Status
Available
Call number
Genres
Publication
Yale University Press (2012), 272 pages
Description
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.
Media reviews
Eagleton offers bizarre exculpations, as when he avers that the brutal East German police state had excellent child-care facilities. I nearly stopped reading on page 17 when he noted that the internationalist orientation of Marxism is necessary because no country acting alone could “abolish
Show More
scarcity.” Such a statement indicates either that Eagleton does not know what “scarcity” means or that he does not know what “abolish” means. The former, I suspect.
It is perplexing to find such glaring weaknesses of argument issue from the pen of an august figure like Terry Eagleton. Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member Carlie
Marx may not have gotten everything right, but in this slim book Eagleton makes the case that most of Marx’s ideas were correct by examining ten of the most common objections to Marxism. Each chapter is framed with an objection and a counter-argument that attempt to illuminate Marx’s lasting
The highlight of the book was chapter six in which Eagleton explains Marx’s writings on humans as social beings and our relationship to materialism and spiritualism. For the most part, this book was under-cooked. While I am not in academe, I do have an educational background in social theory and Marxism. I followed along as well as I could, but Eagleton is writing to a class more intensely familiar to the subject matter in their daily lives. A bit more relevant examples would have greatly elucidated the weighty ideas and made for more stimulating reading.
Show More
thoughts and ideas as they pertain to the world today. The highlight of the book was chapter six in which Eagleton explains Marx’s writings on humans as social beings and our relationship to materialism and spiritualism. For the most part, this book was under-cooked. While I am not in academe, I do have an educational background in social theory and Marxism. I followed along as well as I could, but Eagleton is writing to a class more intensely familiar to the subject matter in their daily lives. A bit more relevant examples would have greatly elucidated the weighty ideas and made for more stimulating reading.
Show Less
LibraryThing member BenTreat
This book would be most useful for someone who has not studied Marx, but who has a passing familiarity with political theory and wants to learn more about Marx. This would, for instance, be useful to someone who senses that popular criticisms of Marxism are "old chestnuts" and not a fair deal. That
Show More
said, no-one who has read Marx or secondary critiques of Marx will find anything new here. Jonathan Wolff's "Why Read Marx Today?" was a more compelling book for someone new to Marx, I think. Show Less
LibraryThing member chaosmogony
An excellent defense of Marxist thought and its relevance in the modern world.
LibraryThing member orkydd
A finer re-introduction to the concepts of Marxism, and a ready reference for explaining common misconceptions about Marx's theories.
It is a complex argument, and requires careful reading, but Eagletons tone is witty and clear.
It is a complex argument, and requires careful reading, but Eagletons tone is witty and clear.
LibraryThing member 4bonasa
In a word Marx is wrong. He and the author fall into the same trap, they blame capitalism for all the ills in the world. When capitalism is nothing more than an economic system base on private property and the individual that efficiently produces goods and services the market demands. Governments,
Marx also errors when he envisions 'democracy' in the hands of the workers managing the means of production. An 18th century politician postulated that democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority, any smoker who's the target of an Initiative, Referendum or constitutional amendment knows of what I speak.
Marx's greatest failure is to understand what the 'means of production' is. It is not the factories and mines, farms etc., but capital in the form of currency (a unit of value). What good is it for the 'workers' to own a factory that manufactures typewriters for instance? What workers need are the means to accumulate capital from the value of their labor. Marx's failure to understand capital, how it is produced, moves and is consumed invalidates his arguments.
Mr. Eagleton tome is bereft, as is Marx, of any logic. He makes unsubstantiated claims, provides no empirical evidence to support his hypothesis and his use of ad hominem attacks are undeserving of the educated. Mr. Eagleton fails to prove his contention.
Read the book, but don't let the title mislead you.
Show More
political systems, control how the goods and services are used. Capitalism will efficiently produce plough shears or nuclear weapons. You decide.Marx also errors when he envisions 'democracy' in the hands of the workers managing the means of production. An 18th century politician postulated that democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority, any smoker who's the target of an Initiative, Referendum or constitutional amendment knows of what I speak.
Marx's greatest failure is to understand what the 'means of production' is. It is not the factories and mines, farms etc., but capital in the form of currency (a unit of value). What good is it for the 'workers' to own a factory that manufactures typewriters for instance? What workers need are the means to accumulate capital from the value of their labor. Marx's failure to understand capital, how it is produced, moves and is consumed invalidates his arguments.
Mr. Eagleton tome is bereft, as is Marx, of any logic. He makes unsubstantiated claims, provides no empirical evidence to support his hypothesis and his use of ad hominem attacks are undeserving of the educated. Mr. Eagleton fails to prove his contention.
Read the book, but don't let the title mislead you.
Show Less
LibraryThing member thorold
Useful overview of the main criticisms of Marxist ideas, with Eagleton's take on why Marx still has something to tell us in the 21st century. Some of the arguments are more convincing than others: there seems to be a general progression from "He never said X" via "He did say X, but on another
Show More
occasion he also said Y" to "He may have said X, but we have to understand Y". Sometimes the literary critic is every bit as slippery as the barrister. Even if one doesn't agree with everything in the book, Eagleton's touch is light enough to make the game amusing for the reader, and it is good to get the occasional reminder that we shouldn't take the "victory of capital" for granted. Show Less
LibraryThing member ThomasK
The topic might be highly interesting, if not fascinating. But in his dull writing style the author does not appear to come to a single meaningful conclusion. A missed opportunity.
LibraryThing member steve02476
Not terribly convincing. Eagleton is a good enough writer, I bet he’s better with other subjects. One major problem is that it’s unclear if he’s defending Marx or Marxism, and either way the subject matter is so wide and such a hodgepodge that it’s not at all clear to me that there’s a
Show More
single underlying essence that can be defined and then defended. So he hops all around tons of different topics, lists what he says the critics say, and then defends. At least it was fairly short... Show Less
LibraryThing member ASKelmore
Best for:
People who are already VERY familiar with Marx’s work and are looking for an outside opinion on how to defend different aspects of it.
In a nutshell:
Author Eagleton looks at what he believes are common arguments uses against Marxism and refutes them.
Worth quoting:
“Only through others
Why I chose it:
I thought it would be an interesting and easier to read way to learn more about Marx’s thoughts and writing. (Spoiler alert: it wasn’t, at least not for me.)
What it left me feeling:
Skeptical
Review:
I might have been led slightly astray by the pull quotes from reviews on the cover of the copy I purchased. ‘Irresistibly Lively and Thought-Provoking.’ ‘Short, Witty, and Highly Accessible.’ I think this is probably true (except the short part - a 250 page book is not short. It’s not long, but it’s not short), but the caveat should be on there somewhere that those only apply to readers who are already very well acquainted with the writing, theory, and discussion of Marx and Marxism. This is not a book where one LEARNS about Marxism. This is a book where one thinks more about it in relation to other areas of thought.
It is an easy read, in that the author is a decent writer. However, after reading the first half of the book very carefully, I ended up just skimming the latter half because I knew what was coming, and I knew it wasn’t going to be what I was looking for. Each chapter starts with what I think is a flaw in the set-up of the book: instead of pulling real quotes at the start to highlight the arguments opposing Marxism that he’s about to refute, he just has a sort of paragraph where he paraphrases the complaints. I think I get why he made that choice, but it doesn’t work nearly as well as real-world examples. It leaves Eagleton too open to complaints of strawmen.
In the chapters I read closely, a lot of Eagleton’s arguments seemed to boil down to this: Capitalists might make a claim about Marxism, but even if the claim is true, it’s also probably true of Capitalism. Or, because Marx (notoriously) doesn’t really talk about the details of what his version of society would look like, it’s easy to impose outside opinions on it in a negative way, and that’s not fair.
But here’s the thing - these arguments all sounds fine to me, but I don’t know enough about Marx to know if Eagleton’s commentary is accurate. Now, this is going to be an issue with pretty much all non-fiction books, right? We rely on the author to be something of an expert in their field, to have thought through and researched. When I read a Mary Roach book, I don’t just accept everything at face value, but generally I assume that her interpretation of the facts is generally accurate.
But with things like political philosophy, for me it gets much murkier. What values is the author bringing into the discussion? Are they the same as my values? What have they chosen to leave out that would change the entire discussion? Without some of my own first-hand reading of the text, this type of book isn’t really going to work. When I was in grad school for philosophy, yes, I definitely needed to read articles by contemporary writers that discussed Aristotle, but I also needed to read Aristotle myself, so I could come into the discussions with some first-hand understanding. And I think that in the same way, before I (or others) read works like this, we need to read the original arguments first.
Now, is that the author’s fault? Probably not, and that’s why this is a three star and not a two star rating for me.
Recommend to a Friend / Keep / Donate it / Toss it:
Keep and maybe revisit late
People who are already VERY familiar with Marx’s work and are looking for an outside opinion on how to defend different aspects of it.
In a nutshell:
Author Eagleton looks at what he believes are common arguments uses against Marxism and refutes them.
Worth quoting:
“Only through others
Show More
can we come into our own.”Why I chose it:
I thought it would be an interesting and easier to read way to learn more about Marx’s thoughts and writing. (Spoiler alert: it wasn’t, at least not for me.)
What it left me feeling:
Skeptical
Review:
I might have been led slightly astray by the pull quotes from reviews on the cover of the copy I purchased. ‘Irresistibly Lively and Thought-Provoking.’ ‘Short, Witty, and Highly Accessible.’ I think this is probably true (except the short part - a 250 page book is not short. It’s not long, but it’s not short), but the caveat should be on there somewhere that those only apply to readers who are already very well acquainted with the writing, theory, and discussion of Marx and Marxism. This is not a book where one LEARNS about Marxism. This is a book where one thinks more about it in relation to other areas of thought.
It is an easy read, in that the author is a decent writer. However, after reading the first half of the book very carefully, I ended up just skimming the latter half because I knew what was coming, and I knew it wasn’t going to be what I was looking for. Each chapter starts with what I think is a flaw in the set-up of the book: instead of pulling real quotes at the start to highlight the arguments opposing Marxism that he’s about to refute, he just has a sort of paragraph where he paraphrases the complaints. I think I get why he made that choice, but it doesn’t work nearly as well as real-world examples. It leaves Eagleton too open to complaints of strawmen.
In the chapters I read closely, a lot of Eagleton’s arguments seemed to boil down to this: Capitalists might make a claim about Marxism, but even if the claim is true, it’s also probably true of Capitalism. Or, because Marx (notoriously) doesn’t really talk about the details of what his version of society would look like, it’s easy to impose outside opinions on it in a negative way, and that’s not fair.
But here’s the thing - these arguments all sounds fine to me, but I don’t know enough about Marx to know if Eagleton’s commentary is accurate. Now, this is going to be an issue with pretty much all non-fiction books, right? We rely on the author to be something of an expert in their field, to have thought through and researched. When I read a Mary Roach book, I don’t just accept everything at face value, but generally I assume that her interpretation of the facts is generally accurate.
But with things like political philosophy, for me it gets much murkier. What values is the author bringing into the discussion? Are they the same as my values? What have they chosen to leave out that would change the entire discussion? Without some of my own first-hand reading of the text, this type of book isn’t really going to work. When I was in grad school for philosophy, yes, I definitely needed to read articles by contemporary writers that discussed Aristotle, but I also needed to read Aristotle myself, so I could come into the discussions with some first-hand understanding. And I think that in the same way, before I (or others) read works like this, we need to read the original arguments first.
Now, is that the author’s fault? Probably not, and that’s why this is a three star and not a two star rating for me.
Recommend to a Friend / Keep / Donate it / Toss it:
Keep and maybe revisit late
Show Less
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
2011
Physical description
8.5 inches
ISBN
0300181531 / 9780300181531