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.
Why Marx Was Right
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Editorial Reviews
Review
"Reading a book by Terry Eagleton is like watching fireworks. . . . The list of Marxism's shortcomings is common coinage, and Eagleton offers convincing counterarguments."—Dennis O'Brien, Christian Century
(Dennis O'Brien The Christian Century )"A lively defense. . . . Eagleton offers a richer, more complex and nuanced picture of the father of modern socialism. . . . Throughout, the author is witty, entertaining, and incisive."—Publishers Weekly
(Publishers Weekly )"Professor Eagleton covers the spectrum of critiques of Marxian ideas like only an actual critic of Marx could. As such, most of the rebuttals to these critiques are well contrived and incredibly sharp."—Greg Linster, Bookslut
(Greg Linster Bookslut )
About the Author
Terry Eagleton is currently Distinguished Professor of English Literature at the University of Lancaster, England, and Professor of Cultural Theory at the National University of Ireland, Galway. He lives in Dublin.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
23 of 24 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
"I am out to present Marx's ideas as not perfect but plausible": this caution opens ten chapters which refute standard criticisms. Eagleton reminds us how Marx celebrated as well as condemned what capitalism had achieved to unleash its energies on the modern world: "the system breeds freedom as well as barbarism, emancipation along with enslavement. Capitalist society generates enormous wealth, but in a way that cannot help putting it beyond the reach of most citizens. Even so, that wealth can always be brought within reach. It can be disentangled from the acquisitive, individualist forms which bred it, invested in the community as a whole, and used to keep disagreeable work to the minimum. It can thus release men and women from the chains of economic necessity into a life where they are free to realize their creative potential. This is Marx's vision of communism." (59)
As this excerpt demonstrates, it will not convert the skeptics and it will not overturn the empire. It posits a humanist Marx devotedly, and how this vision would be realized may be as much a question for seminars as Christianity is in seminaries. How this lofty aspiration relates to our everyday world needs explanation, and Eagleton for an open-minded reader may provoke more than soothe, as he sets out I suspect to do. My review comes from neutral territory if any still exists for a reader approaching Marx. I am not a political insider, a trained economist, or a tenured radical, so my interest in this comes from a layman's need for an accessible, cogent interpretation. Eagleton's coming to Marx from lit-crit and not poli-sci: this needs emphasis, given some hasty generalizations, logical weaknesses, and underdeveloped sections of what attempts to be a précis. Still, after exposure to Eagleton in grad school (his "Literary Theory" must bring in plenty of royalties as the standard text), I figured I'd give this little book a try, given current events.
I will review its ten chapters briefly. It elaborates what the extreme compression of his 1999 Routledge booklet in the Great Philosophies series, "Marx," could not (see my June 2012 review). Eagleton conveys his material with characteristic wit, odd images and tangents against such surprising targets as Keith Richards, Mel Gibson, and (repeatedly) Prince Andrew. These enliven what can admittedly be slow going, even in a version of Marx for the distracted masses. Eagleton starts this 2011 account with a typical nod: "You can tell that the capitalist system is in trouble when people start talking about capitalism." (xi)
Here's my summary: I am paraphrasing Eagleton. Eagleton asserts Marx's valid critique against this system attests to its relevance, even when its rival replaced it. We need a democratic, socialist, non-coercive alternative to it, for without a more humane, self-governing and cooperative market or economic model, we face only barbarism. Chapter Two extends the "underlying logic" of Marxist thought. It offers us a counterforce to the material advances capitalism affords us so unevenly, rewarding a few, tempting the rest, and denying many billions their more than fair share of the profits which the proletariat--however broadly defined despite stereotypes; the word comes from the Roman women producing their only contribution to the workforce, raw labor as offspring--contributes to our globalized and relentlessly competitive demand.
The Soviet revolution was a "tragic irony," for "socialism proved least possible where it was most necessary." (20) Instead of cruel party control, Eagleton searches in Marx to articulate a more humane, localized balance to top-down imposition, although he wanders around to try to explain how centralized direction is also necessary for the decentralized, competing markets to function with enough resources. This was the fate of the communist regime in Russia: it lacked the resources that the capitalists held and would not surrender; it forced the USSR into an arms race that crippled its own nation's development and without all the world on an internationalist, leveled playing field, no socialist reform could ever occur as long as resources were not available to new systems fairly. This may sound like special pleading to opponents, but Eagleton tries to argue his case patiently. He loses track now and then, as he shifts away from markets to directed control as another, if vague, solution.
He's on surer ground back in his version of how Marx used capitalism, as cited in my opening paragraph from Chapter Three. This refutes the deterministic element in Marx, with mixed success. Same with the next chapter, the longest, as it tries to express a philosophical anthropology of an ethics of love grounded in individual freedom as a realizable ideal, not an impossible utopia. Eagleton cites the Manifesto: "The free development of each becomes the condition for the free development of all." (86) He seems to accept this only to claim on the next page it's a goal that never can be fully attained. It's a direction to aim at, not a "tangible" entity any more than the total triumph of a free market. This may dishearten radicals but please those less fanatical: Eagleton settles in this account refreshingly for compromise, rather than force theories down the throats of imperfect humans like us.
Profits shared, egalitarian governance, cooperatives in common: this structure does not demand "a race of Cordelias," only the best way to further the most people's well-being, and as with capitalism, shirkers, thieves, and slackers will remain, as with road accidents and I suppose the common cold. This part of the book felt to me weaker, and the practicality of this proposal receded despite Eagleton's fervor. I suspect that economics challenges him more than the philosophical side of Marx. Eagleton seeks fewer vices, not a perfect vacuum where human emotions and tensions evaporate. Marx for him's a "visionary" and a "sober realist," a rare combination of humanist and theorist.
In the fifth chapter, "praxis" as "production" giving liberated people a chance to connect with their livelihood and share its rewards would bestow more possibility than capitalism, where the "meaning of my work is determined by the institution" (89) despite our delusions that we advance the common good rather than the gains going far more than us to feral stockholders of rapacious multinationals. "The most compelling confirmation of Marx's theory of history is late capitalism." (115) It shows us how corporate commodification of all we see, do, and dream is far more reductionist than Marxism.
Materialism is the "theory of how historical animals function," rooted in our bodies and not our thoughts. This may sound crude, but Eagleton shows next how what we think and dream emerges from our state as agents, acting on our motivations as beings and not as spirits. I left this curious about how religion and spirituality fit or did not fit, as Eagleton's recent work has addressed the state of Christianity as well as Marxism as to flaws and strengths. For Christianity, to my disappointment, as well as any cultural phenomenon addressing the less tangible, he does not do so sufficiently here.
Chapter Seven follows with a definition of class as a "capacity to deploy one's power over others to one's own advantage," (171). Eagleton shows how few of us possess much status in the knowledge or post-industrial economies as these undergo managerial control and technological efficiency, linked to increasing surveillance over activities on and off the job. Like the industrial models already shifting into service and clerical work a century ago, the new systems extend power of the few over the many.
Chapter Eight notes how few rebel against this. When "scraps and leavings" are tossed by those in control down to the rest, the rest unless very desperate will tend to wait and keep low, rather than revolting. Violence is part of the capitalist system, which has had centuries to inflict what Mao, Stalin, and despots have in decades as to death tolls and live suffering. Without a humane socialist alternative, barbarism may be the only option if capitalism, as we see lately, totters. Eagleton assumes no other choice awaits us. His own critics may differ, arguing for social welfare as many nations did.
"The liberal state is neutral between capitalism and its critics until the critics look like they're winning." (197) Certainly events around the time this book appeared in late 2011 prove that correct. Eagleton dispels "dictatorship" as a bad word, tracing it to an "extralegal breach of a political constitution," (204) which may or may not clarify this as used in Marx's time. He needed to explain this better. Eagleton translates the feared term as "popular democracy" with "rule by the majority."
The majority today may be more diverse in terms of inclusions since Marx: the closing chapter examines him in light of his detractors from feminism, post-colonial, and environmental movements. Marx cannot be blamed for all those coming after him have accused him of, Eagleton avers, and he cleverly here manages to deflect many attacks by later theorists and global activists, even if these ripostes may not convince all his critics. He makes a valiant attempt to link materialism to stewardship of nature and not its exploitation as grounded in Marx's writings, no small feat.
The book closes with two eloquent paragraphs continuing this revision of the thoughts and theories of a man who was a "firm apologist" for--and a "ferocious antagonist" of--liberalism and the Enlightenment's campaign to free men and women from their self-imposed and socially constrained shackles. Read more ›
As this excerpt demonstrates, it will not convert the skeptics and it will not overturn the empire. It posits a humanist Marx devotedly, and how this vision would be realized may be as much a question for seminars as Christianity is in seminaries. How this lofty aspiration relates to our everyday world needs explanation, and Eagleton for an open-minded reader may provoke more than soothe, as he sets out I suspect to do. My review comes from neutral territory if any still exists for a reader approaching Marx. I am not a political insider, a trained economist, or a tenured radical, so my interest in this comes from a layman's need for an accessible, cogent interpretation. Eagleton's coming to Marx from lit-crit and not poli-sci: this needs emphasis, given some hasty generalizations, logical weaknesses, and underdeveloped sections of what attempts to be a précis. Still, after exposure to Eagleton in grad school (his "Literary Theory" must bring in plenty of royalties as the standard text), I figured I'd give this little book a try, given current events.
I will review its ten chapters briefly. It elaborates what the extreme compression of his 1999 Routledge booklet in the Great Philosophies series, "Marx," could not (see my June 2012 review). Eagleton conveys his material with characteristic wit, odd images and tangents against such surprising targets as Keith Richards, Mel Gibson, and (repeatedly) Prince Andrew. These enliven what can admittedly be slow going, even in a version of Marx for the distracted masses. Eagleton starts this 2011 account with a typical nod: "You can tell that the capitalist system is in trouble when people start talking about capitalism." (xi)
Here's my summary: I am paraphrasing Eagleton. Eagleton asserts Marx's valid critique against this system attests to its relevance, even when its rival replaced it. We need a democratic, socialist, non-coercive alternative to it, for without a more humane, self-governing and cooperative market or economic model, we face only barbarism. Chapter Two extends the "underlying logic" of Marxist thought. It offers us a counterforce to the material advances capitalism affords us so unevenly, rewarding a few, tempting the rest, and denying many billions their more than fair share of the profits which the proletariat--however broadly defined despite stereotypes; the word comes from the Roman women producing their only contribution to the workforce, raw labor as offspring--contributes to our globalized and relentlessly competitive demand.
The Soviet revolution was a "tragic irony," for "socialism proved least possible where it was most necessary." (20) Instead of cruel party control, Eagleton searches in Marx to articulate a more humane, localized balance to top-down imposition, although he wanders around to try to explain how centralized direction is also necessary for the decentralized, competing markets to function with enough resources. This was the fate of the communist regime in Russia: it lacked the resources that the capitalists held and would not surrender; it forced the USSR into an arms race that crippled its own nation's development and without all the world on an internationalist, leveled playing field, no socialist reform could ever occur as long as resources were not available to new systems fairly. This may sound like special pleading to opponents, but Eagleton tries to argue his case patiently. He loses track now and then, as he shifts away from markets to directed control as another, if vague, solution.
He's on surer ground back in his version of how Marx used capitalism, as cited in my opening paragraph from Chapter Three. This refutes the deterministic element in Marx, with mixed success. Same with the next chapter, the longest, as it tries to express a philosophical anthropology of an ethics of love grounded in individual freedom as a realizable ideal, not an impossible utopia. Eagleton cites the Manifesto: "The free development of each becomes the condition for the free development of all." (86) He seems to accept this only to claim on the next page it's a goal that never can be fully attained. It's a direction to aim at, not a "tangible" entity any more than the total triumph of a free market. This may dishearten radicals but please those less fanatical: Eagleton settles in this account refreshingly for compromise, rather than force theories down the throats of imperfect humans like us.
Profits shared, egalitarian governance, cooperatives in common: this structure does not demand "a race of Cordelias," only the best way to further the most people's well-being, and as with capitalism, shirkers, thieves, and slackers will remain, as with road accidents and I suppose the common cold. This part of the book felt to me weaker, and the practicality of this proposal receded despite Eagleton's fervor. I suspect that economics challenges him more than the philosophical side of Marx. Eagleton seeks fewer vices, not a perfect vacuum where human emotions and tensions evaporate. Marx for him's a "visionary" and a "sober realist," a rare combination of humanist and theorist.
In the fifth chapter, "praxis" as "production" giving liberated people a chance to connect with their livelihood and share its rewards would bestow more possibility than capitalism, where the "meaning of my work is determined by the institution" (89) despite our delusions that we advance the common good rather than the gains going far more than us to feral stockholders of rapacious multinationals. "The most compelling confirmation of Marx's theory of history is late capitalism." (115) It shows us how corporate commodification of all we see, do, and dream is far more reductionist than Marxism.
Materialism is the "theory of how historical animals function," rooted in our bodies and not our thoughts. This may sound crude, but Eagleton shows next how what we think and dream emerges from our state as agents, acting on our motivations as beings and not as spirits. I left this curious about how religion and spirituality fit or did not fit, as Eagleton's recent work has addressed the state of Christianity as well as Marxism as to flaws and strengths. For Christianity, to my disappointment, as well as any cultural phenomenon addressing the less tangible, he does not do so sufficiently here.
Chapter Seven follows with a definition of class as a "capacity to deploy one's power over others to one's own advantage," (171). Eagleton shows how few of us possess much status in the knowledge or post-industrial economies as these undergo managerial control and technological efficiency, linked to increasing surveillance over activities on and off the job. Like the industrial models already shifting into service and clerical work a century ago, the new systems extend power of the few over the many.
Chapter Eight notes how few rebel against this. When "scraps and leavings" are tossed by those in control down to the rest, the rest unless very desperate will tend to wait and keep low, rather than revolting. Violence is part of the capitalist system, which has had centuries to inflict what Mao, Stalin, and despots have in decades as to death tolls and live suffering. Without a humane socialist alternative, barbarism may be the only option if capitalism, as we see lately, totters. Eagleton assumes no other choice awaits us. His own critics may differ, arguing for social welfare as many nations did.
"The liberal state is neutral between capitalism and its critics until the critics look like they're winning." (197) Certainly events around the time this book appeared in late 2011 prove that correct. Eagleton dispels "dictatorship" as a bad word, tracing it to an "extralegal breach of a political constitution," (204) which may or may not clarify this as used in Marx's time. He needed to explain this better. Eagleton translates the feared term as "popular democracy" with "rule by the majority."
The majority today may be more diverse in terms of inclusions since Marx: the closing chapter examines him in light of his detractors from feminism, post-colonial, and environmental movements. Marx cannot be blamed for all those coming after him have accused him of, Eagleton avers, and he cleverly here manages to deflect many attacks by later theorists and global activists, even if these ripostes may not convince all his critics. He makes a valiant attempt to link materialism to stewardship of nature and not its exploitation as grounded in Marx's writings, no small feat.
The book closes with two eloquent paragraphs continuing this revision of the thoughts and theories of a man who was a "firm apologist" for--and a "ferocious antagonist" of--liberalism and the Enlightenment's campaign to free men and women from their self-imposed and socially constrained shackles. Read more ›
10 of 10 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
Now in its fifth year, with no end in sight, the current capitalist crisis will undoubtedly renew interest in capitalism's greatest critic. Yet, as Eagleton asks, "was ever a thinker so travestied?" Marx's thought is now so buried beneath layers of distortion that the very thought of Marx leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many left-liberals, who as a result can see no further than social democracy. It is this sad state of affairs that Eagleton seeks to remedy, by addressing ten common liberal misconceptions about Marx and socialism more generally.
Thus, while the book is entitled 'Why Marx was right', a better title would be 'Why Marx wasn't wrong', since Eagleton is squarely on the defensive in each chapter. This is a little disappointing, as the current economic crisis makes a positive case for Marx's analysis easier than ever. Yet Eagleton does not really discuss Marx's 'Capital' and his analysis of capitalism in any depth, meaning that the reader will not be given much of an introduction to Marxist thought at all. Instead, Eagleton is more interested in extricating Marx from the disasters of Stalinism and Maoism, and from the conception that Marxism is hopelessly utopian, teleological, anti-humanist, economically determinate, and violently insurrectionary. This type of defense constitutes chapters 2-6 and 8-9, and Eagleton acquits himself ably in the role of defense attorney.
The other major theme of the book (Ch. 1,7,10) consists of Eagleton arguing for the continued relevance of Marx today. Here, Eagleton argues at length for the obvious fact that class is more relevant than ever, despite capitalism's ability to obscure this fact. In the final chapter, Eagleton examines the conflicted relation between Marxism and feminism, environmentalism, and postcolonialism, arguing for their reconciliation, amidst the failure of postmodernism. One key omission in this chapter is any discussion of Marxism's relation to anarchism, the dominant trend in today's Left resurgence. But then again, this book is aimed at (middle-class) liberals (edit: obviously I use the term liberal in the American sense of left-liberal; but I should note that this book is very British, and at times annoyingly so).
All said, it's a reasonably strong defense of Marx in the face of the ignorant criticism. Perhaps after reading this, liberals will be encouraged to read Marx's writing on capitalism, to discover exactly how 'Marx was Right'.
Thus, while the book is entitled 'Why Marx was right', a better title would be 'Why Marx wasn't wrong', since Eagleton is squarely on the defensive in each chapter. This is a little disappointing, as the current economic crisis makes a positive case for Marx's analysis easier than ever. Yet Eagleton does not really discuss Marx's 'Capital' and his analysis of capitalism in any depth, meaning that the reader will not be given much of an introduction to Marxist thought at all. Instead, Eagleton is more interested in extricating Marx from the disasters of Stalinism and Maoism, and from the conception that Marxism is hopelessly utopian, teleological, anti-humanist, economically determinate, and violently insurrectionary. This type of defense constitutes chapters 2-6 and 8-9, and Eagleton acquits himself ably in the role of defense attorney.
The other major theme of the book (Ch. 1,7,10) consists of Eagleton arguing for the continued relevance of Marx today. Here, Eagleton argues at length for the obvious fact that class is more relevant than ever, despite capitalism's ability to obscure this fact. In the final chapter, Eagleton examines the conflicted relation between Marxism and feminism, environmentalism, and postcolonialism, arguing for their reconciliation, amidst the failure of postmodernism. One key omission in this chapter is any discussion of Marxism's relation to anarchism, the dominant trend in today's Left resurgence. But then again, this book is aimed at (middle-class) liberals (edit: obviously I use the term liberal in the American sense of left-liberal; but I should note that this book is very British, and at times annoyingly so).
All said, it's a reasonably strong defense of Marx in the face of the ignorant criticism. Perhaps after reading this, liberals will be encouraged to read Marx's writing on capitalism, to discover exactly how 'Marx was Right'.
157 of 203 people found the following review helpful
By Gunlover
Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase
Terry Eagleton's "Why Marx Was Right" is a wonderfully written and accessible introduction to the thought of Karl Marx. It is fashionable to dismiss Marxism as "outdated" or "irrelevant" as it pertains to contemporary economic and political problems. Eagleton provides a much needed correction to this ignorant viewpoint.
Eagleton takes the many objections voiced by the enemies of Marxism (e.g. Marxism is "great in theory" but only leads to bloodshed; Marxism is utopian; Marxism reduces everything to economics; Marxism is deterministic, etc.) and demolishes them one by one. Here is Eagleton's take on those who hypocritically condemn Marxism as "bloodstained":
"Modern capitalist nations are the fruit of a history of slavery, genocide, violence and exploitation every bit as abhorrent as Mao's China or Stalin's Soviet Union. Capitalism, too, was forged in blood and tears; it is just that it has survived long enough to forget about much of this horror, which is not the case with Stalinism and Maoism." (p. 12-13)
Ever argue with someone who claims that socialism is an "unrealizable utopia"? Here's Eagleton's answer:
"There is good reason that there can never be any complete reconciliation between the individual and society....Marx's claim in the Communist Manifesto about the free self-development of all can never be fully realized. Like all the finest ideals it is a goal to aim at, not a state to be literally achieved....Those who scoff at socialist ideals should remember that the free market can never be perfectly realized either...Some of those who claim that socialism is unworkable are confident that they can eradicate poverty, solve the global warming crisis, spread liberal democracy to Afghanistan and resolve world conflicts by UN resolutions. It is only socialism which for some mysterious reason is out of reach." (p. 87-88)
These are only two of the many criticisms demolished by Eagleton. "Why Marx Was Right" is an entertaining and informative defense of Marxism and its relevance for modern humans. Highly recommended!
Eagleton takes the many objections voiced by the enemies of Marxism (e.g. Marxism is "great in theory" but only leads to bloodshed; Marxism is utopian; Marxism reduces everything to economics; Marxism is deterministic, etc.) and demolishes them one by one. Here is Eagleton's take on those who hypocritically condemn Marxism as "bloodstained":
"Modern capitalist nations are the fruit of a history of slavery, genocide, violence and exploitation every bit as abhorrent as Mao's China or Stalin's Soviet Union. Capitalism, too, was forged in blood and tears; it is just that it has survived long enough to forget about much of this horror, which is not the case with Stalinism and Maoism." (p. 12-13)
Ever argue with someone who claims that socialism is an "unrealizable utopia"? Here's Eagleton's answer:
"There is good reason that there can never be any complete reconciliation between the individual and society....Marx's claim in the Communist Manifesto about the free self-development of all can never be fully realized. Like all the finest ideals it is a goal to aim at, not a state to be literally achieved....Those who scoff at socialist ideals should remember that the free market can never be perfectly realized either...Some of those who claim that socialism is unworkable are confident that they can eradicate poverty, solve the global warming crisis, spread liberal democracy to Afghanistan and resolve world conflicts by UN resolutions. It is only socialism which for some mysterious reason is out of reach." (p. 87-88)
These are only two of the many criticisms demolished by Eagleton. "Why Marx Was Right" is an entertaining and informative defense of Marxism and its relevance for modern humans. Highly recommended!
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
Marx's humanism
In this pamphlet, Terry Eagleton refutes the most common political, ideological and philosophical arguments against Marx's Marxism, while giving his own view on the way of the... Read more
Published 1 month ago by Luc REYNAERT
5.0 out of 5 stars
Wondrous
Concise, intelligent, fair, and eye-opening. Everyone hoping to criticise Marx should definitely give this book a read: chances are you'll find your argument in there, being... Read more
Published 2 months ago by Max
5.0 out of 5 stars
Mark was right,not in predictions but in analazis
for those with an inquiring mind ,I highly recommend this book.
prejudice is a mental block to learning. Should be required reading for the Fed.
prejudice is a mental block to learning. Should be required reading for the Fed.
Published 3 months ago by Roger
2.0 out of 5 stars
Title misleading
The title is misleading. A more descriptive, maybe not as catchy, title would be "Why Marx's critics are wrong". Read more
Published 9 months ago by Anders Floderus
1.0 out of 5 stars
Marxism revived by Yale University Press
One sentence from this totally revolting screed says it all:"Modern capitalist nations are the fruit of a history of slavery, genocide, violence and exploitation every bit as... Read more
Published 11 months ago by Don Carlos
4.0 out of 5 stars
Not the best, but not bad at all
This is a good book for someone who is just getting into the Marx and/or Marxism. It is no substitute for reading any of his actual writing, and it is important to remember this is... Read more
Published 12 months ago by Jcrock
1.0 out of 5 stars
Lack of economic knowledge
The author's lack of economic understanding makes this book impossible to take seriously. The discussion of why Marxism could operate efficiently without markets is... Read more
Published 17 months ago by Meilichios
5.0 out of 5 stars
Why Marx was right
I think it is an excellent book for remind us the necessity of rethinking capitalist society. Arguments are clear and they allow to argue with the author.Why Marx Was Right
Published 21 months ago by D. Munoz
3.0 out of 5 stars
Marx or Malthus?
Presumably, readers of this book fall into two broadly defined categories: 1) avid students of Marx looking for further insights, perspectives and heretofore unnoticed nuances of... Read more
Published 22 months ago by Keith A. Comess
5.0 out of 5 stars
Love His Conclusions or Hate Em, People Will Talk!
Terry Eagleton has one of the most brilliant minds on the planet today--and that's saying something! Read more
Published 22 months ago by David Crumm
