The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx - Book Report/Review Example

Book Review: The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx by Shlomo Avineri Most of the literature written on the intellectual development and early writings of Karl Marx, have exemplified a gap between his earlier life as a young man and his later life when he was older. When he was young, Karl Marx was considered a humanist thinker while he is portrayed as a determinist who was concerned about nothing else but his historical materialism theory, which has been accused of being narrow in some of the literature. The book by Shlomo Avineri denies the existence of such a gap in the life of Karl Marx and endeavors to support the claim using detailed studies on a wide range on the works of Karl Marx, both on political and social thought. The book is written as a commentary that is clear and objective, using effective textual citations. The book is among the few which have brought out the best studies on the works of Karl Marx. Avineri (4) acknowledges the possibility of immodesty or repetitiveness by any new volumes of literature on the works of Karl Marx. He also ascertains his inspiration to write the book as a conviction from the double distortion that the social and political ideas of Marx have suffered from the intellectual history of the ideas themselves. He also notes the imbalance in the views on the nature of the political thought of Marx explaining why the debate about Marx always revolves around implied or explicit political objectives. The book makes an attempt to set Marx apart from both his disciples and enemies with the aim of bringing out another, more balanced, view of political theory as a result of Marx’s thoughts. He claims that although it has seemed like a truism, there has been repeated overlooking of the theory, which has led to it being associated by failed political policies such as those of Stalin and Lenin. It follows, therefore, that the dialectical relationship that links theory to practice has to be based on prior understanding of the theory. Moreover, the understanding should be as independent as possible before it can be related to practice. The book also makes considerable attempt to separate the social and political thought of Karl Marx from the cold war and its consequent effects, something that has lingered prominently in many writings from the west about Karl Marx. Avineri (8) begins his book by tracing the theoretical works of Karl Marx published since 1927. From the writings, he notes the considerable gap existing between the discussion and interest evoked by the works of Karl Marx as he acquaints the reader with the writings and theories, both social and political, as portrayed in the works. He also explains the controversies that loomed in the Marxist movement citing the lack of understanding by the protagonists about Marx’s view on some of the relevant subjects. For instance, he cites the lack of awareness by Plekhanov when he wrote ‘The Monist view of History’ that Marx had explained the same, in a different fashion though, in his writings on the German ideology. In another case, Lenin’s work titled ‘Materialism and Empirio-Critism’ disregarded the economic-philosophical manuscripts of Karl Marx. In a nut shell, Avineri (10) explains in his book that much of what passes for Marxism traditionally, is sometimes directly in contradiction with some of Marx’s own works. Avineri (23) explains the paradigm shift in the discussions about Marx’s theory as fueled by the latest discovery of some of his earlier writings. He cites the initial discussions that were narrowed on ideological and political debate among the various socialist schools or between anti-Marxists and Marxists. He explains how the writings directed much attention to the rich philosophical speculations of Karl Marx and how they attracted the attention of other larger groups, who had until then not been interested in Marxism and the writings of Karl Marx. The book also brings out the writings of Karl Marx as academically respectable. Avineri (39) explains the view of Marx by most writings about him and his ideologies in two perspectives, that of the young Marx, a humanist thinker; and that of the older Marx, a determinist. As he tries to portray Marx as one person, the book explains the consequences of the interest in young Marx as bringing out different meanings to different people. Some people have held Marx responsible for the worst regimes of totalitarianism experienced by mankind while others viewed him as one among the last utopian socialists. Some people view him as a determinist and materialist, who is extremely narrow-minded, while others are quick to point out on his early writings that portrayed a basic humanistic vision. In other cases Marx has been portrayed in modern social sciences as the founder, while at the same time he has been discerned in modern existentialist thought as its forerunner. When some people view Marx as a theoretician in scientific socialism, others point out the resemblance between the aspects of Zen Buddhism and his thought. Sometimes in the past, the most popular phrase of Karl Marx was ‘Surplus value’ yet most recently ‘alienation’ has taken its place. Avineri (72) digs into the confusion and explains what its causes are. He cites biased interest in the works of Karl Marx that mainly concentrated on the earlier writings while ignoring the later works which he argues should be scrutinized with consideration of new discoveries that are missing in the earlier works. He adds that there is a gap between the older and the younger Marx that portrays him as two personalities, unless one endeavors to examine his works in both cases for harmonization, which is the main objective of his book. Another reason given for the confusion, in the book, is Orthodox Marxism as traditionally considered yet it is mostly based on the later writings of Engel (Avinieri 81). He observes that in cases where the writings differ significantly from the earlier works of Marx, conclusion is made attributing the disparity to the difference between the older and the younger Marx. Avineri (82) looks into overcoming this confusion by separating the social and political thoughts of Karl Marx from the historical circumstances that portray the various stages in the intellectual development of Marx. The book considers the works of Karl Marx as one corpus rather than two separate writings in which the earlier writings are confronted by the mature writings of the older Marx. Avineri (112) argues that any differentiation of Marx’s works, whether chronological or otherwise, should put under consideration the structural analysis of Marx’s thought as a whole. He is of the opinion that, if an enquiry into Marx’s writings suggest shift of emphasis and interest in both the vision and analysis of Marx as he intellectually developed, then the attitude cannot be considered to be totally unacceptable. This he notes is contrary to the attitude taken by those who prefer to dismiss either the older or the younger Marx as completely irrelevant. He also advises a more objective analysis of Marx writings, including strict differentiation of his works from those of Angel, a failure of which has distorted the view of both the social and political thought of Karl Marx for a long time now. Shlomo Avineri has organized his book in a chronological perspective to clearly reveal both social and political thoughts of Karl Marx. He gives the thoughts sufficient background information in order to bring them out clearly and rightly attribute them to Marx with little or no controversy. The book begins by looking at the political philosophy of Hegel that Marx encountered during his early study at Berlin University. The writings of Hegel made Marx to shift his academic interest to philosophy from legal studies. Initially, Avineri (8) explains that Marx was troubled by German philosophy since the days of Kant because of the constant antagonism it had constantly portrayed between what ‘is’ and what ‘ought to be’. However, the writings of Hegel appeared to Marx to break from the norm and portray the real idea within reality. The book explains the attraction of Marx to Hegel’s ideas as the philosophy’s portrayed ability as the center for the realizing idealism in reality. From this point, Marx is said to have started developing a critique to Hegel’s philosophy. He questioned the ability of the philosophy to harmonize the rational and the actual and unearthed contradictions in the theory of political and social institutions as postulated by Hegel. Avineri (34) then explains the point of Marx’s confrontation with the philosophy as the concept of social institutions. He cites the correspondence of Marx during this period and the gradual development of Marx appreciation for Hegel’s philosophy. Marx’s critique on the philosophy of right by Hegel led to his interest in the political economy. Avineri (41) delves into the analysis of bourgeois economy by Marx as centering on land, capital, world market, foreign trade and wage labor. He also examines the dialectical relationship between politics and economics where the political does not, either automatically or mechanistically, reflect the economic. The book then looks at the society as whole, which is in essence capitalistic. In this society, few lead and control the resources, while majorities of the people are in the universal proletariat group. Avineri (52) goes ahead to clarify difficulties that may arise from Marx’s distinction of ‘productive relations’ from ‘productive forces’ as well as the distinction between the ‘super structure’ and the ‘material basis of production’. In his explanation, Avineri (122) disputes critics’ view that productive forces cannot be discussed as if they were metals or stones, that is, material objects, since the material life of the society that determines its ideological and political forms, includes forms some of whose content is non-material. Avineri (122) points out that despite this argument being valid; it is completely irrelevant to the arguments portrayed by Marx. Instead, he explains Marx’s ideas that productive forces are not external objective facts to human consciousness. Rather, they represent how a human being organizes his activities and consciousness. Avineri (124) contradicts the view by other critics on Marx’s writings that the distinction existing between ‘super structure’ and ‘material base’ is in essence a distinction between ‘spirit’ and ‘matter’. This he cites as not coming from Marx but Engels. He argues that Marx’s thought meant the distinction between the human activity that is conscious and aimed at creating and preserving human life and the consciousness of a human person, which reasons, furnishes, rationalizes, legitimizes and morally justifies the specific forms taken by human activities. He further delves into the idea that the conception of Marx of social relations was the model for future society. However, he is quick to point out several immanent reasons that Marx had seen in it in case it survived even though he was sure it would not. In the letter written by Marx in 1881, in which he criticized the historical commune after failing to rationalize Banque de France and the failure to laud the potential commune for its intention to do away with privately owned property, the book points out the reason. Generally, Shlomo Avinieri uses excellent and careful analytical skills with concision and intense lucidity to bring out an objective and clear commentary. His careful citation of the writings of Marx, other related works and the writings of his critics, treats the complicated doctrine in question in a more orderly and clear fashion than most writings have done on the subject. He makes a clear picture of Marx thoughts, both political and social, giving every detail and sufficient background to avoid subjectivity and bias. The book’s attempt to bridge the gap between the earlier and later works by Karl Marx makes it stand out among others on the subject and gives it the uniqueness and command on Marx’s thoughts. Works Cited Avineri, Shlomo. The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx. Cambridge: Cambridge, University Press, 1970. Print Read More