other theoretical system, has been its practical impact on the world and its influence on historical movements, but then goes on to completely disavow the most obvious, prominent case of this; Eagleton claims that what happened in Russia last century actually had nothing to do with Marxism, Stalin wasn't really a Marxist, etc.

In my view, Zizek displays superior intellectual honesty in his strange attempt at a semi-rehabilitation of Stalin. It does no good to try and save your tradition by defining it in such a way to only include the good parts. Zizek is right to see this. However, his claim that Marxism is still worth preserving even though it contains Stalinism seems highly dubious. (less)
flag18 likes · Like · 4 comments · see review



Jan 28, 2017Helen Razer rated it it was amazing
I have no notion why the publisher's sought to sell this perfectly reasonable book as "controversial". It is in no way shocking. It is a measured account of a very good thinker. It does contain some of Eagleton's (chiefly) decent jokes, which I always enjoyed as a student when reading his famous, and useful, companion to literary criticism. Otherwise, nothing outrageous to see here but a great synopsis for the Marxist beginner.
This is a marvellous introduction to Marxist thought. I imagine it would work especially well for those with an interest in moral philosophy and/or literary criticism. If you're approaching Marx from an artsy Western perspective, Terry is your guy. It ain't perfect for those seeking an economic synopsis of MCM and what-have-you. But for them, there's David Harvey.
That there is minimal recourse to quotation and Marxist terminology here was a really good decision, I think. Eagleton lures you into the point where you *get* dialectical materialism, and by the time he mentions that phrase, you don't even mind it's so long. Because it makes perfect sense. Because Marx largely makes perfect sense.
Make the idiot in your life read this today.

(less)
flag17 likes · Like · comment · see review



Nov 12, 2011Carmen rated it it was amazing · review of another edition
Entertaining. Never imagined I'd write that about a text on Marxism, but Eagleton writes with an urbane erudition not to be missed. Not only does he effectively dismantle many popular misconceptions about Marxism, he does so with dry but ultimately sympathetic wit. No angry revolutionary rhetoric but a great deal of wisdom and savvy that convinces the reader of several very important truths. The phrase "socialism or barbarism," is shown to be, despite the mind blowing technological advances capitalism has facilitated(for, he points out, effectively a small percentage of the world's population) the course of the present day world. As markets collapse so do capitalist governments. He shows convincingly that socialism is about freeing man from "labour" so that he may effectively become a more fully realized human being, instead of labouring to make someone else wealthy. Reading this book was not like reading a book on political economy. Reading this book was like listening to your favorite professor discuss his thoughts and ideas with you. He doesn't lecture, he invites the reader to see what he sees. The highest praise I know how to confer on a book is one I will confer on this: I know I will want to read it again. (less)
flag13 likes · Like · 1 comment · see review



Aug 06, 2011Tim Pendry rated it liked it
Shelves: cultural-studies, economics, history, history-of-philosophy, modern-european,nineteenth-century, political-philosophy, pr-propaganda, public-policy, twentieth-century

This is an Apologia for the unwitting founder of the latest but possibly not the last of the great ‘herd’ religions.

The book itself is not a complete failure. If you are studying Marxism, it would be a good text that summarises the best case for it much as one might go to Tertullian or Augustine to get the best case for Early Christianity.

Similarly, no babies should be thrown out with the bathwater of Communist history. Marx can be seen as analyst and as historical fantasist. As analyst, he offered superb insights into the nature of power and the construction of the social that will be timeless.

As historical fantasist, lesser minds than his (amongst which we must include Professor Eagleton) have made a vicious stew that resulted in the ruination of many lives, not least that of the neurotic activists and martyrs of the religion created out of it.

The book puts forward ten propositions against Marx in a series of chapters (and Eagleton does not stint on these) where he attempts with varying success, intelligence and good faith to counter them. The end result is unconvincing.

Not that he does not write well or with logical argument but he constantly confuses categories, seeking to justify the history of Marxism, distance Marx from the history of Marxism and redraft our understanding of what Marx is supposed to have meant at different times and in different places.

Because it is partly polemical, the final result reads like a desperate attempt to wean the Lefties whose progressive god has failed, the one that thought it could ride the capitalist and markets tiger, back into the fold.

To take the religious analogy again, this is a subtle Jesuit trying to bring High Anglicans back home to Rome. But putting all this to one side (and it is noticeable that the one criticism he does not seek to counter is that Marxism is a religion in all but claim), the book is ultimately futile.

Eagleton can argue until he is blue in the face but Marxism is a busted brand at three levels –

- philosophically, it only works as essentialism in a world that is now too intelligent to take essences at face value,

- politically, in the end, no Marxist state can exist until it happens by dint of a history that will not permit consistently Marxist actions and,

- finally, at a human level, Marxists are often quite limited and neurotic people with a limited understanding of other persons and whose authoritarian instincts are only thinly veiled.

Eagleton, though he writes well, cannot help being constantly snarky about individuals – whether Paris Hilton or Mick Jagger – whom he clearly despises with the sort of snobbery that made the Fabians and Raymond Williams so detached from the population they claimed to serve.

He refuses to give respect to popular individual choices that might embrace these icons. He never really deals with sexuality or transgression except in ways that would make me fear a Cromwellian misery in his communitarian paradise.

In the end, all I see is a sour intellectual of a failed political generation filled with resentment that the current crisis is not being interpreted according to a faith dearly holds. He wants everything – to show how superior he is, how he told us so and why his ancient ways are hip.

The desperate attempt to ally Marx to the fashionable political cultures of feminism, anti-colonialism (with some justification in this one case) and environmentalism (pur-leeze!) shows an amazing lack of understanding.

These deeply flawed identity and single issue movements represent the heart of conflict within but not against market capitalism. For this reason alone, the book may be placed in the library for reference but otherwise ignored.

Marx may be studied as an authentic flawed genius with insights that match, say, those of Freud and Nietzsche but Marxism has little to teach us except to avoid intellectuals claiming to have a solution to our problems.

In reality, Marx may have been right about ‘internal contradictions’ in capitalism but the handling of these contradictions will arise from the street and through cultural struggle and not through Marxism.

On the contrary, Marxists are likely to be found up there trying to manage the State against us – that is certainly so across half Europe and in most of our ‘democratic’ centre-left parties where closet Marxists still hold sway.

Eagleton repeatedly suggests that our choice is between ‘socialism and barbarism’ and this is where he frightens me because he places ‘socialism’ on the side of Rome and order against the free creativity of the general population as individuals.

He claims otherwise but he is bluntly not to be trusted in this. In a stark choice between ‘socialism and barbarism’, one is tempted to choose barbarism as the lesser evil.

Social revolution I still welcome (indeed, I think we are in the midst of it), but if you ever see a Marxist trying to take a lead within it, then remove them quickly, by any means necessary. If they do not kill you, they may end up killing your children.
(less)
flag11 likes · Like · comment · see review


Jan 05, 2015Mizuki rated it liked it
Shelves: chinese-translation, non-fiction
3.5 stars. The author shows his knowledge on Marxism and he answers a number of frequently asked questions concerning Marxism in the 21st century societies, he gives out understandable, reasonable explanation as much as he can. However, despite the author's reader-friendly and humorous tone, Marxism is complicated, it's still difficult to understand (you have to have basic knowledge about the topics to understand this book) and sometime the author sounds a bit too smug and sure of himself (I'm not bothered by his tone, but I'm sure some readers would), I have to wonder how many non-Marxists/non-socialists are going to agree Marx was right after they finish this book.

Anyway, Marxism will still be around because capitalism is still alive and kicking and its many failures are still haunting our societies. (less)
flag9 likes · Like · 2 comments · see review