Customer Reviews

Marxism: Philosophy and economics

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

In the genre of books attempting to put Karl Marx's ideas and personae into context, this is by far the best in the field, leaving runners' up in the field far behind. As most books in this genre are written in unapproachable prose and in the language of arcane terminology, Sowell's book is stunning in it's presentation, lucid in prose, and sublime in characterization. Especially interesting is Sowell's treatment of Marx the man. As the final part of the book, Sowell put's Marx's ideas in context with the man. This is in stark contrast to most of the book's in the field either treating Marx's personal life as that of an uncannonized saint(mostly), or as an unspeakable monster. In pure character of book, one can do no better.

How ironic that Sowell, a famed conservative economist, would have written such a brilliant explanation of Marxism. Sowell clearly and intelligently lays out Marx's ideas while avoiding the 'disciples' of Marx who have misinterpreted him. While Sowell has a scathing critique of Marx's ideas at the end of the book, the bulk of it is written to help make sense of Marx. He is very fair to Marx, in fact I have never been so sympathetic to Marxism as I was after reading this work. Sowell is truly a great scholar.

In the clear prose and incisive thought that marks all of his writings, Thomas Sowell explores a subject thought to be nearly incomprehensible except to a very few in a manner that any intelligent layman can absorb. In it, he describes the man, his life, and his ideas in a manner to make Karl Marx and his ideas understandable to those who might be afraid to tackle the subject otherwise. This book should be the mandatory first read for any person attempting to understand the ideas that made this century.

Anyone who's read Marx firsthand can attest to the challenges he presents in scholar. He can easily seem inconsistent and dogmatic, though he wasn't either; because of his writing style and penchant for epigrams (even at the sake of clarity and accuracy) he is easily one of the most misunderstood philosophers in Western History. The literature on Marx often bears little or no relation to Marxism as espoused by Marx, Lenin being the prime source of these trachts, as well as the prime example. It is by no means an exageration to claim that the secondary literature on Marx is worse than any in the entire Western Philosophical Canon.

Dr. Sowell's acheivement is nothing less than a concise, accesible, and above all accurate explanation of the Marxist system. Criticisms that accuse Dr. Sowell of using complex language criticise him for using philosophical technical terms employed by Marx that are crucial to actually understanding Marx's philosophy. I personally found the reading the easiest of any book presenting a summation of Marxism.

Any criticism of the book should be focused on Sowell's brief critique of Marxism, and then merely for the fact that it includes the real-life results of putative "Marxism" (however divorced those policies may be from Marx's actual philosophy). It also should be noted that Dr. Sowell's doctoral thesis was on Marx and his thought; this is a subject that the author (despite his now-conservative leanings) was deeply enmeshed in during his whole early intellectual career.

All in all, this is the first book I would recommend to anyone interested in learning about Marx. Now if only Dr. Sowell could do the same for Hegel...

This is the most succinct presentation of the ideas of Marx I've ever read. Indeed, Sowell explains Marxism better than Marx ever did. It is very well written and a fair analysis by one of the countries best economists and writers. Sowell, a former Marxist himself, explains the essential Marxian concepts with a balance perspective.

Those people who read this expecting to have Marx bashed or praised will be disappointed. Those wishing to understand Marxism and learn about Marx the man will be very happy with this book.

With the current political climate in the U.S. throwing the word "socialism" in various directions, I decided to brush up on what the term really means. This book is extremely helpful if you want to understand Marxism without having to decipher Marx (extremely difficult without help). Most of the text is quotes from Marx, Engels or others they interact with, followed by direct and clear headed interpretation by the author. This makes for a fairly dry read, and there are not enough every day examples to explain the concepts. But the motivated reader can derive a pretty good understanding, that would not be feasible by going directly to the writings of Marx and Engels. The book is incredibly well documented. 20% of the pages are useful foot notes and references backing up the ocean of quotes being explained throughout the rest of the text.

Simply stated, Marx is very complex. A book like this one is necessary. There are many reasons why Marx is complex, but four really struck me. First, his reasoning is complex, subtle and originally in German causing some translation issues. He simply is not easy to read. He did not write for clarity and in fact designed some of his work to elaborately lay mental traps for his opponents so he could later surprise them with a fatal blow. Definitely not a contemporary approach. Second, he often used epigrams - brief statements meant to emphasize the expression of an idea, almost like proverbs. Unfortunately they accomplish just the opposite by creating confusion in interpretation. Third, and this is huge, Marx redefined most of the terms of economics in his system, literally inviting the fallacy of equivocation for everyone who tries to understand him. Terms like: labor, freedom, economy and value are changed to focus on the human dimension of economics. Labor in Marxism is a nearly sacred aspect of humanity, not to be callously exploited or "alienated" from the worker in Marx terms. (I think he deserves credit for this valuable perspective as long as it considered apart from the rest of the system.) Many of these redefinitions are derived from Marx' adaptation of Hegel's dialectic method (from idealism to materialism) which is explored in depth early in the book. Fourth, Marx added ad-hoc changes to his system as he grew older and anticipated problems in implementation. It basically takes an expert to sift out what is the core system and what is a later adaptation, making overall analysis very difficult, but the author does it clearly as far as I can tell.

There are in depth discussions of Marx value theories and formulas for economies, especially around his surplus value concept (interesting). The author also provides brief but useful personal biographies of Marx and Engels. In short, the author presents them as hypocritical intellectuals who were more isolated from the real world and even other intellectuals than they imagined, especially Marx. Neither consistently practiced in their personal lives what they preached in their writings, quite the opposite in many areas.

In chapter 10 the author lowers the boom, with a stinging critique of Marxism that ties together many threads dealt with pretty objectively in the previous chapters. To summarize, Marxism is an insular system which does not comport with historical evidence. It is naïve because it vastly oversimplifies the worth of entrepreneurship and management skills. Contrary to Marx, labor alone is not the determining factor of economic success, rather it is innovation with proper risk taking. Marx assumed the means of production just came about "somehow" without serious reflection on what that requires. Marxism is also prone to be used (misused?) as a political power grab - usually by privileged intellectuals, or other elitists promising the masses a new order. In fact, they deliver economic misery, usually with brutal oversight, because of their incomplete and misinformed framework. Lenin actually had to fall back on capitalism to resuscitate his failed implementation of Marxism (Lenin's own variation). The author, a noted economist, feels Marxism delivers literally zero to modern economic theory; it is elaborate intellectual propaganda.

One problem I find in the philosophical view of Marxism (or perhaps this books coverage of it), is its conspicuous absence of detailed ethics. Marx' closest approximation to ethics (dealt with briefly by the author) seems close to fatalism - what he calls "historical justification". Basically, whenever it is time for something to happen (e.g. revolution) then it is the right thing to happen. This is mixed with some sort of early form of humanism - more expected since Marx is materialist. But even here there is a narrow focus on the virtues of the labor class (proletariat) over the owning class (bourgeois). Marx wants more humane treatment for the masses (non-exploitation), and that is commendable, but he overlooks broader human vices like greed, lust for power, etc. These are simply ascribed only to those Marx opposes (owners) but not taken seriously within society as a whole, an ad hominem pattern he was famous for.

If you want to read pretty deeply about Marx, without getting the sales pitch in favor of it, this is your book. If you want something light, you can try Marx for Beginners, but it is very superficial. Marx just is not light.

I'm admittedly vehemently anti-communist. Moreover, I've devoted quite a bit of time studying communism, Marxist-Leninist ideology, its history, the murderous history of the Soviet Union and Red China, its influence in America and Europe and how its shaped other ideologies. This book is rather objective for a conservative like Sowell. It makes no presumptions and goes out on a limb to present the Marxist worldview from the Marxist's vantage point.

Marxist writings on economics and history are found on the Internet in public domain archives. Moreover, must are incredibly dry reads written in verbiage that is non-sensical, technical and forceful in its sometimes unsupported assertions. Thus, if you're looking to understand Marxism in précis, I'd recommend this strategy. Get Sowell's book, which outlines the basic tenets of the Marxist Worldview... Get Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of our Time by David Noebel... and get the Communist Manifesto programme.

Sowell's book outlines the Marxist view of history... its spin on the Hegelian dialectical that views class struggle as the driving force of history and the Marxist belief the communism is inevitable. Sowell looks at Marx in the 'pure' Marxist context minus Leninist assumptions... Though, it is readily apparent that following Marx's prescription for change will ultimately led to Soviet-style totalitarianism. Lastly, though some may find the book and indeed the subject boring, Sowell writes lucidly with the implicit purpose of surmising Marxist ideology less the arcane language.

By understanding the Marxist perspective on history - you can see how many communists feel communism didn't die with the Soviet Union, and it is the unknown ideal somehow destined for mankind.

Let me say at the outset of this review that I am a Marxist. I am familiar with many of the primary sources written by Marx as well as most of the secondary literature on Marx and Marxian theory. Thomas Sowell is a prominent advocate of laissez-faire economics, and I believe that it behooves a person to read authors who are critical of the position one takes on important issues. I have been meaning to read Sowell's book on the subject for a while, and I finally got around to doing so.

Sowell's "Marxism" is by far the most frustrating book I have ever read on the subject of Marxian theory. Sowell is a self-described former Marxist, so I was expecting him to have a solid grasp of the basics of Marxian economics and philosophy. In that capacity, I was not disappointed. Sowell is a very good writer, and he explains the subtleties of Marxian dialectics and economics clearly and concisely while avoiding oversimplification. That is no simple feat, and Sowell is to be commended for making such difficult concepts accessible to the layperson.

I do have some minor disagreements with Sowell's take on Marx's definition of surplus labor. According to Sowell, Marx considered labor to be "the source of wealth, and therefore of all non-labor income." (p. 123). That's not entirely accurate. Marx understood the importance of nature and its ability to provide wealth apart from human labor. (" Labor is not the only source of material wealth, i.e. of the use values it produces. As William Petty says, labor is the father of material wealth, the earth is its mother." --Marx, "Capital, Vol. 1") Overall, however, I was impressed with Sowell's grasp of Marxian economics and his take on dialectics and Marx's philosophical materialism.

As I approached the final chapters of Sowell's book, I was expecting him to offer an objective critique of Marxian theory and a rational evaluation of its shortcomings. However, what I got instead was a bizarre, ad hominem rant. In Chapter Nine ("Marx The Man"), the reader is treated to a description of Marx as "spoiled", "sarcastic", egomaniacal, and even "demonic." Sowell goes on to dismiss the University of Jena, the school where Marx earned his doctorate and where great minds such as Hegel, Fichte, and Schelling all taught, as a "diploma mill."

Chapter Ten ("The Legacy of Marxism") is even worse. In this chapter, Sowell tries to implicate Marx for the brutal regimes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. However, there are many problems with this approach. Earlier in the book, Sowell openly admits that Marx warned against the temptation to totalitarianism (p. 52) and supported religious freedom for all. (p. 45) Sowell also states that Marx rejected both "the notion that some human beings [will] mold others by controlling their environment" and the "concept of the state as a `children's home' or of the people as `a crowd of adults whose destiny is to be educated from above'." (p.45)

Regarding the "dictatorship of the proletariat", the very concept so many so-called Marxist regimes used to justify their brutality, Sowell himself states that "Marx and Engels had envisioned a long mass struggle for power, extending over decades, during which the proletariat would acquire the experience and clarity needed to become a politically effective force in a democratic society." (p. 210) This concept flies in the face of the Leninist doctrine of a revolutionary party being led by a tiny elite. Sowell himself states that Lenin "repudiated" Marx's conception of the proletariat's role.

In spite of the clear evidence that Marx opposed totalitarianism, how does Sowell connect the legacy of Marx to the brutal regimes that ruled in his name? According to Sowell, "the inner logic or tendencies of a system of thought must be distinguished from the ad hoc statements or even genuine intentions of its creator." (p. 207)

Oh, really? Why are Darwin and Nietzsche still studied in earnest even though the Nazis used the words of both men to justify Hitler's regime? Have we thrown Rousseau onto the ash bin of history because Robespierre read him? Are we to blame Jesus for the Holocaust and the many pogroms that occurred throughout history because he (supposedly) said "For you (Jews) are the children of your father the devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning"? Is Mohammad to be blamed for 9-11 and the East African slave trade that existed for hundreds of years? In spite of the evidence to the contrary, evidence Sowell readily admits in his book, he insists on blaming Marx for the worst excesses of the 20th Century.

Sowell also rehashes his too familiar "treason of the intellectuals" rant in Chapter Ten, a viewpoint he espouses in many of his later books such as "Conflict of Visions" and "Dismantling America." According to Sowell, Marx's concept of alienation "implies that third-party observers can tell untold millions of their fellow human beings how they should `really' evolve, feel, and act." (p.203)

So what? Martin Luther King, Jr. told his fellow humans how they "should feel" about discrimination. Ayn Rand tells her readers how they "should feel" about altruism. Jesus told his followers how they "should feel" about sin. Andrea Dworkin told people how they "should feel" about pornography. Fred Phelps tells people how they "should feel" about homosexuals. Also, as I'm sure Sowell knows full well, Marx would assert that material conditions must deteriorate to a point where consciousness connects with the daily experiences of working people. It is ineffective to tell working people how "exploited" and "alienated" they are when they feel neither exploited nor alienated. Such an approach is not conducive to revolutionary action. So, in spite of the fact that great leaders and thinkers (Rand and Phelps exempted) frequently tell their fellow humans how they "should feel," why does Sowell select Marx for special opprobrium?

Sowell claims that one of the difficulties in repudiating Marx is in attempting to "refute a sneer". This might be true. Therefore, the fact that Sowell resorts to a lot of his own sneering is rather surprising.

P.S. I would like to add one more observation...

Sowell criticizes the Marxian view of labor, claiming that Marx made too much of labor as an input value. According to Sowell, Marx downplayed non-labor inputs like management and innovation. However, Sowell also states: "[C]apitalists...receive only a small fraction of the total income received by labor; yet no one thinks of calling the economic system 'laborism', even though that is where three-quarters or more of the income goes." (p.195)

Sowell does not bother to offer a source or citation for this "three-quarters or more" assertion, but let's assume for the sake of argument that he is correct. Why does so much income go to labor? Because labor is the PRIMARY creator of wealth. (Marx did NOT believe labor to be the ONLY creator of wealth, as the aforementioned quote from Capital illustrates). Capitalists don't get rich by investing in non-productive, wasteful garbage. They get rich by investing the bulk of their income in forces that add to productivity. The most important element of productivity is human labor.

This is an informative summary of the philosophy of Karl Marx from the perspective of laissez-faire economist and famed conservative Thomas Sowell.

First of all, why should a capitalist even want to study Marx? Like him or not, Marx's ideas are very influential, especially amongst the modern environmentalist movement. For clarification, Marx is more than an economist. In addition to economics, Marx had specific views on history, on culture and on politics.

This book corrects many common misconceptions about Marx. For example, Marx's primary criticism of capitalism is that it would be outproduced by socialist economies in the long run (even though Marx did perceive capitalism to be a necessary precursor to socialism). In other words, Marx did not criticize capitalism since it led to income inequality. Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, Marx did not rely on logical proof to support his philosophy. Being heavily influenced by Hegel, he perceived that the universe was heavily riddled with contradictions and thus thought it to be ultimately futile to support one's claims with facts and reason.

The major downside of this book is that the style of writing is dry and often bombastic. The clarity of writing is also lackluster in comparison to Sowell's discussion on Marx in Sowell's book On Classical Economics, which is definitely clearer, but not as detailed since Marx is not the focus of the book. Nevertheless, although discussing Marxism is not the most exciting topic, Sowell does the best he can with the material he has. Before reading this book, I recommend familiarizing yourself with the philosophy of Hegel, particularly his metaphysics and his dialects. Such familiarity makes Sowell's discussion of Marx's dialectical materialism more comprehensible. In particular, I recommend Stephen Hicks' book Explaining Postmodernism for this task.

Economist and philosopher Thomas Sowell has closed the book on Marxist debate with this tightly reasoned exposition and analysis. However, as Sowell notes in his final chapter (see below), the intellectual aura and moral vision of Karl Marx will not soon fade from the human imagination. That is why this plain spoken book is so important for the future of mankind.

It took Marx thirty years to complete the three volumes of Capital. It took Sowell 25 years and one slender book to refute not only the three volumes, but the entire corpus of Marx and his associate, Frederick Engels. It might come as a surprise to some that Thomas Sowell has a more capacious mind and is a more rigorous analyst than either Marx or Engels. The greatness of Sowell's mind has not been given proper acclaim by modern and postmodern cognoscenti, no doubt because it is essentially conservative in outlook.

The text of this book is only 221 pages. It is built to last; with stitched binding, quality paper, and reader friendly font. This solid, handy book will survive serious study. Sowell's reasoning power ranks as genius, and he has composed a critique that is taut as a drum and worthy of repeated and thoughtful readings. It is not possible in this review to expound on the concepts that are covered by the author, as this would require a lengthy and complex discourse; what is attempted is a distillation of the substance of the book.

The first nine (of ten) chapters explains what Marx "really said" and what he "really meant" as opposed to the accumulated misinterpretations that have passed as faux Marxism since the time of Marx himself. Thus, the concepts of the actual, historical Marx are described, while at the same time the incorrect concepts of the later interpreters are disclosed. This dual system of analysis must be understood by the reader, or confusion can arise as to what Marx did or did not say.

Sowell writes that nowadays it is almost impossible to find any writing about Marx that refers to his actual work. Instead, our learned academics use as references secondary sources that can be traced to tertiary sources, and so on ad infinitum. A good example is the article on Marxism provided Online at Wikipedia. Out of thirty references at the end of the article, only four are attributable to Marx or Engels. The other twenty-six refer to secondary sources. The reliability of secondary sources is often questionable, especially in such hotly debated subjects as Marxism.

If the first nine chapters of "Marxism" are difficult, they are worth working through to get to the tenth and final
chapter; "The Legacy of Marx". At this juncture the "real" Marx has been defined, and Sowell quickly and clearly refutes his core concepts, both as theory and as praxis. Lenin's Russia is described in some detail, as an example of what happens when egalitarianism is forced upon people by a Police State.

Sowell concludes by stating, on p. 221: "The supreme irony of Marxism was that a fundamentally humane and egalitarian creed was so dominated by a bookish perspective that it became blind to facts and deaf to humanity and freedom. Yet the moral vision and the intellectual aura of Marxism continue to disarm critics, quiet doubters, and put opponents on the defensive." "In this context, there are grim implications to Engel's claim that Marx's name and work `will endure through the ages.'"

Sowell's book will also endure through the ages, to counteract the "grim implications" of Marxism.

P.S. After writing this review I discovered that Sowell's book has gone out of print. Why am I not surprised. Sowell did not offer us any Utopian redemption; just a clear look at reality. Sowell's work will fade only from the minds of faddists, faux-Marxists and coffee-house revolutionaries, who have temporarily consigned his critique to the remainder bin. But among serious thinkers the book will live on. There are enough copies in college and public libraries and elsewhere to keep this spark of reason alive and it will surely see the light of print again.