Customer Reviews

Karl Marx: His Life and Environment, Fourth Edition

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Let me say that if you are looking for a biography of Marx's life you had better look elsewhere. There are no long chapters about his school days, his relations with his Sisters, Mother or Father. You will not find detailed references to every argument Marx had or every aspect of his squallid and, at times, extremely personally irresponsible lifestyle. You must look elsewhere for those details.

This book is about ideas and the struggle between ideas. It is about Marx emersed in the ideas of his time and how those ideas shaped his thinking, whether changing his ideas, borrowing or regjecting them outright Berlin has a wonderful, at times unique grasp of the issues and the ideas of the times that Marx lived.

Starting with a broad description of the Rational-Empiricist debate and the Hegelian reaction to empiricism, Berlin describes Marx as a unique German Hybrid of British Empiricism married to a searching German Hegelian spirit, dissatisified with the traditional historical interpertations offered by Hegel and his German offshoots, the Young Hegelians.

Along the way Marx comes across a uniques set of millenarian and social theorists of his time; Proudhom, Bakunin, Engels, Lasalle, Feuerbach and others, whom all, even though perhaps disliking Marx personally, respected his argument style, his learning, and his deep insight into the problems of the time.

I would not classify this as a beginning book on Marx. There is a lot of ground covered here and if one does not have at least a thumbnail sketch understanding of the times, the social and political issues, then there will be a chance that the author will loose some of his readership. Berlin's prose has been described variously as dense and hard to understand. It may be for some readers. But Berlin is not excessively wordy (it is a slender volume), but he does have the ability to cover a lot of ideas and currents in a single sentence. It is this juggling and keeping in mind of a lot of ideas and concepts in a single sentence that may necessitate one to reread certain sentences, or at least know the concepts to which he is referring.

If you do have general outline of the ideas of the age then you will love this book. I sat down thinking that this was my "serious reading." I fully expected it to be a labourious process to get through this book. Instead I was profoundly surprised by the breath and depth Berlin covers in his lucid prose.

I found it hard to put the book down.

There is no analysis of whether Marx was right or wrong. Of how his ideas become to become the bible of the oppressed on the earth or how it eventually was transmogrified in some cases to justify the mass killing of those who stood in the way of historical materialism. This is a book of ideas, and as such the ideas discussed of Marx, his contemporaries, and his intellectual primogeniteurs are a ripping good read.

Isaiah Berlin's biography of Karl Marx is as erudite as it is compelling. Taking one of the more controversial and laborious men of the twentieth century as his subject matter, Berlin weaves the intricate and sometimes confounding thoughts of his subject into a patterned and complex whole.

Karl Marx is treated fairly in this book--neither with sycophantic adulation nor with profound cynicism typical of other treatments of Marx and his philosophy. Perhaps because of the political consequences of Marx's ideas, the negative overview's of his life have emphasized his tempermental side, the irony of being funded by an aristocratic Engels, or the silliness of his labour theory of value premise (shared by David Ricardo). Meanwhile, on the other side, there are writings on the life of Marx that stick to his genius, his profound impact on the world, and further entrench his cult status.

It is this latter part that I found most interesting in Berlin's work--the exploration of Marx's temper tantrums with anyone who should deviate from Marx's conception of how things must be. Proudhon, for instance, is castigated by Marx. So, too, is Feuerbach and the Young Hegelians (Berlin muses about whether or not this has to do with the mighty influence these have had on Marx's own thought and Marx's desire to be seen as a wholly original thinker). Bakunin does not escape public ridicule when they differ on the value of the State as a mechanism to be used by the proletariat. Bakunin, of course, did not believe in hierarchical orderings of any kind--whether in capitalist industry, or in the socialist state--and issued proclamations and gave speeches to that effect, explicitly cautioning people about the possibility of the government violating the freedom it was supposed to secure. Marx was not impressed, and consequently mocked him openly. Engels was perhaps the only man to escape the eventual polemical wrath of Marx, saving himself from such a fate possibly because he simply agreed with whatever Marx said, and indulged him in most everything else.

Still, what comes across most forcefully is the life of a man steeped in ideas, and interested in the fundamental, radical underpinnings of society as a whole. Marx is often enough considered a genius of the highest calibre, with impeccable literary credentials to back it up. It is this attention to minute detail, and his incredible analysis of society (or rather, the historical 'movement', if you will, of human relationships which reciprocally interact with the concrete, material conditions of their existence) that makes this praise seem a bit understated.

This singular fact--Marx as a man of ideas, and the fact of the practical consequences of his ideas--is touched upon in a self-conscious bit of irony by Berlin. For Marx explained that it isn't ideas that do anything, really, but are, instead, the consequences of material conditions, these conditions being fundamental. And yet it was the writings of Marx that sparked several revolutions and formed the primary cause of the one in Russia which stuck around for a while (no one is here implying a monistic view of history... the lessons Marx tried to teach are not entirely lost on me).

What we're left with is an incredibly vivid picture of Marx, the man (not the myth, or the legend; although a little bit of both is tossed in for spice). Berlin does a masterful job, so anyone picking this book up should find it entirely enjoyable.

Like him or not Karl Marx had more impact on the twentieth century than any other thinker in history. He certainly was more important to the twentieth century than to his own nineteenth century. As a result very few people are neutral about Marx. Most of the world either either loves him or hates him.

Isaiah Berlin's 1939 biography of Marx that does a good job in covering the events and people involved in Marx's life, however, the reader must filter out all the anti-communist bias that has been added the text. The bias is unfortunate. This critic feels that Berlin knew better, but the political tenor of Britain and Western Europe in 1939 required hinm to clearly slant his writing in this way.

Because of this slant in the writing the book unintentionally reveals much about British intellectual society in 1939 and the prevailing fear of the Soviet Union which permeated certain sections of the scholastic society in Britain at that time.

As a consequence, the book can not distinguish any of the differences that may have existed between Marx'x theory and the Soviet state of the 1930's.

Isaiah Berlin, in his work "Karl Marx," concentrates on the philosophical development of one of the most influential social thinkers in modern history. Through an examination on Marx's critical analyses of the ideas of his intellectual contemporaries (including Feurbach, Fourier, Saint-Simon, and Proudhon), Berlin explores the many influences that helped shape Marxian thought. Although Marx's immediate successors minimized the impact of Hegel upon Marx's ideas, Berlin maintains that Hegel's influence was essential for the formation of Marx's socio-economic philosophy.

I read this book for a college course and found it very challenging. Often I would have to read over passages several times to even begin to understand the gist of it (and maybe not even then). Of course, the subject matter is very complex. One just beginning to study Marx may want to seek out a more simplified overview of Marxian thought first before tackling this one.

David McLellan's Karl Marx: A Biography is a better standard biography. McLellan had access to much more material about Marx's life than did Berlin and he brings it all together in a satisifying package.

Berlin's book, however, provides a superb discussion of the philosophical background to Marx's work. Because of that Berlin's book is extremely valuable.

Readers of Berlin's book must be aware that his interpretation of Marx's social theory is colored by Berlin's anti-communist beliefs. Although many today reject that a close tie existed between Marx's social theory and the USSR, Berlin assumed that such a link existed when he looked at things in the late 1930s. As a result, a tone of worry and concern suffuses Berlin's discussion of many of Marx's ideas and Berlin tends to paint Marx as more of a potential authoritarian than did later biographers.

Despite that, Berlin's book is well worth a read.

The philosophical side of this book might be a strong support for the idea that philosophy was in bad shape when Nietzsche found it. The political side of the book ought to establish that it was no wonder. Before I bought this book, I had a copy of THE POVERTY OF PHILOSOPHY by Karl Marx, which was written when Nietzsche was quite young. It was an attack on the thoroughly political view of economics which had been adopted by Proudhon. According to Berlin, "Marx was convinced that Proudhon was constitutionally incapable of grasping the truth; that, despite an undoubted gift for telling phrases, he was a fundamentally stupid man; the fact that he was brave and fanatically honest, and attracted a growing body of devoted followers, only made him and his fantasies more dangerous;" (Berlin, p. 87). In a move that is sure to remind historians of how often Communists turned against others who thought that they were on the same side, Marx's book attacked the roots of Proudhon's system in Chapter 2, The Metaphysics of Political Economy, with his usual summary of Hegel. "As to those who are not acquainted with Hegelian language, we would say to them in the sacramental formula, affirmation, negation, and negation of the negation. . . . Instead of the ordinary individual, with his ordinary manner of speaking and thinking, we have nothing but this ordinary manner, pure and simple, minus the individual." (Marx, p. 115).

Berlin is capable of providing summaries of the issues, even admitting that "Marx took immense trouble to demonstrate that Proudhon was totally incapable of abstract thought, a fact which he vainly attempted to conceal by a use of pseudo-Hegelian terminology. Marx accused Proudhon of radically misunderstanding the Hegelian categories by naively interpreting the dialectical conflict as a simple struggle between good and evil, which leads to the fallacy that all that is needed is to remove the evil, and the good will remain. This is the very height of superficiality: to call this or that side of the dialectical conflict good or bad is a sign of unhistorical subjectivism out of place in serious social analysis." (Berlin, pp. 85-86).

The current clash of civilizations might be considered as stupid as anything that Marx analyzed in Proudhon's system, by those who are sure that philosophy is a style adopted by the good side, while anyone who has adopted the politics of mounting destructiveness has all the faults which the free world has always attributed to communism. Plenty of poisons have entered this contest in the last 155 years, since Karl Marx tried to side with the rising class while arguing against their unexamined notions of good and evil, but philosophies have been as powerless on this kind of question as Nietzsche might be considered absurd for attempting to encompass powerful ideas. People who can't relate to this book must lack an appreciation for something that philosophers always wanted, even in the days of the pre-Platonics. It might be considered tough to read, having been revised little since it was Isaiah Berlin's first great book in 1939. I thought it was better than a lot of what I have tried to read about Hegel, and I wasn't trying very hard.

Because of the way my brain is wired, I take a lot more interest in the historical than I do in the philosophical. Even though Marx spent a good chunk of his life sequestered away in the reading room of the London Library, I still find the narrative details of his life fascinating: his banishment from one country to another, his participation in the 1848 revolutions, the numerous petty squabbles he had with other 19th century revolutionaries, his involvement in the politics of the International, and his last great fight against Bakunin.

It's always a struggle to find a good biography that focuses on the historical instead of on the philosophical. And after reading Isaiah Berlin's take on Marx's life, I am beginning to appreciate how good the biography by Francis Wheen was that I read this past summer.

Isaiah Berlin does a good job of summarizing Marx's life in under 300 pages, but most of the book lingers on Marx's philosophical development, with whole long chapters devoted to topics such as "The Young Hegelians" and "Historical Materialism." I would have preferred more emphasis on the narrative sections, but when reading a biography of a philosopher, I suppose it is hard to get away from the philosophy.

One thing Berlin does which I thought was very interesting was that he emphasized the paradoxes in Marx's legend. For example Marx lived during the age of romantic revolutions in which popular revolutionary figures like Herzen, Mazzini, Blanqui, and Lassalle commanded almost religious like followings. Marx spent most of his life in obscurity in the London library, and yet today his name is still known by almost everyone on the planet. Marx's central thesis, that historical material conditions and not ideas influence history, has been undercut by its very success.

Or how the German and Austrian communists, who followed Marx's advice about organizing from the bottom up, were eventually overwhelmed by the fascists, where as the Bolsheviks, who committed the most un-Marxist act of a revolutionary coup, was the first (and for a time the only) successful Marxist revolution.

Bakunin, as seems to be the case with any biography vaguely sympathetic towards Marx, comes off a bit badly here. I suppose that's to be expected. (When I was in my big anarchist phase at College, I used to read biography's about Bakunin in which Marx came off badly.)

There is no denying that Bakunin had his flaws. Anyone who has read any piece of analysis by Bakunin knows he didn't have the brilliance of Marx's pinky. He was a romantic without a clear ideology, and he didn't share Marx's horror for Revolutions that went off half-cocked with no chance of succeeding. And, as every biography of Marx makes clear, he was an anti-Semite.

And yet, he was right (well, not about the anti-Semite part). But history has shown all of Bakunin's criticisms of Marx to be true. And, to his credit, Isaiah Berlin does include some of Bakunin's extended quotations:
"We believe power corrupts those who wield it as much as those who are forced to obey it. Under its influence, some become greedy and ambitious tyrants, exploiting society in their own interest, or in that of their class, while others are turned into abject slaves. Intellectuals, positivists, doctrinaires, all those who put science before life...defend the idea of the state and its authority as being the only possible salvation of society-quite logically, since from their false premises that thought comes before life, that only abstract theory can form the starting-point of social practice...they draw the inevitable conclusion that since such theoretical knowledge is at present possessed by very few, these few must be put in control of social life, not only to inspire, but to direct all popular movements, and that no sooner is the revolution over than a new social organization must be at once be set up; not a free association of popular bodies...working in accordance with the needs and instincts of the people but a centralized dictatorial power concentrated in the hands of this academic minority, as if they really expressed the popular will....The difference between such revolutionary dictatorship and the modern State is only one of external trappings. In substance both are a tyranny of the minority over the majority in the name of the people-in the name of the stupidity of the many and the superior wisdom of the few-and so they are equally reactionary, devising to secure political and economic privilege to the ruling minority, and the...enslavement of the masses, to destroy the present order only to erect their own rigid dictatorship on its ruins."

Berlin gives a surprisingly hostile account of the Paris Commune, which he appears to have based completely off the Bourgesious press. And he also advances the interesting idea that Marx actually opposed the Paris Commune because it was more along the lines of Bakunin's revolutionary ideology, but once it was clear the Commune was going to fall, Marx embraced it for the cynical reasons of the desire to link his name with the most infamous revolution in Europe at the time. Berlin is the first writer I have come across who claims this, and well it certainly is not an impossible conclusion, it would be nice if he gave some more evidence for it.

This is simply the best Marx biography out there bar none. It isn't really in the 'biography' genre because Berlin focusses on Marx's ideas more than on the details of his life. Berlin shines in that he's very familiar with the now rare and unavailable writings of dissident English economists and French and German Socialists that Marx based his thought on, as well as the standard philosophical influences like Hegel. As a philosopher he's able to comprehend Marx and his thought as existing within the philosophic tradition, not somehow disconnected from it, and because of this Berlin is able to give a fresh, relatively unbiased, exposition of Marx himself-no dogma required. Beyond tracing Marx's philosophy the book is great because Berlin has reconstructed a sort of timeline of Marx's life itself, which was full of moves, changes in careers and changes in affiliation with different political groups. Through this, from discussing the intellectual environment Marx grew up in to cataloging the ups and downs of his philosophy, the real Marx comes through. It would be invaluable just for the historical material alone. Marx emerges not as the Soviet Union would want him to be, or as sympathetic hard line Marxists might, but as he really was philosophically and historically for his time. Buy it now!

Rereading the fourth edition of this classic short intellectual biography of Marx, one finds it as interesting as on the first occasion, and the result is a crisp portrait of one of the most misunderstood figures of philosphical history. Marx lived in what was not only a rapidly changing social environment,but one in which the social ideologies of modernity where themselves undergoing shifts of paradigm. From the electric world of the now almost unimaginable period of the Hegelian tide, via Feuerbach and the Left Hegelians, we pass to the age of post-Comptean positivism, and the post-Darwinian world view. This divide is reflected in Marx's philosophic development itself, one of the reasons he is almost never properly understood. Berlin's deft account proceeds through this obscurities with a sure touch.

karl marx is the greatest man that has ever lived in the history.