What do you think?
Rate this book
賱賲丕匕丕 賰丕賳 賲丕乇賰爻 毓賱賶 丨賯責
"賲丕 丕爻鬲胤丕毓 賲賮賰乇 賷賵賲丕賸 兀賳 賷賰匕亘賴". 賯丿 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱噩賲賱丞 丕賱禺鬲丕賲賷丞 噩賵丕亘丕賸 賲囟賲乇丕賸 賱爻丐丕賱 毓賳賵丕賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 "賱賲丕匕丕 賰丕賳 賲丕乇賰爻 毓賱賶 丨賯責"
鬲丕亘毓 鬲賷乇賷 廿賷睾賱鬲賵賳 賮賷 毓卮乇丞 賮氐賵賱 賮賴賲 賲丕乇賰爻 賱賲丕乇賰爻賷鬲賴 賵乇氐丿 賲丕 賮賴賲賴 兀鬲亘丕毓賴 賵禺氐賵賲賴 亘賰賱 丨匕乇 賵丿賯丞貙 賲賯丕乇賳丕賸 丕賱賳氐 丕賱賲丕乇賰爻賷 亘賳氐賵氐賴賲 賵賲賮賳丿丕賸 鬲兀賵賷賱丕鬲賴賲 丕賱鬲賷 匕賴亘鬲 亘丕賱賲丕乇賰爻賷丞 兀丨賷丕賳丕賸 廿賱賶 丕賱爻鬲丕賱賷賳賷丞 賵兀丨賷丕賳丕賸 兀禺乇賶 廿賱賶 丕賱鬲乇賵鬲爻賰賷丞 賵氐賵賱丕賸 廿賱賶 賲丕 亘毓丿 丕賱丨丿丕孬丞 丕賱鬲賷 丨丕賵賱 亘毓囟 兀鬲亘丕毓賴丕 鬲胤賵賷毓 賲賮丕賴賷賲 賲丕乇賰爻賷丞貙 賰丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 丕賱賲丿賳賷丞 賵丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱賲丿賳賷貙 丕賱禺.. 賱賲鬲胤賱亘丕鬲 鬲噩丿賷丿 (亘丨爻亘 夭毓賲賴賲) 賱兀氐賳丕賮 兀丿亘賷丞 賵亘毓囟 丕賱賮乇賵毓 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞貙 賲賳賴丕 丕賱賱睾丞貙 賵丕賱丕賳鬲乇賵亘賵賱賵噩賷丕貙 賵毓賱賲 丕賱賳賮爻貙 賵廿賱賶 賲丕 賴賳丕賱賰..
鬲丕亘毓 鬲賷乇賷 廿賷睾賱鬲賵賳 賮賷 毓卮乇丞 賮氐賵賱 賮賴賲 賲丕乇賰爻 賱賲丕乇賰爻賷鬲賴 賵乇氐丿 賲丕 賮賴賲賴 兀鬲亘丕毓賴 賵禺氐賵賲賴 亘賰賱 丨匕乇 賵丿賯丞貙 賲賯丕乇賳丕賸 丕賱賳氐 丕賱賲丕乇賰爻賷 亘賳氐賵氐賴賲 賵賲賮賳丿丕賸 鬲兀賵賷賱丕鬲賴賲 丕賱鬲賷 匕賴亘鬲 亘丕賱賲丕乇賰爻賷丞 兀丨賷丕賳丕賸 廿賱賶 丕賱爻鬲丕賱賷賳賷丞 賵兀丨賷丕賳丕賸 兀禺乇賶 廿賱賶 丕賱鬲乇賵鬲爻賰賷丞 賵氐賵賱丕賸 廿賱賶 賲丕 亘毓丿 丕賱丨丿丕孬丞 丕賱鬲賷 丨丕賵賱 亘毓囟 兀鬲亘丕毓賴丕 鬲胤賵賷毓 賲賮丕賴賷賲 賲丕乇賰爻賷丞貙 賰丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 丕賱賲丿賳賷丞 賵丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱賲丿賳賷貙 丕賱禺.. 賱賲鬲胤賱亘丕鬲 鬲噩丿賷丿 (亘丨爻亘 夭毓賲賴賲) 賱兀氐賳丕賮 兀丿亘賷丞 賵亘毓囟 丕賱賮乇賵毓 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞貙 賲賳賴丕 丕賱賱睾丞貙 賵丕賱丕賳鬲乇賵亘賵賱賵噩賷丕貙 賵毓賱賲 丕賱賳賮爻貙 賵廿賱賶 賲丕 賴賳丕賱賰..
193 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 2011
709 people are currently reading
11.1k people want to read
About the author
Terry Eagleton
152听books1,218听followersWidely regarded as England's most influential living literary critic & theorist, Dr. Eagleton currently serves as Distinguished Professor of English Literature at the University of Lancaster and as Visiting Professor at the National University of Ireland, Galway. He was Thomas Warton Prof. of English Literature at the University of Oxford ('92-01) & John Edward Taylor Professor of English Literature at the University of Manchester 'til '08. He returned to the University of Notre Dame in the Autumn '09 semester as Distinguished Visitor in the English Department.
He's written over 40 books, including Literary Theory: An Introduction ('83); The Ideology of the Aesthetic ('90) & The Illusions of Postmodernism ('96).
He delivered Yale's '08 Terry Lectures and gave a Gifford Lecture in 3/10, titled The God Debate.
He's written over 40 books, including Literary Theory: An Introduction ('83); The Ideology of the Aesthetic ('90) & The Illusions of Postmodernism ('96).
He delivered Yale's '08 Terry Lectures and gave a Gifford Lecture in 3/10, titled The God Debate.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 545 reviews
December 28, 2015
This is a fabulous book. It鈥檚 not an apology for Marxism but rather a reinvigoration of the original philosophy of the man, a philosophy which has been unfairly maligned over the last century due mainly to the twin state-capitalist monstrosities built in its name by Stalin and Mao. There is nothing in Marx鈥檚 writing that leads one to think of state terror and closed societies, quite the contrary.
In this book, Eagleton takes a different, commonly held criticism about Marxism for each chapter heading and then explains why this view is misguided or, mostly, false. As usual his writing comes across as fully rounded and inclusive 鈥� he never backs away from admitting when the critics may have a point but neither does he shy away from slamming them when their facts are clearly awry. I was impressed at the careful and deliberate way in which the author picks through each explanation, each question that the text raises being fully answered at a later point in the chapter. Terry Eagleton also has a natural humor, which makes some of the more difficult themes seemingly easier to process.
It鈥檚 fairly easy for modern Marxists to criticize Stalin鈥檚 Russia and Maoist China, as they clearly have more to do with right-wing totalitarianism than they have with true socialism. But what is more difficult for the average Marxist is to have the tools to argue down some of the more shrill criticisms that we have to endure 鈥� this book provides a great toolkit and allows the reader to think 鈥淣o, I鈥檓 not abnormal for believing in these ideas鈥�.
It鈥檚 clear to me that the reason Marx鈥檚 ideas are slammed and ridiculed by the current ruling classes is not because they鈥檙e wrong but because the ruling elite, like Terry Eagleton, knows exactly 鈥榃hy Marx Was Right鈥�.
In this book, Eagleton takes a different, commonly held criticism about Marxism for each chapter heading and then explains why this view is misguided or, mostly, false. As usual his writing comes across as fully rounded and inclusive 鈥� he never backs away from admitting when the critics may have a point but neither does he shy away from slamming them when their facts are clearly awry. I was impressed at the careful and deliberate way in which the author picks through each explanation, each question that the text raises being fully answered at a later point in the chapter. Terry Eagleton also has a natural humor, which makes some of the more difficult themes seemingly easier to process.
It鈥檚 fairly easy for modern Marxists to criticize Stalin鈥檚 Russia and Maoist China, as they clearly have more to do with right-wing totalitarianism than they have with true socialism. But what is more difficult for the average Marxist is to have the tools to argue down some of the more shrill criticisms that we have to endure 鈥� this book provides a great toolkit and allows the reader to think 鈥淣o, I鈥檓 not abnormal for believing in these ideas鈥�.
It鈥檚 clear to me that the reason Marx鈥檚 ideas are slammed and ridiculed by the current ruling classes is not because they鈥檙e wrong but because the ruling elite, like Terry Eagleton, knows exactly 鈥榃hy Marx Was Right鈥�.
January 11, 2013
Ever need a handy compendium to use when you were in discussions with tiresome right-wingers about how Marx and Marxism was a 鈥淔atal Conceit鈥� or 鈥淭he Road to Serfdom鈥�? (The quoted references are, of course, to anti-socialist tracts by F. A. Hayek.) Well, if you live in the United States, there would be plenty of individuals who would so debate you. But then again, probably not so many of you would want to. But, for those who would, Terry Eagleton has provided such a compendium. His new book, Why Marx Was Right, provides thoughtful and often amusing responses to ten common objections to Marx and Marxism. Each chapter addresses one of these claims:
1) Marxism鈥檚 time has passed. We are in a post-industrial, classless world now.
2) Marxism may be well in theory, but whenever it has been put into practice, the result has been terror, tyranny, and mass murder.
3) Marxism is a form of determinism. It doesn鈥檛 allow for human freedom.
4) Marxism is a dream of utopia. It believes in the possibility of a perfect society. In reality, humans are naturally selfish, aggressive, and competitive.
5) Marxism reduces everything to economics. Marx was simply an inverted image of the capitalist system he opposed.
6) Marx was a materialist. He had no interest in the spiritual aspects of humanity.
7) Marx was tediously obsessed with class. Nothing could be more out-dated.
8) Marxists are advocates of violent political action. They reject a sensible course of moderate reform. The end justifies the means. This is why so many lives were ground out by the communist revolutions of the twentieth century.
9) Marxism believes in an all-powerful state. Liberal democracy may have its faults, but it is much better than being locked up in an psychiatric hospital for daring to criticize an authoritarian government.
10) The most interesting radical movements of the last four decades have grown up outside Marxism. Feminism, environmentalism, gay rights, ethnic politics, the peace movement; all of these have left Marxism behind.
For each of these objections, Eagleton rehearses replies, often with great humor, always with great sympathy for the man, Karl Marx. His method usually includes one or more of the following: 1) Pointing out that the claim is irrelevant to what Marx actually said, 2) Recognizing the truth in the claim and demonstrating how this truth is compatible with what Marx actually said, 3) Pointing out that the negative consequences highlighted in the claim apply often more strongly to capitalism than to socialism, or 4) Pointing out that the claim is untrue.
I won鈥檛 try to rehearse his replies to all of these claims but will focus in on two: Claim Number 8 and Claim Number 2.
Claim Number 8 鈥� Marxists are advocates of violence
Eagleton鈥檚 full statement of this objection is as follows:
"Marxists are advocates of violent political action. They reject a sensible course of moderate, piecemeal reform and opt instead for the bloodstained chaos of revolution. A small band of insurrectionists will rise up, overthrow the state and impose its will on the majority. This is one of several senses in which Marxism and democracy are at daggers drawn. Because they despise morality as much as mere ideology, Marxists are not especially troubled by the mayhem their politics would unleash on the population. The end justifies the means, however many lives may be lost in the process."
Eagleton鈥檚 approach here is first to point out that many reform movements that did not lead to revolution, including the US civil rights movement and liberal reform movements in Latin America during the nineteenth century, in fact involved brutal violence initiated by the government to which the reform movement was opposed. In addition, many actual revolutions, including the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 and the subsequent fall of the Communist state in the Soviet Union 70 years later, were accomplished with little blood being spilled. Of course a bloody civil war followed the Bolshevik revolution, as the new social order came under attack by conservative forces in Russian society, with support from the Western powers. While Eagleton recognizes that Stalin and Mao Zedong were 鈥渕ass murderers on an almost unimaginable scale鈥� he points out that the severest critics of Stalinism have been Marxists (he is thinking of Trotsky).
A general line of response that Eagleton doesn鈥檛 make much of is to consider the death and destruction resulting from NOT having a revolution. This is the tack taken by Barrington Moore in his study of revolutions, Social Origins of Democracy and Dictatorship. Moore鈥檚 book studied revolutions: Capitalist revolutions in Britain, France, and the United States; Fascist revolutions in Germany and Japan; and Communist revolutions in China and Russia. Moore compares the death and suffering resulting from the violent modernization instrumented by Mao to the equally destructive suffering that is still going on in India, where a socialist revolution has not (yet) taken place.
Eagleton does mention the destruction of Dresden and Hiroshima (he doesn鈥檛 mention the bombing of Tokyo), bloody suppression of colonial uprisings in African and South Asia, and the million deaths in the Great Irish Famine of the 1840s, which he attributes in large measure to the fact that 鈥�. . . the British government of the day insisted on observing the laws of the free market in its lamentable relief policy.鈥� He writes that 鈥淢arx writes with scarcely suppressed outrage in Capital of the bloody, protracted process by which the English peasantry were driven from the land (during the enclosures of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century). It is this history of violent expropriation which lies beneath the tranquility of the English rural landscape. Compared to this horrendous episode, one which stretched over a lengthy period of time, an event like the Cuban revolution was a tea party.鈥�
A last line of discussion in this chapter is to the effect that Marx himself and many followers were not opposed to peaceful reform in countries like England, Holland, and the United States. Believing, as they did, that the best interests of the majority of the populations of these capitalist societies were not served by the ongoing march of capitalism to mechanization, unemployment, and regular crisis, Marx and Engels supported reform movements and at times allowed that these could lead to a non-violent revolution in the ownership of social production. The owners of these enterprises, however, protected by the state, have had no such intention.
Claim Number 2 鈥� Theory and practice of Marxism
An important element of the argument in favor of capitalism is the claim that it has 鈥渄elivered the goods鈥�; that it is the most efficient system for generation of the surplus that can make mankind鈥檚 life on this planet less harsh. These goods include not just pop tarts and video games, but a heritage of 鈥渓iberty, democracy, civil rights, feminism, republicanism, scientific progress, and a good deal more.鈥�
Marx, of course, agreed. He 鈥渘ever imagined that socialism could be achieved in impoverished conditions鈥� nor that it could be achieved in isolated. backward countries in the face of imperialist capitalist opposition. And while the communist governments of Eastern Europe managed to provide 鈥渃heap housing, fuel, transport and culture, full employments and impressive social services for half the citizens of Europe, as well as an incomparably greater degree of equality and (in the end) material well-being than those nations had previously enjoyed鈥� the 鈥済ains of Communism scarcely outweighed the losses. It may be that some kind of dictatorial government was well-nigh inevitable in the atrocious conditions of the early Soviet Union; but this did not have to mean Stalinism, or anything like it. Taken overall, Maoism and Stalinism were botched, bloody experiments which made the very of idea of socialism stink in the nostrils of many of those elsewhere in the world who had most to benefit from it.鈥�
Capitalism has worked to deliver the goods. But to whom, how, and at what cost? It has produced fabulous affluence very unequally divided. While multi-billionaires purchase islands in the Caribbean or (to their taste) mount widespread charitable campaigns, a staggering 2/3 of the world鈥檚 population today subsist on less than $2 dollars per day and, even in the richest capitalist country, the United States, immense wealth exists side by side with crushing poverty, made worse by periodic crises and an overarching tendency to unemployment for more and more members of the society. The question is rarely asked why a society that requires charity to feed its poor is justified in calling itself a successful one. Capitalism faces the greatest contradiction today that it, more and more, both does and does not need human beings. While it has delivered the goods outlined above, it has also brought us 鈥渁 history of slumps, sweatshops, fascism, imperial wars, and Mel Gibson.鈥�(!)
What is worse, the un-checked greed for resources that capitalism celebrates is threatening today to consume the entire planet. Eagleton quotes economist Slavov Zizek to the effect that climate change may be seen as 鈥渢he greatest market failure in history.鈥�
Eagleton鈥檚 closing consideration in this chapter is to try to visualize how the incentive qualities of the market could be combined with democratic control of socialized production. He considers a mixed socialist market economy in which 鈥済oods which are of vital concern to the community (food, health, pharmaceuticals, education, transport, energy, subsistence products, financial institutions, the media and the like) need to be brought under democratic public control, since those who run them tend to behave antisocially if they sniff the chance of enlarged profits in doing so. Less socially indispensable goods, however (consumer items, luxury products), could be left to the operations of the market.鈥�
In the end, Eagleton recognizes that this is a work in progress. 鈥淪ocialists will no doubt continue to argue about the detail of a post-capitalist economy. There is no flawless model currently on offer.鈥�
Conclusion
In his brief concluding remarks he summarizes his arguments. 鈥淢arx had a passionate faith in the individual and a deep suspicion of abstract dogma. He had no time for the concept of a perfect society, was wary of the notion of equality, and did not dream of a future in which we would all wear boiler suits with our National Insurance numbers stamped on our backs. It was diversity, not uniformity, that he hoped to see. Nor did he teach that men and women were the helpless playthings of history. He was even more hostile to the state than right-wing conservatives are, and saw socialism as a deepening of democracy, not as an enemy of it. His model of the good life was based on the idea of artistic self-expression. He believed that some revolutions might be peacefully accomplished, and was in no sense opposed to social reform. He did not focus narrowly on the manual working class. Nor did he see society in terms of two starkly polarized classes.鈥�
He ends his book with the question, 鈥淲as ever a thinker so travestied?鈥� There are many possible alternate candidates here (Jesus of Nazareth, anyone?) but Eagleton has provided a brisk and convincing argument to for his case for 鈥渨hy Marx was right.鈥�
1) Marxism鈥檚 time has passed. We are in a post-industrial, classless world now.
2) Marxism may be well in theory, but whenever it has been put into practice, the result has been terror, tyranny, and mass murder.
3) Marxism is a form of determinism. It doesn鈥檛 allow for human freedom.
4) Marxism is a dream of utopia. It believes in the possibility of a perfect society. In reality, humans are naturally selfish, aggressive, and competitive.
5) Marxism reduces everything to economics. Marx was simply an inverted image of the capitalist system he opposed.
6) Marx was a materialist. He had no interest in the spiritual aspects of humanity.
7) Marx was tediously obsessed with class. Nothing could be more out-dated.
8) Marxists are advocates of violent political action. They reject a sensible course of moderate reform. The end justifies the means. This is why so many lives were ground out by the communist revolutions of the twentieth century.
9) Marxism believes in an all-powerful state. Liberal democracy may have its faults, but it is much better than being locked up in an psychiatric hospital for daring to criticize an authoritarian government.
10) The most interesting radical movements of the last four decades have grown up outside Marxism. Feminism, environmentalism, gay rights, ethnic politics, the peace movement; all of these have left Marxism behind.
For each of these objections, Eagleton rehearses replies, often with great humor, always with great sympathy for the man, Karl Marx. His method usually includes one or more of the following: 1) Pointing out that the claim is irrelevant to what Marx actually said, 2) Recognizing the truth in the claim and demonstrating how this truth is compatible with what Marx actually said, 3) Pointing out that the negative consequences highlighted in the claim apply often more strongly to capitalism than to socialism, or 4) Pointing out that the claim is untrue.
I won鈥檛 try to rehearse his replies to all of these claims but will focus in on two: Claim Number 8 and Claim Number 2.
Claim Number 8 鈥� Marxists are advocates of violence
Eagleton鈥檚 full statement of this objection is as follows:
"Marxists are advocates of violent political action. They reject a sensible course of moderate, piecemeal reform and opt instead for the bloodstained chaos of revolution. A small band of insurrectionists will rise up, overthrow the state and impose its will on the majority. This is one of several senses in which Marxism and democracy are at daggers drawn. Because they despise morality as much as mere ideology, Marxists are not especially troubled by the mayhem their politics would unleash on the population. The end justifies the means, however many lives may be lost in the process."
Eagleton鈥檚 approach here is first to point out that many reform movements that did not lead to revolution, including the US civil rights movement and liberal reform movements in Latin America during the nineteenth century, in fact involved brutal violence initiated by the government to which the reform movement was opposed. In addition, many actual revolutions, including the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 and the subsequent fall of the Communist state in the Soviet Union 70 years later, were accomplished with little blood being spilled. Of course a bloody civil war followed the Bolshevik revolution, as the new social order came under attack by conservative forces in Russian society, with support from the Western powers. While Eagleton recognizes that Stalin and Mao Zedong were 鈥渕ass murderers on an almost unimaginable scale鈥� he points out that the severest critics of Stalinism have been Marxists (he is thinking of Trotsky).
A general line of response that Eagleton doesn鈥檛 make much of is to consider the death and destruction resulting from NOT having a revolution. This is the tack taken by Barrington Moore in his study of revolutions, Social Origins of Democracy and Dictatorship. Moore鈥檚 book studied revolutions: Capitalist revolutions in Britain, France, and the United States; Fascist revolutions in Germany and Japan; and Communist revolutions in China and Russia. Moore compares the death and suffering resulting from the violent modernization instrumented by Mao to the equally destructive suffering that is still going on in India, where a socialist revolution has not (yet) taken place.
Eagleton does mention the destruction of Dresden and Hiroshima (he doesn鈥檛 mention the bombing of Tokyo), bloody suppression of colonial uprisings in African and South Asia, and the million deaths in the Great Irish Famine of the 1840s, which he attributes in large measure to the fact that 鈥�. . . the British government of the day insisted on observing the laws of the free market in its lamentable relief policy.鈥� He writes that 鈥淢arx writes with scarcely suppressed outrage in Capital of the bloody, protracted process by which the English peasantry were driven from the land (during the enclosures of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century). It is this history of violent expropriation which lies beneath the tranquility of the English rural landscape. Compared to this horrendous episode, one which stretched over a lengthy period of time, an event like the Cuban revolution was a tea party.鈥�
A last line of discussion in this chapter is to the effect that Marx himself and many followers were not opposed to peaceful reform in countries like England, Holland, and the United States. Believing, as they did, that the best interests of the majority of the populations of these capitalist societies were not served by the ongoing march of capitalism to mechanization, unemployment, and regular crisis, Marx and Engels supported reform movements and at times allowed that these could lead to a non-violent revolution in the ownership of social production. The owners of these enterprises, however, protected by the state, have had no such intention.
Claim Number 2 鈥� Theory and practice of Marxism
An important element of the argument in favor of capitalism is the claim that it has 鈥渄elivered the goods鈥�; that it is the most efficient system for generation of the surplus that can make mankind鈥檚 life on this planet less harsh. These goods include not just pop tarts and video games, but a heritage of 鈥渓iberty, democracy, civil rights, feminism, republicanism, scientific progress, and a good deal more.鈥�
Marx, of course, agreed. He 鈥渘ever imagined that socialism could be achieved in impoverished conditions鈥� nor that it could be achieved in isolated. backward countries in the face of imperialist capitalist opposition. And while the communist governments of Eastern Europe managed to provide 鈥渃heap housing, fuel, transport and culture, full employments and impressive social services for half the citizens of Europe, as well as an incomparably greater degree of equality and (in the end) material well-being than those nations had previously enjoyed鈥� the 鈥済ains of Communism scarcely outweighed the losses. It may be that some kind of dictatorial government was well-nigh inevitable in the atrocious conditions of the early Soviet Union; but this did not have to mean Stalinism, or anything like it. Taken overall, Maoism and Stalinism were botched, bloody experiments which made the very of idea of socialism stink in the nostrils of many of those elsewhere in the world who had most to benefit from it.鈥�
Capitalism has worked to deliver the goods. But to whom, how, and at what cost? It has produced fabulous affluence very unequally divided. While multi-billionaires purchase islands in the Caribbean or (to their taste) mount widespread charitable campaigns, a staggering 2/3 of the world鈥檚 population today subsist on less than $2 dollars per day and, even in the richest capitalist country, the United States, immense wealth exists side by side with crushing poverty, made worse by periodic crises and an overarching tendency to unemployment for more and more members of the society. The question is rarely asked why a society that requires charity to feed its poor is justified in calling itself a successful one. Capitalism faces the greatest contradiction today that it, more and more, both does and does not need human beings. While it has delivered the goods outlined above, it has also brought us 鈥渁 history of slumps, sweatshops, fascism, imperial wars, and Mel Gibson.鈥�(!)
What is worse, the un-checked greed for resources that capitalism celebrates is threatening today to consume the entire planet. Eagleton quotes economist Slavov Zizek to the effect that climate change may be seen as 鈥渢he greatest market failure in history.鈥�
Eagleton鈥檚 closing consideration in this chapter is to try to visualize how the incentive qualities of the market could be combined with democratic control of socialized production. He considers a mixed socialist market economy in which 鈥済oods which are of vital concern to the community (food, health, pharmaceuticals, education, transport, energy, subsistence products, financial institutions, the media and the like) need to be brought under democratic public control, since those who run them tend to behave antisocially if they sniff the chance of enlarged profits in doing so. Less socially indispensable goods, however (consumer items, luxury products), could be left to the operations of the market.鈥�
In the end, Eagleton recognizes that this is a work in progress. 鈥淪ocialists will no doubt continue to argue about the detail of a post-capitalist economy. There is no flawless model currently on offer.鈥�
Conclusion
In his brief concluding remarks he summarizes his arguments. 鈥淢arx had a passionate faith in the individual and a deep suspicion of abstract dogma. He had no time for the concept of a perfect society, was wary of the notion of equality, and did not dream of a future in which we would all wear boiler suits with our National Insurance numbers stamped on our backs. It was diversity, not uniformity, that he hoped to see. Nor did he teach that men and women were the helpless playthings of history. He was even more hostile to the state than right-wing conservatives are, and saw socialism as a deepening of democracy, not as an enemy of it. His model of the good life was based on the idea of artistic self-expression. He believed that some revolutions might be peacefully accomplished, and was in no sense opposed to social reform. He did not focus narrowly on the manual working class. Nor did he see society in terms of two starkly polarized classes.鈥�
He ends his book with the question, 鈥淲as ever a thinker so travestied?鈥� There are many possible alternate candidates here (Jesus of Nazareth, anyone?) but Eagleton has provided a brisk and convincing argument to for his case for 鈥渨hy Marx was right.鈥�
November 3, 2024
3.5 stars. The author shows his knowledge on Marxism and he answers a number of frequently asked questions concerning Marxism in the 21st century societies, he gives out understandable, reasonable explanation as much as he can. However, despite the author's reader-friendly and humorous tone, Marxism is complicated, it's still difficult to understand, you have to have basic knowledge about the topics to understand this book and sometimes the author sounds a bit too smug and too sure of himself (I'm not bothered by his tone, but I'm sure some readers would), I have to wonder how many non-Marxists/non-socialists are going to agree Marx was right after they finish this book.
Anyway, Marxism will still be around because capitalism is still alive and kicking and its many failures are still haunting our societies.
Anyway, Marxism will still be around because capitalism is still alive and kicking and its many failures are still haunting our societies.
February 11, 2017
I have no notion why the publisher's sought to sell this perfectly reasonable book as "controversial". It is in no way shocking. It is a measured account of a very good thinker. It does contain some of Eagleton's (chiefly) decent jokes, which I always enjoyed as a student when reading his famous, and useful, companion to literary criticism. Otherwise, nothing outrageous to see here but a great synopsis for the Marxist beginner.
This is a marvellous introduction to Marxist thought. I imagine it would work especially well for those with an interest in moral philosophy and/or literary criticism. If you're approaching Marx from an artsy Western perspective, Terry is your guy. It ain't perfect for those seeking an economic synopsis of MCM and what-have-you. But for them, there's David Harvey.
That there is minimal recourse to quotation and Marxist terminology here was a really good decision, I think. Eagleton lures you into the point where you *get* dialectical materialism, and by the time he mentions that phrase, you don't even mind it's so long. Because it makes perfect sense. Because Marx largely makes perfect sense.
Make the idiot in your life read this today.
This is a marvellous introduction to Marxist thought. I imagine it would work especially well for those with an interest in moral philosophy and/or literary criticism. If you're approaching Marx from an artsy Western perspective, Terry is your guy. It ain't perfect for those seeking an economic synopsis of MCM and what-have-you. But for them, there's David Harvey.
That there is minimal recourse to quotation and Marxist terminology here was a really good decision, I think. Eagleton lures you into the point where you *get* dialectical materialism, and by the time he mentions that phrase, you don't even mind it's so long. Because it makes perfect sense. Because Marx largely makes perfect sense.
Make the idiot in your life read this today.
February 9, 2020
2019 Re-read and review:
First off: I could do with a less clownishly strident, destined-to-be-polarizing cover. I already own the more sedate earlier hardcover, and this one is fated to be given to a friend!
Seriously now, though: this book aims to engage a particular kind of reader: one for whom Marx is neither an unquestioned (and unquestionable) star in the firmament of European intellectual history, nor an unreadable, unfathomable, aberrant abomination and father of unspeakable horror. The potential reader of this book, then, may not have read much of Marx, but has read widely enough (or whose mind has nevertheless been opened widely enough) to know that (1) Marx is not responsible for Stalin and Mao, (& etc.), and that (2) Marx just might have something to say about what used to be called Political Economy and what now just goes by the misleading name of The Economy, as if it were as much a part of the natural order of things as those dang sun spots that seem to be causing all those hot summers that we've been strangely having lately. In short, the potential reader of this book has noticed that enough not-so-great stuff has been going on in the post-2008 (not to mention post-1989, -1973, -1968, -1929, -1919, -1865, -1848, -1789, etc. Etc. Etc) world to ask the question: well, was Marx right about much, if anything?
To this question Terry Eagleton answers both an unqualified "You bet!", as well as a qualified "But...".
He seeks to rescue Marx both from the hysterical claims made about him by foaming-at-the-mouth detractors on the right and from the pooh-poohing and tut-tutting types from the cultural studies/postcolonial/postmodernist so-called left. He also wants to defend him from his most ardent defenders, seeking to situate him as a, yes, Eurocentric, yes, patriarchal, yes Enlightenment-"blinded" dead white male who nevertheless still has a lot to teach us if we listen to him with a broad, healthily skeptical mind--and if we care about intellectual honesty enough to look dispassionately at what he wrote by reading him closely, but in the context of the world in which he operated, a world of industrial capitalism that was both good enough for its achievements to be rightly celebrated and bad enough for its atrocities to be justly and loudly condemned. He was a limited but brilliant man who started a long conversation about the relationship between economic class and political power which was also necessarily about ethics, (human) nature, gender, race and aesthetics. Crucially, it also was (and still is) a conversation that is necessarily ongoing, ambiguous, and contradictory--as well as one which is not served in any way whatsoever by the sound bite or by reflexive knee-jerky slogans.
Principally, then, Eagleton wants to save this ongoing conversation from certain key errors, and accordingly addresses his attention to the most glaring of criticisms leveled at Marxist thought, at marx himslef, and at socialism in general over the decades since his career as a thoroughly engaged writer and activist was started. These are, in brief:
(1) Marxism is an antiquated philosophy which is no longer "relevant" to 21C issues and concerns
(2) However appealing Marxism may have been in theory, in practice it has been nothing short of a disaster
(3) Since Marxist is a determinist philosophy, it is offensive to human freedom
(4) Marxism is a Utopian dream that cannot adequately deal with the realities of human nature
(5) Marxism erroneously reduces the plurality of human culture and history to one dimension: the economic
(6) Marxism's materialism cannot speak to the whole of the human spirit, and dismisses religion as a mere pipe-dream or as wish-fulfillment
(7) The very notions of economic class and class struggle are seriously out of date in a post-industrial, globalised world
(8) Marxism is an inherently violent philosophy, one for which the end always justifies the means
(9) Marxism happily jettisons individual liberty in favour of the dictatorship of an all-powerful, overarching State
(10) Other criticisms of capitalism, patriarchy and racism have superseded Marxism, which is stuck in the Eurocentric, patriarchal, racist colonialist meta-narrative of the 18C Enlightenment.
Eagleton is remarkably thorough and even-handed in dealing with all of these criticisms, and makes cogent, unhysterical, careful arguments in his responses to them--no straw men are erected to easily, hand-wavingly and dismissively dispatch in this volume, which is why I find it so exciting, as it opens up so many doors to further discussion and closes down none of them. What's more, wherever Marx is short-sighted, limited in his analysis or just plain wrong in his understanding of the world, Eagleton warmly and, er, eagerly reproves him for it, but never, not once, out of a spirit of one-upmanship or gainsaying.
So this is not really the polemic that I thought it would be when I started reading it, and is less like The Communist Manifesto in style than an Apologia Pro Vita Sua written with the kind of scrupulous lack of axe-grinding that you find in, e.g. and John Stuart Mill's On Bentham and Coleridge. It just plain excites one's love of learning to read it, and begs you to go on to read other books by or on Marx and Political Economy after you have closed its pages. I can easily imagine it as serving as a prefatory book in a course called "An Introduction to the History*** of Political Economy" if such a one were to exist--if one did, in fact, it just might include such books as (in rough order of composition):
Smith, Adam
Marx,
Weber, Max
Veblen, Thorstein
Hayek, Friedrich
Polanyi, Karl
Braudel, Fernand
Harvey, David
Perelman, Michael,
Brenner, Robert
Meiksins-Wood, Ellen
I have read some of these books, and have dipped into others, but would love to take that course!
(Feel free to add suggestions!) Would someone out there care to teach it? We can get goin on one of those online MOOC thingys (Massive Open Online Course) that all the kiddz these daze are into!
***In my impecunious post-student life I toiled away in a university bookstore, and one day was instructed to move all of the books on the history of economics out of the economics section and into the history section of the store: the professor teaching the course was, I was told, invited to move from the one department to the other because Economics no longer saw itself as a social science but as a science proper! This all occurred, of course, in the wake of a particular historical event (the fall of the Berlin Wall) and the spread of a particular idea (The End of History). We know far better now of course, with nearly 20 years between the beginning of permanent prosperity and its demise. This book is for anyone who has been trained by recent history to want to think historically, dialectically, subtly, measuredly, and critically on matters political, economic, and human.
5* of its kind, then minus 1/2 *, perhaps, for not including a chapter specifically on Marx's economics (Labour theory of Value etc. etc)
[A "Digested Read" orMidrash or synopsis on this book is forthcoming on my personal site...]
First off: I could do with a less clownishly strident, destined-to-be-polarizing cover. I already own the more sedate earlier hardcover, and this one is fated to be given to a friend!
Seriously now, though: this book aims to engage a particular kind of reader: one for whom Marx is neither an unquestioned (and unquestionable) star in the firmament of European intellectual history, nor an unreadable, unfathomable, aberrant abomination and father of unspeakable horror. The potential reader of this book, then, may not have read much of Marx, but has read widely enough (or whose mind has nevertheless been opened widely enough) to know that (1) Marx is not responsible for Stalin and Mao, (& etc.), and that (2) Marx just might have something to say about what used to be called Political Economy and what now just goes by the misleading name of The Economy, as if it were as much a part of the natural order of things as those dang sun spots that seem to be causing all those hot summers that we've been strangely having lately. In short, the potential reader of this book has noticed that enough not-so-great stuff has been going on in the post-2008 (not to mention post-1989, -1973, -1968, -1929, -1919, -1865, -1848, -1789, etc. Etc. Etc) world to ask the question: well, was Marx right about much, if anything?
To this question Terry Eagleton answers both an unqualified "You bet!", as well as a qualified "But...".
He seeks to rescue Marx both from the hysterical claims made about him by foaming-at-the-mouth detractors on the right and from the pooh-poohing and tut-tutting types from the cultural studies/postcolonial/postmodernist so-called left. He also wants to defend him from his most ardent defenders, seeking to situate him as a, yes, Eurocentric, yes, patriarchal, yes Enlightenment-"blinded" dead white male who nevertheless still has a lot to teach us if we listen to him with a broad, healthily skeptical mind--and if we care about intellectual honesty enough to look dispassionately at what he wrote by reading him closely, but in the context of the world in which he operated, a world of industrial capitalism that was both good enough for its achievements to be rightly celebrated and bad enough for its atrocities to be justly and loudly condemned. He was a limited but brilliant man who started a long conversation about the relationship between economic class and political power which was also necessarily about ethics, (human) nature, gender, race and aesthetics. Crucially, it also was (and still is) a conversation that is necessarily ongoing, ambiguous, and contradictory--as well as one which is not served in any way whatsoever by the sound bite or by reflexive knee-jerky slogans.
Principally, then, Eagleton wants to save this ongoing conversation from certain key errors, and accordingly addresses his attention to the most glaring of criticisms leveled at Marxist thought, at marx himslef, and at socialism in general over the decades since his career as a thoroughly engaged writer and activist was started. These are, in brief:
(1) Marxism is an antiquated philosophy which is no longer "relevant" to 21C issues and concerns
(2) However appealing Marxism may have been in theory, in practice it has been nothing short of a disaster
(3) Since Marxist is a determinist philosophy, it is offensive to human freedom
(4) Marxism is a Utopian dream that cannot adequately deal with the realities of human nature
(5) Marxism erroneously reduces the plurality of human culture and history to one dimension: the economic
(6) Marxism's materialism cannot speak to the whole of the human spirit, and dismisses religion as a mere pipe-dream or as wish-fulfillment
(7) The very notions of economic class and class struggle are seriously out of date in a post-industrial, globalised world
(8) Marxism is an inherently violent philosophy, one for which the end always justifies the means
(9) Marxism happily jettisons individual liberty in favour of the dictatorship of an all-powerful, overarching State
(10) Other criticisms of capitalism, patriarchy and racism have superseded Marxism, which is stuck in the Eurocentric, patriarchal, racist colonialist meta-narrative of the 18C Enlightenment.
Eagleton is remarkably thorough and even-handed in dealing with all of these criticisms, and makes cogent, unhysterical, careful arguments in his responses to them--no straw men are erected to easily, hand-wavingly and dismissively dispatch in this volume, which is why I find it so exciting, as it opens up so many doors to further discussion and closes down none of them. What's more, wherever Marx is short-sighted, limited in his analysis or just plain wrong in his understanding of the world, Eagleton warmly and, er, eagerly reproves him for it, but never, not once, out of a spirit of one-upmanship or gainsaying.
So this is not really the polemic that I thought it would be when I started reading it, and is less like The Communist Manifesto in style than an Apologia Pro Vita Sua written with the kind of scrupulous lack of axe-grinding that you find in, e.g. and John Stuart Mill's On Bentham and Coleridge. It just plain excites one's love of learning to read it, and begs you to go on to read other books by or on Marx and Political Economy after you have closed its pages. I can easily imagine it as serving as a prefatory book in a course called "An Introduction to the History*** of Political Economy" if such a one were to exist--if one did, in fact, it just might include such books as (in rough order of composition):
Smith, Adam
Marx,
Weber, Max
Veblen, Thorstein
Hayek, Friedrich
Polanyi, Karl
Braudel, Fernand
Harvey, David
Perelman, Michael,
Brenner, Robert
Meiksins-Wood, Ellen
I have read some of these books, and have dipped into others, but would love to take that course!
(Feel free to add suggestions!) Would someone out there care to teach it? We can get goin on one of those online MOOC thingys (Massive Open Online Course) that all the kiddz these daze are into!
***In my impecunious post-student life I toiled away in a university bookstore, and one day was instructed to move all of the books on the history of economics out of the economics section and into the history section of the store: the professor teaching the course was, I was told, invited to move from the one department to the other because Economics no longer saw itself as a social science but as a science proper! This all occurred, of course, in the wake of a particular historical event (the fall of the Berlin Wall) and the spread of a particular idea (The End of History). We know far better now of course, with nearly 20 years between the beginning of permanent prosperity and its demise. This book is for anyone who has been trained by recent history to want to think historically, dialectically, subtly, measuredly, and critically on matters political, economic, and human.
5* of its kind, then minus 1/2 *, perhaps, for not including a chapter specifically on Marx's economics (Labour theory of Value etc. etc)
[A "Digested Read" orMidrash or synopsis on this book is forthcoming on my personal site...]
Read
October 31, 2016Thing is, Eagleton tries to have it both ways when he says that the great thing about Marxism, more than any other theoretical system, has been its practical impact on the world and its influence on historical movements, but then goes on to completely disavow the most obvious, prominent case of this; Eagleton claims that what happened in Russia last century actually had nothing to do with Marxism, Stalin wasn't really a Marxist, etc.
In my view, Zizek displays superior intellectual honesty in his strange attempt at a semi-rehabilitation of Stalin. It does no good to try and save your tradition by defining it in such a way to only include the good parts. Zizek is right to see this. However, his claim that Marxism is still worth preserving even though it contains Stalinism seems highly dubious.
In my view, Zizek displays superior intellectual honesty in his strange attempt at a semi-rehabilitation of Stalin. It does no good to try and save your tradition by defining it in such a way to only include the good parts. Zizek is right to see this. However, his claim that Marxism is still worth preserving even though it contains Stalinism seems highly dubious.
March 9, 2024
never has the fact that i鈥檓 not an auditory learner been more apparent to me than when i finished this audiobook and went that was super interesting but i can鈥檛 tell you a single thing about it
May 16, 2020
讴鬲丕亘 倬丕爻禺蹖 賴爻鬲 亘賴 丿賴 倬乇爻卮 賵 賲睾賱胤賴鈥屫й� 讴賴 乇丕噩毓 亘賴 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 賲蹖卮賴 賵 亘丕 夭亘丕賳 賳爻亘鬲丕賸 爻丕丿賴 賵 乇賵賵賳 亘賴卮賵賳 噩賵丕亘 賲蹖丿賴.
倬乇爻卮鈥屬囏� 亘賴 鬲乇鬲蹖亘 賵 亘賴 胤賵乇 禺賱丕氐賴 丕蹖賳 賲賵丕乇丿 賴爻鬲賳丿.
"賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 讴賴 丿賵乇賴鈥屫� 鬲賲賵賲 卮丿賴 賵 亘乇丕蹖 賯丿蹖賲 亘賵丿."
"賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 賮賯胤 丿乇 丨乇賮 禺賵亘賴 賵 亘賴 毓賲賱 丿乇賳賲蹖丕丿 噩夭 亘丕 夭賵乇 賵 丕爻鬲亘丿丕丿."
"賲丕乇讴爻 賲乇丿賲 乇賵 賲噩乇蹖鈥屬囏й� 賯賵丕賳蹖賳 爻賮鬲 賵 爻禺鬲 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賵 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 賮丕賯丿 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗁�."
"讴賲賵賳蹖爻賲 匕丕鬲 丕賳爻丕賳 乇賵 讴賴 胤亘毓丕賸 丌夭賲賳丿 賵 丨乇蹖氐賴 賳丕丿蹖丿賴 賲蹖鈥屭屫辟�."
"賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 乇賵 鬲賵 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 禺賱丕氐賴 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗁�."
"賲丕乇讴爻 趩賵賳 賲丕鬲乇蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲 亘賵丿 賵噩賴鈥屬囏й� 賵丕賱丕蹖 丨蹖丕鬲 亘卮乇 乇賵 賳丕丿蹖丿賴 賲蹖鈥屭辟佖� 賵 丕賳爻丕賳 乇賵 丿乇 丨丿 賲丕丿賴 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗀池�."
"胤亘賯賴鈥屰� 讴丕乇诏乇蹖 賲丕乇讴爻 丕夭卮 丿賲 賲蹖鈥屫藏� 讴賴 丿蹖诏賴 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇賴 賵 賲丕賱 賴賲賵賳 丿賵乇賴 亘賵丿."
"賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 賲禺丕賱賮 丕氐賱丕丨丕鬲 賲毓賯賵賱 賵 丿乇 毓賵囟 賲賵丕賮賯 禺卮賵賳鬲 賵 丌卮賵亘 賴爻鬲賳丿."
"賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 亘賴 丿賵賱鬲 賯丿乇鬲 賴蹖賵賱丕賵丕乇蹖 賲蹖鈥屫� 讴賴 賳鬲蹖噩賴鈥屫й� 噩夭 丿蹖讴鬲丕鬲賵乇蹖 賳禺賵丕賴丿 丿丕卮鬲."
"噩賳亘卮鈥屬囏й� 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 噩丿蹖丿 丕夭 噩賲賱賴 丨賯賵賯 賴賲鈥屫嗀斥€屫堌з囏з� 蹖丕 賮賲蹖賳蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 蹖丕 胤乇賮丿丕乇丕賳 丨賮馗 賲丨蹖胤 夭蹖爻鬲貙 丕夭 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 賵 賲亘丕乇夭賴鈥屰� 胤亘賯丕鬲蹖賽 丕夭 賲丿丕賮鬲丕丿賴 賮丕氐賱賴 诏乇賮鬲賳丿."
丕夭 丕賵賳鈥屫й屰� 讴賴 丕蹖賳 丕蹖乇丕丿賴丕 賵 賲睾賱胤賴鈥屬囏� 毓賲賵賲丕賸 丿乇 丨丿 "蹖毓賳蹖 郾酃鄹鄞 乇賵 賳禺賵賳丿蹖責!" 毓賴貙 倬丕爻禺鈥屬囏й� 鬲乇蹖 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 賴賲 丿乇 賴賲賵賳 丨丿賴 賵 禺蹖賱蹖 爻毓蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 賵丕乇丿 毓賲賯 賳卮賴 讴賴 丕賱亘鬲賴 亘賴 賳馗乇賲 賳賯胤賴鈥屰� 賯賵鬲 讴鬲丕亘賴貨 丕賲丕 禺蹖賱蹖 賳讴丕鬲 乇賵 賴賲 亘锟斤拷卮 丕卮丕乇賴 賳讴乇丿 賵 蹖丕 爻丕丿賴 丕夭卮賵賳 毓亘賵乇 讴乇丿.
倬.賳 : 毓賳賵丕賳 丕氐賱蹖 讴鬲丕亘 " Why Marx was right? " 亘賵丿.
倬乇爻卮鈥屬囏� 亘賴 鬲乇鬲蹖亘 賵 亘賴 胤賵乇 禺賱丕氐賴 丕蹖賳 賲賵丕乇丿 賴爻鬲賳丿.
"賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 讴賴 丿賵乇賴鈥屫� 鬲賲賵賲 卮丿賴 賵 亘乇丕蹖 賯丿蹖賲 亘賵丿."
"賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 賮賯胤 丿乇 丨乇賮 禺賵亘賴 賵 亘賴 毓賲賱 丿乇賳賲蹖丕丿 噩夭 亘丕 夭賵乇 賵 丕爻鬲亘丿丕丿."
"賲丕乇讴爻 賲乇丿賲 乇賵 賲噩乇蹖鈥屬囏й� 賯賵丕賳蹖賳 爻賮鬲 賵 爻禺鬲 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賵 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 賮丕賯丿 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗁�."
"讴賲賵賳蹖爻賲 匕丕鬲 丕賳爻丕賳 乇賵 讴賴 胤亘毓丕賸 丌夭賲賳丿 賵 丨乇蹖氐賴 賳丕丿蹖丿賴 賲蹖鈥屭屫辟�."
"賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 乇賵 鬲賵 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 禺賱丕氐賴 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗁�."
"賲丕乇讴爻 趩賵賳 賲丕鬲乇蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲 亘賵丿 賵噩賴鈥屬囏й� 賵丕賱丕蹖 丨蹖丕鬲 亘卮乇 乇賵 賳丕丿蹖丿賴 賲蹖鈥屭辟佖� 賵 丕賳爻丕賳 乇賵 丿乇 丨丿 賲丕丿賴 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗀池�."
"胤亘賯賴鈥屰� 讴丕乇诏乇蹖 賲丕乇讴爻 丕夭卮 丿賲 賲蹖鈥屫藏� 讴賴 丿蹖诏賴 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇賴 賵 賲丕賱 賴賲賵賳 丿賵乇賴 亘賵丿."
"賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 賲禺丕賱賮 丕氐賱丕丨丕鬲 賲毓賯賵賱 賵 丿乇 毓賵囟 賲賵丕賮賯 禺卮賵賳鬲 賵 丌卮賵亘 賴爻鬲賳丿."
"賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 亘賴 丿賵賱鬲 賯丿乇鬲 賴蹖賵賱丕賵丕乇蹖 賲蹖鈥屫� 讴賴 賳鬲蹖噩賴鈥屫й� 噩夭 丿蹖讴鬲丕鬲賵乇蹖 賳禺賵丕賴丿 丿丕卮鬲."
"噩賳亘卮鈥屬囏й� 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 噩丿蹖丿 丕夭 噩賲賱賴 丨賯賵賯 賴賲鈥屫嗀斥€屫堌з囏з� 蹖丕 賮賲蹖賳蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 蹖丕 胤乇賮丿丕乇丕賳 丨賮馗 賲丨蹖胤 夭蹖爻鬲貙 丕夭 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 賵 賲亘丕乇夭賴鈥屰� 胤亘賯丕鬲蹖賽 丕夭 賲丿丕賮鬲丕丿賴 賮丕氐賱賴 诏乇賮鬲賳丿."
丕夭 丕賵賳鈥屫й屰� 讴賴 丕蹖賳 丕蹖乇丕丿賴丕 賵 賲睾賱胤賴鈥屬囏� 毓賲賵賲丕賸 丿乇 丨丿 "蹖毓賳蹖 郾酃鄹鄞 乇賵 賳禺賵賳丿蹖責!" 毓賴貙 倬丕爻禺鈥屬囏й� 鬲乇蹖 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 賴賲 丿乇 賴賲賵賳 丨丿賴 賵 禺蹖賱蹖 爻毓蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 賵丕乇丿 毓賲賯 賳卮賴 讴賴 丕賱亘鬲賴 亘賴 賳馗乇賲 賳賯胤賴鈥屰� 賯賵鬲 讴鬲丕亘賴貨 丕賲丕 禺蹖賱蹖 賳讴丕鬲 乇賵 賴賲 亘锟斤拷卮 丕卮丕乇賴 賳讴乇丿 賵 蹖丕 爻丕丿賴 丕夭卮賵賳 毓亘賵乇 讴乇丿.
倬.賳 : 毓賳賵丕賳 丕氐賱蹖 讴鬲丕亘 " Why Marx was right? " 亘賵丿.
December 1, 2018
馃敶 讴鬲丕亘 亘丕 賲丐賱賮賴鈥屬囏й� 丕毓鬲亘丕乇 亘禺卮 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 丿乇 賯乇賳 亘蹖爻鬲賲 賵 丕賱亘鬲賴 亘蹖爻鬲 賵 蹖讴賲 卮乇賵毓 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 亘毓丿 丕夭 诏匕卮鬲 150 爻丕賱 丕夭 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 丿賵乇賴鈥屰� 賲丕乇讴爻貙 賵 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 卮讴賱 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲丿鬲貙 丌蹖丕 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 丿乇 丿賵乇賴鈥屰� 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 倬爻丕氐賳毓鬲蹖 丿乇 賯乇賳 亘蹖爻鬲賲 賴賲趩賳丕賳 賲毓鬲亘乇 丕爻鬲責 倬丕爻禺 丌賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賱賴. 趩乇丕 讴賴 賲賳胤賯 夭蹖乇亘賳丕蹖蹖 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 孬丕亘鬲 賲丕賳丿賴貨 賳丕亘乇丕亘乇蹖 孬乇賵鬲 賵 賯丿乇鬲貙 噩賳诏 丕賲倬乇蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲蹖貙 丕爻鬲孬賲丕乇 賵 爻乇讴賵亘 賴賲丕賳 賵蹖跇诏蹖鈥屬囏й� 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 氐賳毓鬲蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 丿賵乇賴鈥屰� 倬爻丕氐賳毓鬲蹖 賴賲 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿 賵 丕蹖賳 蹖毓锟斤拷蹖 賳賯丿 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲蹖 鬲丕 丨丿 夭蹖丕丿蹖 倬丕亘乇噩丕爻鬲. 鈥�
亘毓丿 亘賴 賮丕氐賱賴 賵 賳爻亘鬲 亘蹖賳 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 賲丕乇讴爻 賵 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 丕爻鬲丕賱蹖賳 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丕蹖賳讴賴 丌蹖丕 亘丕 賵噩賵丿 鬲噩乇亘賴鈥屰� 爻賴賲賳丕讴 丕爻鬲丕賱蹖賳蹖爻賲 賴賲趩賳丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 禺賵丿 乇丕 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 賵 丕賲蹖丿賵丕乇 亘賴 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 丿丕賳爻鬲 蹖丕 禺蹖乇. 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 丕诏乇 丕爻鬲丕賱蹖賳蹖爻賲 亘賴丕蹖 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 爻賳诏蹖賳蹖 丿丕卮鬲賴貙 賲賲丕賱讴 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 賲丿乇賳 賴賲 亘賴 亘賴丕蹖 禺賵賳 賵 乇賳噩 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 倬丿蹖丿 丌賲丿賳丿. 賯囟蹖賴 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 賮乇氐鬲 丕蹖賳 乇丕 丿丕卮鬲賴 讴賴 禺丕胤乇賴鈥屰� 丿賴卮鬲賳丕讴卮 乇丕 丕夭 匕賴賳鈥屬囏� 亘夭丿丕蹖丿. 诏匕卮鬲賴 丕夭 丌賳 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 乇丕 丿乇 丿乇賵賳 賲乇夭賴丕蹖 蹖讴 讴卮賵乇 賵丕丨丿 賵 亘蹖卮 丕夭 丌賳 丿乇 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屫й� 賮賯乇夭丿賴 賲鬲氐賵乇 卮丿. 讴賴 賴乇 丿賵蹖 丕蹖賳鈥屬囏� 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 鬲噩乇亘賴鈥屰� 卮賵乇蹖 氐丕丿賯 亘賵丿. 鈥�
丕賲丕 丕诏乇 倬丕蹖丕賳 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 賵 蹖讴 丕賳賯賱丕亘 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲蹖 丨鬲賲蹖 丕爻鬲貙 鬲賵丿賴鈥屬囏� 趩賴 讴丕乇賴鈥屫з嗀� 賮賯胤 丕亘夭丕乇 丿爻鬲 鬲丕乇蹖禺鈥屫з嗀� 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 趩賳蹖賳 賳诏丕賴 賲賵噩亘蹖鬲鈥屭必й屫з嗁� 賵 睾丕蹖鬲鈥屫з嗀屫簇з嗁団€屫й� 亘賴 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 乇丕 乇丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 诏匕乇 丕夭 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 亘賴 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 亘賴 丌賳 賲毓賳丕 丕噩鬲賳丕亘 賳丕鈥屬矩佰屫� 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 丿乇爻鬲 乇賵蹖 丿爻鬲 亘诏匕丕乇賳丿 賵 亘賴 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 亘賳卮蹖賳賳丿. 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 丕亘夭丕乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳蹖爻鬲賳丿. 爻丕夭賳丿賴鈥屰� 丌賳賳丿. 丕蹖賳 賱夭賵賲丕 亘賴 丌賳 賲毓賳丕爻鬲 讴賴 丌賳鈥屬囏� 丌夭丕丿賳丿. 丕噩鬲賳丕亘鈥屬嗀з矩佰屫臂� 亘賴 丌賳 賲毓賳丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘丕 賮乇賵倬丕卮蹖 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 丿賱蹖賱蹖 賳丿丕乇賳丿 讴賴 賯丿乇鬲 乇丕 丿乇 丿爻鬲 賳诏蹖乇賳丿. 丕賲丕 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 胤亘賯賴鈥屰� 讴丕乇诏乇 丌賳鈥屭嗁嗀з� 賲賳爻噩賲 賳亘丕卮丿 蹖丕 賳丕 鬲賵丕賳 鬲乇 丕夭 丌賳 亘丕卮丿 讴賴 賳馗丕賲蹖 鬲丕夭賴 亘乇 倬丕 讴賳丿貙 丿乇 丕蹖賳 氐賵乇鬲 亘丕 賳丕亘賵丿蹖 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂屫� 賳賴 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 亘賱讴賴 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 蹖丕 賮丕卮蹖爻賲 噩丕蹖 丌賳 乇丕 禺賵丕賴丿 诏乇賮鬲. 賲亘丕乇夭賴鈥屰� 胤亘賯丕鬲蹖 毓賳氐乇 倬蹖卮鈥屫ㄘ辟嗀団€屰� 鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕爻鬲 丕賲丕 賳鬲蹖噩賴鈥屰� 丌賳 賯丕亘賱 倬蹖卮鈥屫ㄛ屬嗃� 賳蹖爻鬲. 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 賲賵噩亘蹖鬲鈥屭必й屰� 噩丕蹖蹖 丿乇 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 賳丿丕乇丿. 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 賲卮禺氐丕 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 睾乇亘 賲氐丿丕賯 丿丕乇丿. 賴乇 賲賱鬲蹖 亘乇丕蹖 诏匕乇 丕夭 蹖讴 卮蹖賵賴鈥屰� 鬲賵賱蹖丿 亘賴 卮蹖賵賴鈥屰� 丿蹖诏乇 賲爻蹖乇 禺丕氐 禺賵丿 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屬聚屬呚й屫�. 亘賴 诏賮鬲賴鈥屰� 丕賳诏賱爻 鬲丕乇蹖禺 噩爻鬲 賵 禺蹖夭 讴賳丕賳 丕夭 賲爻蹖乇蹖 倬蹖趩 賵 禺賲 賲蹖鈥屭柏必�. 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 丕夭 賳馗乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 噩亘乇诏乇丕蹖丕賳賴 賳蹖爻鬲. 鈥�
丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 讴賴 芦丕鬲賵倬蹖丕蹖 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲蹖禄 噩賲毓 賳賯蹖囟蹖賳 丕爻鬲. 趩乇丕 讴賴 賲丕乇讴爻 丕氐賱丕 亘賴 趩賳丿 賵 趩賵賳 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屰� 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲蹖 賳倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 丕爻鬲. 賳賯卮賴鈥屬囏й� 丕鬲賵倬蹖丕蹖蹖 丕夭 賳馗乇 賲丕乇讴爻 賲氐丿丕賯 卮丕賳賴 禺丕賱蹖 讴乇丿賳 丕夭 賵馗丕蹖賮 爻蹖丕爻蹖 夭賲丕賳 丨丕賱 亘賵丿. 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 賴丿賮 賲丕乇讴爻 賳賴 胤乇丨 丌蹖賳丿賴鈥屰� 亘賴鬲乇 亘賱讴賴 丨賱 鬲毓丕乇囟丕鬲 夭賲丕賳 丨丕賱 丕爻鬲. 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 賳爻亘鬲 丌蹖賳丿賴 賵 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 乇丕 亘賴 賳爻亘鬲 丌賳 亘丕 賮賲賳蹖爻賲 鬲卮亘蹖賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 蹖毓賳蹖 丨乇讴鬲蹖 丿乇 夭賲丕賳 丨丕賱 倬蹖卮 亘賴 爻賵蹖 丌蹖賳丿賴. 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 丌蹖賳丿賴 亘丕夭 賵 賳丕賲毓賱賵賲 丕爻鬲. 丕賲丕 丿乇 毓蹖賳 丨丕賱貙 丌蹖賳丿賴鈥� 丿乇 賲賯蹖丕爻 賲卮禺氐蹖 讴賴 丌賳 乇丕 賵囟毓 讴賳賵賳蹖 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 亘丕夭 丕爻鬲. 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屰� 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲蹖 卮乇丕乇鬲鈥屬囏ж� 鬲囟丕丿賴丕 賵 讴賲卮讴卮鈥屬囏� 賴賲趩賳丕賳 賵噩賵丿 禺賵丕賴賳丿 丿丕卮鬲. 丕賳賯賱丕亘 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲蹖 倬丕蹖丕賳 讴卮賲讴卮 賳蹖爻鬲. 讴卮賲讴卮鈥屬囏� 賮賯胤 亘丕 倬丕蹖丕賳 鬲丕乇蹖禺 鬲賲丕賲 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀�. 賯囟蹖賴鈥� 丌賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 賳馗丕賲 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲蹖 賳賴丕丿賴丕 讴賴 夭蹖乇 賳馗乇 賲爻鬲賯蹖賲 賲乇丿賲 賴爻鬲賳丿 丕噩丕夭賴鈥屰� 丿爻鬲鈥屫必ж槽� 賵 賮乇氐鬲鈥屫焚勜ㄛ� 亘賴 丕賮乇丕丿 賳賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀�. 卮乇丕乇鬲 卮禺氐蹖 賮賯胤 夭賲丕賳蹖 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 賳鬲丕蹖噩 賵丨卮鬲賳丕讴 亘賴 亘丕乇 丌賵乇丿 讴賴 丿乇 禺丿賲鬲 爻丕夭 賵 讴丕乇賴丕蹖 爻蹖丕爻蹖 亘丕卮賳丿.
丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 丿乇 乇丕亘胤賴鈥屰� 亘蹖賳 賲丕乇讴爻 賵 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 丕蹖賳 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕賳爻丕賳 乇丕 亘賴 讴丕賱丕 賵 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 乇丕 亘賴 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賵 倬賵賱 賮乇賵 賲蹖鈥屭┴з囏� 賵 賳賴 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲. 鬲賵噩賴 賲丕乇讴爻 亘賴 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 丕夭 丌賳 乇賵 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丌賳 乇丕 夭蹖乇亘賳丕蹖 鬲賲丿賳 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀�. 蹖毓賳蹖 爻乇卮鬲 賵 趩诏賵賳诏蹖 丌賳 鬲賲丿賳 乇丕 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 丕賲丕 爻蹖丕爻鬲貙 賮乇賴賳诏貙 毓賱賲 賵 賴爻鬲蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 禺丕氐 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿丕乇賳丿. 亘賴 賳賵毓蹖 亘丕 乇賵亘賳丕 丿乇 丌賲丿 賵 卮丿 賴爻鬲賳丿. 丕賲丕 亘賴 胤賵乇 讴賱蹖 亘丕 賲賳丕賮毓 胤亘賯丕鬲 賲爻賱胤 诏乇賴 禺賵乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 趩乇丕 讴賴 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 丕孬乇 丕賳诏卮鬲 趩乇讴蹖賳 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘乇 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 夭丿賴 丕爻鬲.鈥�
賲丕鬲乇蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 亘賴 氐乇賮 賲丕鬲乇蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲鈥� 亘賵丿賳卮丕賳 賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲蹖 亘蹖鈥屫ж池ж� 賳蹖爻鬲賳丿. 賲丕乇讴爻 夭賵丿鬲乇 賲蹖鈥屫堌ж池� 丕夭 芦丌鬲 賵 丌卮睾丕賱 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖禄 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 乇賴丕 卮賵丿 賵 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 亘賳賵蹖爻丿. 丕夭 丌賳 诏匕卮鬲賴 賲毓賳賵蹖 亘賵丿賳 賲卮乇賵胤 亘賴 賲匕賴亘蹖 亘賵丿賳 賳蹖爻鬲. 趩賳丕賳 讴賴 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏й� 丕爻賱丕賲蹖貙 賲爻蹖丨蹖 賵 蹖賴賵丿蹖 賳蹖夭 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇賳丿 賵 賲賳丕丿蹖 丕賱丕賴蹖丕鬲 乇賴丕蹖蹖 亘禺卮鈥屫з嗀�. 賲爻兀賱賴鈥� 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲賮讴乇 賵 爻丕蹖乇 噩賳亘賴鈥屬囏й� 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲毓賳賵蹖 賲鬲兀禺乇賳丿 亘乇 賵噩賵丿. 賲丕 倬蹖卮 丕夭 丌賳讴賴 亘鬲賵丕賳蹖賲 賮讴乇 讴賳蹖賲 賵噩賵丿蹖 賲丕丿蹖 丿丕乇蹖賲. 鬲賮讴乇 賳賴 亘丕夭鬲丕亘 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 亘賱讴賴 禺賵丿 賳蹖乇賵蹖蹖 賲丕丿蹖 丕爻鬲. 賲丕鬲乇蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 賲丕乇讴爻 亘賴 丕賵 丕噩丕夭賴 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 亘賴 丌蹖賳丿賴 丕賲蹖丿賵丕乇 亘丕卮丿. 丌蹖賳丿賴鈥屫й� 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 鬲賮讴乇 賱匕鬲 賵丕賯毓蹖 卮賵丿. 鈥�
丕賲丕 丌蹖丕 丨丕賱丕 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 夭蹖丕丿蹖 亘乇 胤亘賯賴鈥� 鬲兀讴蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 丨丕賱丕 讴賴 鬲賮丕賵鬲 馗丕賴乇蹖 胤亘賯丕鬲 讴賲鈥屫辟嗂� 卮丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 賴賳賵夭 賴賲 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丕夭 胤亘賯賴 爻禺賳 诏賮鬲責 丿乇 噩賵丕亘 亘丕蹖丿 诏賮鬲 讴賴 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 亘賳丕 亘賴 匕丕鬲卮 鬲賲丕蹖夭賴丕 乇丕 讴賲鈥屫辟嗂� 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 胤亘賯賴 鬲乇讴蹖亘鈥屫ㄙ嗀� 禺賵丿 乇丕 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 丕賲丕 賲丨賵 賳賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 丨丕賱 丌賳讴賴 鬲賲丕蹖夭 胤亘賯丕鬲蹖 丿乇 丕讴孬乇 賳賯丕胤 噩賴丕賳 丿乇爻鬲 賲卮丕亘賴 胤亘賯丕鬲 夭賲丕賳 賲丕乇讴爻 亘丕乇夭 丕爻鬲. 丕诏乇 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 鬲丕 丕蹖賳 丨丿 賲噩匕賵亘 胤亘賯賴鈥屫ж池� 丕夭 丌賳 乇賵爻鬲 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з囏� 倬爻 倬卮鬲 丌賳 乇丕 亘亘蹖賳丿. 賲丕乇讴爻 亘賴 丿賮賳 賮乇丿蹖鬲 夭賳丕賳 賵 賲乇丿丕賳 亘賴 丿賳亘丕賱 讴丕乇诏乇 蹖賴 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж� 賳丕賲蹖丿賳卮丕賳 丌诏丕賴 亘賵丿貙 丕賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀池� 亘乇丕蹖 丌賳鈥屭┵� 丕蹖賳 亘蹖诏丕賳诏蹖 丕夭 亘蹖賳 亘乇賵丿貙 亘丕蹖丿 丌賳 乇丕 丕夭 丿乇賵賳 亘乇丕賳丿丕禺鬲. 丕蹖賳 丕夭 禺賵丿 亘蹖诏丕賳诏蹖 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 卮乇賵胤 乇賴丕蹖蹖 丕蹖卮丕賳 丕爻鬲.鈥�
丌蹖丕 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丕夭 丕賳賯賱丕亘丕鬲 亘賴 讴賱蹖 賳賴蹖 讴乇丿責 丌賽蹖丕 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 亘蹖鈥屫堌� 賵 亘蹖鈥屫囏� 丿乇 倬蹖 丕賳賯賱丕亘鈥屫з嗀� 亘丕 氐賱丨 賵 丌乇丕賲卮 賲蹖丕賳賴鈥屫й� 賳丿丕乇賳丿責 丕氐賱丕丨鈥屫焚勜ㄘз� 乇丕爻鬲蹖賳 丕氐賱丕丨丕鬲 乇丕 丿乇 趩卮賲 丕賳丿丕夭蹖 賮乇丕禺鈥屫� 賵 乇蹖卮賴鈥屫й屸€屫� 賱丨丕馗 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀�. 丕賲丕 賴賳诏丕賲蹖 讴賴 賳馗丕賲 鬲賳 亘賴 丕氐賱丕丨 賳賲蹖鈥屫囏� 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 賲蹖丕賳 丕氐賱丕丨 賵 丕賳賯賱丕亘 賲胤乇丨 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 倬丕乇賱賲丕賳蹖 乇丕 趩賳丿丕賳 丿賲賵讴乇丕鬲蹖讴 賳賲蹖鈥屫з嗁嗀�. 夭蹖乇丕 賲乇丿賲 賳馗丕乇鬲蹖 亘乇 丌賳 賳丿丕乇賳丿. 倬丕乇賱賲丕賳 丿蹖賵丕乇 賲丨丕賮馗 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 賵 賳賲丕蹖賳丿賴鈥屰� 賲賳丕賮毓 賳賴丕丿 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 禺氐賵氐蹖 丕爻鬲. 賲丕乇讴爻 賵 丕賳诏賱爻 丕賴賲蹖鬲 夭蹖丕丿蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賳賴丕丿賴丕蹖 丕氐賱丕丨鈥屫焚勜ㄛ� 趩賵賳 丕丨夭丕亘 胤亘賯賴鈥屰� 讴丕乇诏乇貙 丨賯 乇兀蹖貙丕賳噩賲賳鈥屬囏й� 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 賵 乇賵夭賳丕賲賴鈥屬囏й� 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賯丕卅賱 亘賵丿賳丿. 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 亘丕 賲丕噩乇丕噩賵蹖蹖 賵 亘乇丕賳诏蹖禺鬲賳 亘蹖鈥屬呚ㄘй� 诏乇賵賴蹖 丕夭 丕賳賯賱丕亘蹖賵賳 讴賵趩讴 賴賲賵丕乇賴 賲禺丕賱賮 亘賵丿賴鈥屫з嗀�. 丕夭 丕蹖賳 诏匕卮鬲賴 丕賳賯賱丕亘鈥屬囏й� 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗁嗀� 睾蹖乇丿賲賵讴乇丕鬲蹖讴 亘丕卮賳丿 丕蹖賳 胤亘賯賴鈥屰� 丨丕讴賲 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕賯賱蹖鬲蹖 睾蹖乇丿賲賵讴乇丕鬲蹖讴 丕爻鬲. 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 讴賴 賴賲賴鈥屰� 賲丕 賲丨氐賵賱 丕賳賯賱丕亘丕鬲 賴爻鬲蹖賲. 賵 賴乇賯丿乇 亘蹖卮鈥屫� 賳鬲賵丕賳蹖賲 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 蹖丕丿 亘蹖丕賵乇蹖賲 賵 鬲卮禺蹖氐 丿賴蹖賲貙 蹖毓賳蹖 丕賳賯賱丕亘 丿乇 丿爻鬲蹖丕亘蹖 亘賴 丕賴丿丕賮卮 賲賵賮賯鈥屫� 亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丕賳賯賱丕亘 賲賵賮賯 丕賳賯賱丕亘蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴蹖趩 乇丿蹖 丕夭 禺賵丿 亘賴 噩丕 賳诏匕丕乇丿. 丕賵 丕蹖賳 丕蹖賳 倬乇爻卮 丕爻丕爻蹖 亘賴 倬蹖卮 賲蹖鈥屭┴簇� 讴賴 氐賱丨 胤賱亘蹖 鬲丕 讴噩丕 賲噩丕夭 丕爻鬲責 丕蹖賳讴賴 丌蹖丕 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 賲丕乇讴爻 乇丕 囟丿丕氐賱丕丨丕鬲 丿丕賳爻鬲責
乇賵卮賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲丕乇讴爻 賲禺丕賱賮 爻乇爻禺鬲 丿賵賱鬲 亘賵丿貙 丕賲丕 趩賴 丿賵賱鬲蹖責 丿賵賱鬲蹖 讴賴 丕亘夭丕乇 賯賴乇 賵 禺卮賵賳鬲 丕爻鬲.丿賵賱鬲蹖 讴賴 丿乇 賳夭丕毓鈥屬囏� 亘蹖鈥屫坟辟� 賳蹖爻鬲. 丿賵賱鬲 鬲丕 夭賲丕賳蹖 亘蹖鈥屫坟辟� 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴蹖趩 賳卮丕賳蹖 丕夭 倬蹖乇賵夭蹖 賲賳鬲賯丿丕賳 賳亘蹖賳丿. 亘賴 賲丨囟 丌賳鈥屭┵� 賲賳丕賮毓 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 亘賴 禺胤乇 亘蹖丕賮鬲丿貙 賲丕卮蹖賳 爻乇讴賵亘 丿賵賱鬲 亘賴 乇丕賴 賲蹖鈥屫з佖�. 亘賴 丕蹖賳 鬲乇鬲蹖亘 賲丕乇讴爻 賲禺丕賱賮 毓賲賱讴乇丿賴丕蹖 賲毓胤賵賮 亘賴 胤亘賯丕鬲 丿賵賱鬲 丕爻鬲貙 丿賵賱鬲 毓賲賱讴乇丿賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇蹖 賴賲 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 賳丕馗乇 亘賴 胤亘賯賴 賳蹖爻鬲賳丿. 丿蹖讴鬲丕鬲賵乇蹖 倬乇賵賱鬲丕乇蹖丕 讴賴 賴賲賴 乇丕 亘賴 賵丨卮鬲 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀ж藏� 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 賳賯囟 賮乇丕賯丕賳賵賳蹖 蹖讴 賯丕賳賵賳 丕爻丕爻蹖 丕爻鬲貙 賯丕賳賵賳蹖 讴賴 丕夭 賲賳丕賮毓 诏乇賵賴鈥屬囏й� 禺丕氐 丨賲丕蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 丨乇讴鬲 亘賴 爻賵蹖 蹖讴 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 禺賱賯蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 爻乇丕爻乇 噩丕賲毓賴 乇蹖卮賴 丿賵丕賳丿賴 亘丕卮丿.鈥�
丿乇 丌禺乇 丕夭 乇丕亘胤賴鈥屰� 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 賵 噩賳亘卮鈥屬囏й� 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 賳馗蹖乇 賮賲蹖賳蹖爻賲 賵 賲亘丕乇夭賴 毓賱蹖賴 賮丕卮蹖爻賲貙 噩賳亘卮 胤乇賮丿丕乇丕賳 丨賮馗 賲丨蹖胤 夭蹖爻鬲 亘丨孬 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 丕蹖賳 噩賳亘卮鈥屬囏� 禺丕乇噩 丕夭 趩丕乇趩賵亘 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 卮讴賱 诏乇賮鬲賴鈥屫з嗀� 丕賲丕 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 丿乇 爻乇丕爻乇 丿賳蹖丕 丕賱賴丕賲 亘禺卮 丌賳鈥屬囏� 亘賵丿賴 賵 丕夭 丌賳鈥屬囏� 丌賲賵禺鬲賴 丕爻鬲 丿乇 賲賯丕賵賲鬲 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 丕爻鬲毓賲丕乇貙 乇賴丕蹖蹖 夭賳丕賳 賵 賲亘丕乇夭賴 亘丕 賮丕卮蹖爻賲 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 賴賲賵丕乇賴 倬蹖卮鈥屫辟� 亘賵丿賳丿.鈥�
亘毓丿 亘賴 賮丕氐賱賴 賵 賳爻亘鬲 亘蹖賳 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 賲丕乇讴爻 賵 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 丕爻鬲丕賱蹖賳 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丕蹖賳讴賴 丌蹖丕 亘丕 賵噩賵丿 鬲噩乇亘賴鈥屰� 爻賴賲賳丕讴 丕爻鬲丕賱蹖賳蹖爻賲 賴賲趩賳丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 禺賵丿 乇丕 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 賵 丕賲蹖丿賵丕乇 亘賴 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 丿丕賳爻鬲 蹖丕 禺蹖乇. 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 丕诏乇 丕爻鬲丕賱蹖賳蹖爻賲 亘賴丕蹖 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 爻賳诏蹖賳蹖 丿丕卮鬲賴貙 賲賲丕賱讴 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 賲丿乇賳 賴賲 亘賴 亘賴丕蹖 禺賵賳 賵 乇賳噩 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 倬丿蹖丿 丌賲丿賳丿. 賯囟蹖賴 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 賮乇氐鬲 丕蹖賳 乇丕 丿丕卮鬲賴 讴賴 禺丕胤乇賴鈥屰� 丿賴卮鬲賳丕讴卮 乇丕 丕夭 匕賴賳鈥屬囏� 亘夭丿丕蹖丿. 诏匕卮鬲賴 丕夭 丌賳 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 乇丕 丿乇 丿乇賵賳 賲乇夭賴丕蹖 蹖讴 讴卮賵乇 賵丕丨丿 賵 亘蹖卮 丕夭 丌賳 丿乇 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屫й� 賮賯乇夭丿賴 賲鬲氐賵乇 卮丿. 讴賴 賴乇 丿賵蹖 丕蹖賳鈥屬囏� 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 鬲噩乇亘賴鈥屰� 卮賵乇蹖 氐丕丿賯 亘賵丿. 鈥�
丕賲丕 丕诏乇 倬丕蹖丕賳 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 賵 蹖讴 丕賳賯賱丕亘 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲蹖 丨鬲賲蹖 丕爻鬲貙 鬲賵丿賴鈥屬囏� 趩賴 讴丕乇賴鈥屫з嗀� 賮賯胤 丕亘夭丕乇 丿爻鬲 鬲丕乇蹖禺鈥屫з嗀� 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 趩賳蹖賳 賳诏丕賴 賲賵噩亘蹖鬲鈥屭必й屫з嗁� 賵 睾丕蹖鬲鈥屫з嗀屫簇з嗁団€屫й� 亘賴 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 乇丕 乇丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 诏匕乇 丕夭 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 亘賴 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 亘賴 丌賳 賲毓賳丕 丕噩鬲賳丕亘 賳丕鈥屬矩佰屫� 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 丿乇爻鬲 乇賵蹖 丿爻鬲 亘诏匕丕乇賳丿 賵 亘賴 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 亘賳卮蹖賳賳丿. 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 丕亘夭丕乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳蹖爻鬲賳丿. 爻丕夭賳丿賴鈥屰� 丌賳賳丿. 丕蹖賳 賱夭賵賲丕 亘賴 丌賳 賲毓賳丕爻鬲 讴賴 丌賳鈥屬囏� 丌夭丕丿賳丿. 丕噩鬲賳丕亘鈥屬嗀з矩佰屫臂� 亘賴 丌賳 賲毓賳丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘丕 賮乇賵倬丕卮蹖 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 丿賱蹖賱蹖 賳丿丕乇賳丿 讴賴 賯丿乇鬲 乇丕 丿乇 丿爻鬲 賳诏蹖乇賳丿. 丕賲丕 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 胤亘賯賴鈥屰� 讴丕乇诏乇 丌賳鈥屭嗁嗀з� 賲賳爻噩賲 賳亘丕卮丿 蹖丕 賳丕 鬲賵丕賳 鬲乇 丕夭 丌賳 亘丕卮丿 讴賴 賳馗丕賲蹖 鬲丕夭賴 亘乇 倬丕 讴賳丿貙 丿乇 丕蹖賳 氐賵乇鬲 亘丕 賳丕亘賵丿蹖 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂屫� 賳賴 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 亘賱讴賴 亘乇亘乇蹖鬲 蹖丕 賮丕卮蹖爻賲 噩丕蹖 丌賳 乇丕 禺賵丕賴丿 诏乇賮鬲. 賲亘丕乇夭賴鈥屰� 胤亘賯丕鬲蹖 毓賳氐乇 倬蹖卮鈥屫ㄘ辟嗀団€屰� 鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕爻鬲 丕賲丕 賳鬲蹖噩賴鈥屰� 丌賳 賯丕亘賱 倬蹖卮鈥屫ㄛ屬嗃� 賳蹖爻鬲. 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 賲賵噩亘蹖鬲鈥屭必й屰� 噩丕蹖蹖 丿乇 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 賳丿丕乇丿. 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 賲卮禺氐丕 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 睾乇亘 賲氐丿丕賯 丿丕乇丿. 賴乇 賲賱鬲蹖 亘乇丕蹖 诏匕乇 丕夭 蹖讴 卮蹖賵賴鈥屰� 鬲賵賱蹖丿 亘賴 卮蹖賵賴鈥屰� 丿蹖诏乇 賲爻蹖乇 禺丕氐 禺賵丿 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屬聚屬呚й屫�. 亘賴 诏賮鬲賴鈥屰� 丕賳诏賱爻 鬲丕乇蹖禺 噩爻鬲 賵 禺蹖夭 讴賳丕賳 丕夭 賲爻蹖乇蹖 倬蹖趩 賵 禺賲 賲蹖鈥屭柏必�. 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 丕夭 賳馗乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 噩亘乇诏乇丕蹖丕賳賴 賳蹖爻鬲. 鈥�
丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 讴賴 芦丕鬲賵倬蹖丕蹖 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲蹖禄 噩賲毓 賳賯蹖囟蹖賳 丕爻鬲. 趩乇丕 讴賴 賲丕乇讴爻 丕氐賱丕 亘賴 趩賳丿 賵 趩賵賳 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屰� 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲蹖 賳倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 丕爻鬲. 賳賯卮賴鈥屬囏й� 丕鬲賵倬蹖丕蹖蹖 丕夭 賳馗乇 賲丕乇讴爻 賲氐丿丕賯 卮丕賳賴 禺丕賱蹖 讴乇丿賳 丕夭 賵馗丕蹖賮 爻蹖丕爻蹖 夭賲丕賳 丨丕賱 亘賵丿. 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 賴丿賮 賲丕乇讴爻 賳賴 胤乇丨 丌蹖賳丿賴鈥屰� 亘賴鬲乇 亘賱讴賴 丨賱 鬲毓丕乇囟丕鬲 夭賲丕賳 丨丕賱 丕爻鬲. 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 賳爻亘鬲 丌蹖賳丿賴 賵 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 乇丕 亘賴 賳爻亘鬲 丌賳 亘丕 賮賲賳蹖爻賲 鬲卮亘蹖賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 蹖毓賳蹖 丨乇讴鬲蹖 丿乇 夭賲丕賳 丨丕賱 倬蹖卮 亘賴 爻賵蹖 丌蹖賳丿賴. 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 丌蹖賳丿賴 亘丕夭 賵 賳丕賲毓賱賵賲 丕爻鬲. 丕賲丕 丿乇 毓蹖賳 丨丕賱貙 丌蹖賳丿賴鈥� 丿乇 賲賯蹖丕爻 賲卮禺氐蹖 讴賴 丌賳 乇丕 賵囟毓 讴賳賵賳蹖 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 亘丕夭 丕爻鬲. 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屰� 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲蹖 卮乇丕乇鬲鈥屬囏ж� 鬲囟丕丿賴丕 賵 讴賲卮讴卮鈥屬囏� 賴賲趩賳丕賳 賵噩賵丿 禺賵丕賴賳丿 丿丕卮鬲. 丕賳賯賱丕亘 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲蹖 倬丕蹖丕賳 讴卮賲讴卮 賳蹖爻鬲. 讴卮賲讴卮鈥屬囏� 賮賯胤 亘丕 倬丕蹖丕賳 鬲丕乇蹖禺 鬲賲丕賲 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀�. 賯囟蹖賴鈥� 丌賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 賳馗丕賲 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲蹖 賳賴丕丿賴丕 讴賴 夭蹖乇 賳馗乇 賲爻鬲賯蹖賲 賲乇丿賲 賴爻鬲賳丿 丕噩丕夭賴鈥屰� 丿爻鬲鈥屫必ж槽� 賵 賮乇氐鬲鈥屫焚勜ㄛ� 亘賴 丕賮乇丕丿 賳賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀�. 卮乇丕乇鬲 卮禺氐蹖 賮賯胤 夭賲丕賳蹖 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 賳鬲丕蹖噩 賵丨卮鬲賳丕讴 亘賴 亘丕乇 丌賵乇丿 讴賴 丿乇 禺丿賲鬲 爻丕夭 賵 讴丕乇賴丕蹖 爻蹖丕爻蹖 亘丕卮賳丿.
丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 丿乇 乇丕亘胤賴鈥屰� 亘蹖賳 賲丕乇讴爻 賵 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 丕蹖賳 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕賳爻丕賳 乇丕 亘賴 讴丕賱丕 賵 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 乇丕 亘賴 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賵 倬賵賱 賮乇賵 賲蹖鈥屭┴з囏� 賵 賳賴 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲. 鬲賵噩賴 賲丕乇讴爻 亘賴 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 丕夭 丌賳 乇賵 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丌賳 乇丕 夭蹖乇亘賳丕蹖 鬲賲丿賳 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀�. 蹖毓賳蹖 爻乇卮鬲 賵 趩诏賵賳诏蹖 丌賳 鬲賲丿賳 乇丕 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 丕賲丕 爻蹖丕爻鬲貙 賮乇賴賳诏貙 毓賱賲 賵 賴爻鬲蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 禺丕氐 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿丕乇賳丿. 亘賴 賳賵毓蹖 亘丕 乇賵亘賳丕 丿乇 丌賲丿 賵 卮丿 賴爻鬲賳丿. 丕賲丕 亘賴 胤賵乇 讴賱蹖 亘丕 賲賳丕賮毓 胤亘賯丕鬲 賲爻賱胤 诏乇賴 禺賵乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 趩乇丕 讴賴 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 丕孬乇 丕賳诏卮鬲 趩乇讴蹖賳 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘乇 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 夭丿賴 丕爻鬲.鈥�
賲丕鬲乇蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 亘賴 氐乇賮 賲丕鬲乇蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲鈥� 亘賵丿賳卮丕賳 賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲蹖 亘蹖鈥屫ж池ж� 賳蹖爻鬲賳丿. 賲丕乇讴爻 夭賵丿鬲乇 賲蹖鈥屫堌ж池� 丕夭 芦丌鬲 賵 丌卮睾丕賱 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖禄 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 乇賴丕 卮賵丿 賵 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 亘賳賵蹖爻丿. 丕夭 丌賳 诏匕卮鬲賴 賲毓賳賵蹖 亘賵丿賳 賲卮乇賵胤 亘賴 賲匕賴亘蹖 亘賵丿賳 賳蹖爻鬲. 趩賳丕賳 讴賴 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏й� 丕爻賱丕賲蹖貙 賲爻蹖丨蹖 賵 蹖賴賵丿蹖 賳蹖夭 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇賳丿 賵 賲賳丕丿蹖 丕賱丕賴蹖丕鬲 乇賴丕蹖蹖 亘禺卮鈥屫з嗀�. 賲爻兀賱賴鈥� 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲賮讴乇 賵 爻丕蹖乇 噩賳亘賴鈥屬囏й� 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲毓賳賵蹖 賲鬲兀禺乇賳丿 亘乇 賵噩賵丿. 賲丕 倬蹖卮 丕夭 丌賳讴賴 亘鬲賵丕賳蹖賲 賮讴乇 讴賳蹖賲 賵噩賵丿蹖 賲丕丿蹖 丿丕乇蹖賲. 鬲賮讴乇 賳賴 亘丕夭鬲丕亘 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 亘賱讴賴 禺賵丿 賳蹖乇賵蹖蹖 賲丕丿蹖 丕爻鬲. 賲丕鬲乇蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 賲丕乇讴爻 亘賴 丕賵 丕噩丕夭賴 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 亘賴 丌蹖賳丿賴 丕賲蹖丿賵丕乇 亘丕卮丿. 丌蹖賳丿賴鈥屫й� 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 鬲賮讴乇 賱匕鬲 賵丕賯毓蹖 卮賵丿. 鈥�
丕賲丕 丌蹖丕 丨丕賱丕 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 夭蹖丕丿蹖 亘乇 胤亘賯賴鈥� 鬲兀讴蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 丨丕賱丕 讴賴 鬲賮丕賵鬲 馗丕賴乇蹖 胤亘賯丕鬲 讴賲鈥屫辟嗂� 卮丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 賴賳賵夭 賴賲 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丕夭 胤亘賯賴 爻禺賳 诏賮鬲責 丿乇 噩賵丕亘 亘丕蹖丿 诏賮鬲 讴賴 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 亘賳丕 亘賴 匕丕鬲卮 鬲賲丕蹖夭賴丕 乇丕 讴賲鈥屫辟嗂� 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 胤亘賯賴 鬲乇讴蹖亘鈥屫ㄙ嗀� 禺賵丿 乇丕 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 丕賲丕 賲丨賵 賳賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 丨丕賱 丌賳讴賴 鬲賲丕蹖夭 胤亘賯丕鬲蹖 丿乇 丕讴孬乇 賳賯丕胤 噩賴丕賳 丿乇爻鬲 賲卮丕亘賴 胤亘賯丕鬲 夭賲丕賳 賲丕乇讴爻 亘丕乇夭 丕爻鬲. 丕诏乇 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 鬲丕 丕蹖賳 丨丿 賲噩匕賵亘 胤亘賯賴鈥屫ж池� 丕夭 丌賳 乇賵爻鬲 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з囏� 倬爻 倬卮鬲 丌賳 乇丕 亘亘蹖賳丿. 賲丕乇讴爻 亘賴 丿賮賳 賮乇丿蹖鬲 夭賳丕賳 賵 賲乇丿丕賳 亘賴 丿賳亘丕賱 讴丕乇诏乇 蹖賴 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж� 賳丕賲蹖丿賳卮丕賳 丌诏丕賴 亘賵丿貙 丕賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀池� 亘乇丕蹖 丌賳鈥屭┵� 丕蹖賳 亘蹖诏丕賳诏蹖 丕夭 亘蹖賳 亘乇賵丿貙 亘丕蹖丿 丌賳 乇丕 丕夭 丿乇賵賳 亘乇丕賳丿丕禺鬲. 丕蹖賳 丕夭 禺賵丿 亘蹖诏丕賳诏蹖 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 卮乇賵胤 乇賴丕蹖蹖 丕蹖卮丕賳 丕爻鬲.鈥�
丌蹖丕 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丕夭 丕賳賯賱丕亘丕鬲 亘賴 讴賱蹖 賳賴蹖 讴乇丿責 丌賽蹖丕 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 亘蹖鈥屫堌� 賵 亘蹖鈥屫囏� 丿乇 倬蹖 丕賳賯賱丕亘鈥屫з嗀� 亘丕 氐賱丨 賵 丌乇丕賲卮 賲蹖丕賳賴鈥屫й� 賳丿丕乇賳丿責 丕氐賱丕丨鈥屫焚勜ㄘз� 乇丕爻鬲蹖賳 丕氐賱丕丨丕鬲 乇丕 丿乇 趩卮賲 丕賳丿丕夭蹖 賮乇丕禺鈥屫� 賵 乇蹖卮賴鈥屫й屸€屫� 賱丨丕馗 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀�. 丕賲丕 賴賳诏丕賲蹖 讴賴 賳馗丕賲 鬲賳 亘賴 丕氐賱丕丨 賳賲蹖鈥屫囏� 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 賲蹖丕賳 丕氐賱丕丨 賵 丕賳賯賱丕亘 賲胤乇丨 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 倬丕乇賱賲丕賳蹖 乇丕 趩賳丿丕賳 丿賲賵讴乇丕鬲蹖讴 賳賲蹖鈥屫з嗁嗀�. 夭蹖乇丕 賲乇丿賲 賳馗丕乇鬲蹖 亘乇 丌賳 賳丿丕乇賳丿. 倬丕乇賱賲丕賳 丿蹖賵丕乇 賲丨丕賮馗 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 賵 賳賲丕蹖賳丿賴鈥屰� 賲賳丕賮毓 賳賴丕丿 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 禺氐賵氐蹖 丕爻鬲. 賲丕乇讴爻 賵 丕賳诏賱爻 丕賴賲蹖鬲 夭蹖丕丿蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賳賴丕丿賴丕蹖 丕氐賱丕丨鈥屫焚勜ㄛ� 趩賵賳 丕丨夭丕亘 胤亘賯賴鈥屰� 讴丕乇诏乇貙 丨賯 乇兀蹖貙丕賳噩賲賳鈥屬囏й� 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 賵 乇賵夭賳丕賲賴鈥屬囏й� 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賯丕卅賱 亘賵丿賳丿. 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 亘丕 賲丕噩乇丕噩賵蹖蹖 賵 亘乇丕賳诏蹖禺鬲賳 亘蹖鈥屬呚ㄘй� 诏乇賵賴蹖 丕夭 丕賳賯賱丕亘蹖賵賳 讴賵趩讴 賴賲賵丕乇賴 賲禺丕賱賮 亘賵丿賴鈥屫з嗀�. 丕夭 丕蹖賳 诏匕卮鬲賴 丕賳賯賱丕亘鈥屬囏й� 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗁嗀� 睾蹖乇丿賲賵讴乇丕鬲蹖讴 亘丕卮賳丿 丕蹖賳 胤亘賯賴鈥屰� 丨丕讴賲 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕賯賱蹖鬲蹖 睾蹖乇丿賲賵讴乇丕鬲蹖讴 丕爻鬲. 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 讴賴 賴賲賴鈥屰� 賲丕 賲丨氐賵賱 丕賳賯賱丕亘丕鬲 賴爻鬲蹖賲. 賵 賴乇賯丿乇 亘蹖卮鈥屫� 賳鬲賵丕賳蹖賲 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 蹖丕丿 亘蹖丕賵乇蹖賲 賵 鬲卮禺蹖氐 丿賴蹖賲貙 蹖毓賳蹖 丕賳賯賱丕亘 丿乇 丿爻鬲蹖丕亘蹖 亘賴 丕賴丿丕賮卮 賲賵賮賯鈥屫� 亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丕賳賯賱丕亘 賲賵賮賯 丕賳賯賱丕亘蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴蹖趩 乇丿蹖 丕夭 禺賵丿 亘賴 噩丕 賳诏匕丕乇丿. 丕賵 丕蹖賳 丕蹖賳 倬乇爻卮 丕爻丕爻蹖 亘賴 倬蹖卮 賲蹖鈥屭┴簇� 讴賴 氐賱丨 胤賱亘蹖 鬲丕 讴噩丕 賲噩丕夭 丕爻鬲責 丕蹖賳讴賴 丌蹖丕 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 賲丕乇讴爻 乇丕 囟丿丕氐賱丕丨丕鬲 丿丕賳爻鬲責
乇賵卮賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲丕乇讴爻 賲禺丕賱賮 爻乇爻禺鬲 丿賵賱鬲 亘賵丿貙 丕賲丕 趩賴 丿賵賱鬲蹖責 丿賵賱鬲蹖 讴賴 丕亘夭丕乇 賯賴乇 賵 禺卮賵賳鬲 丕爻鬲.丿賵賱鬲蹖 讴賴 丿乇 賳夭丕毓鈥屬囏� 亘蹖鈥屫坟辟� 賳蹖爻鬲. 丿賵賱鬲 鬲丕 夭賲丕賳蹖 亘蹖鈥屫坟辟� 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴蹖趩 賳卮丕賳蹖 丕夭 倬蹖乇賵夭蹖 賲賳鬲賯丿丕賳 賳亘蹖賳丿. 亘賴 賲丨囟 丌賳鈥屭┵� 賲賳丕賮毓 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 亘賴 禺胤乇 亘蹖丕賮鬲丿貙 賲丕卮蹖賳 爻乇讴賵亘 丿賵賱鬲 亘賴 乇丕賴 賲蹖鈥屫з佖�. 亘賴 丕蹖賳 鬲乇鬲蹖亘 賲丕乇讴爻 賲禺丕賱賮 毓賲賱讴乇丿賴丕蹖 賲毓胤賵賮 亘賴 胤亘賯丕鬲 丿賵賱鬲 丕爻鬲貙 丿賵賱鬲 毓賲賱讴乇丿賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇蹖 賴賲 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 賳丕馗乇 亘賴 胤亘賯賴 賳蹖爻鬲賳丿. 丿蹖讴鬲丕鬲賵乇蹖 倬乇賵賱鬲丕乇蹖丕 讴賴 賴賲賴 乇丕 亘賴 賵丨卮鬲 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀ж藏� 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 賳賯囟 賮乇丕賯丕賳賵賳蹖 蹖讴 賯丕賳賵賳 丕爻丕爻蹖 丕爻鬲貙 賯丕賳賵賳蹖 讴賴 丕夭 賲賳丕賮毓 诏乇賵賴鈥屬囏й� 禺丕氐 丨賲丕蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 丨乇讴鬲 亘賴 爻賵蹖 蹖讴 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 禺賱賯蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 爻乇丕爻乇 噩丕賲毓賴 乇蹖卮賴 丿賵丕賳丿賴 亘丕卮丿.鈥�
丿乇 丌禺乇 丕夭 乇丕亘胤賴鈥屰� 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 賵 噩賳亘卮鈥屬囏й� 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 賳馗蹖乇 賮賲蹖賳蹖爻賲 賵 賲亘丕乇夭賴 毓賱蹖賴 賮丕卮蹖爻賲貙 噩賳亘卮 胤乇賮丿丕乇丕賳 丨賮馗 賲丨蹖胤 夭蹖爻鬲 亘丨孬 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 丕蹖賳 噩賳亘卮鈥屬囏� 禺丕乇噩 丕夭 趩丕乇趩賵亘 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 卮讴賱 诏乇賮鬲賴鈥屫з嗀� 丕賲丕 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 丿乇 爻乇丕爻乇 丿賳蹖丕 丕賱賴丕賲 亘禺卮 丌賳鈥屬囏� 亘賵丿賴 賵 丕夭 丌賳鈥屬囏� 丌賲賵禺鬲賴 丕爻鬲 丿乇 賲賯丕賵賲鬲 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 丕爻鬲毓賲丕乇貙 乇賴丕蹖蹖 夭賳丕賳 賵 賲亘丕乇夭賴 亘丕 賮丕卮蹖爻賲 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 賴賲賵丕乇賴 倬蹖卮鈥屫辟� 亘賵丿賳丿.鈥�
November 28, 2016
鈥徺囏柏� 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷購馗賴乇 丨賯賷賯丞 丕賱賲丕乇賰爻賷丞 亘匕賰乇 賳賯丕胤賴丕 丕賱廿賷噩丕亘賷丞 賵兀爻亘丕亘 爻賯賵胤賴丕貙 賷丨丕賵賱 賮賷賴 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 廿馗賴丕乇 賲賰丕賲賳 丕賱賯賵丞 賵丕賱囟毓賮 賮賷 丕賱賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱賲丕乇賰爻賷丞 賵賰賷賮 兀賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賳馗乇賷丞 賰丕賳鬲 賳馗乇賷丞 胤賵亘丕賵賷丞 兀賯乇亘 賱賱禺賷丕賱 賲賳 丕賱鬲胤亘賷賯 亘爻亘亘 賲丨丕乇亘鬲賴丕 賱胤亘毓 亘卮乇賷 賲鬲噩匕賾乇 丕賱丕 賵賴賵 丨亘 丕賱鬲賲賱賾賰
April 24, 2015
This is an Apologia for the unwitting founder of the latest but possibly not the last of the great 鈥榟erd鈥� religions.
The book itself is not a complete failure. If you are studying Marxism, it would be a good text that summarises the best case for it much as one might go to Tertullian or Augustine to get the best case for Early Christianity.
Similarly, no babies should be thrown out with the bathwater of Communist history. Marx can be seen as analyst and as historical fantasist. As analyst, he offered superb insights into the nature of power and the construction of the social that will be timeless.
As historical fantasist, lesser minds than his (amongst which we must include Professor Eagleton) have made a vicious stew that resulted in the ruination of many lives, not least that of the neurotic activists and martyrs of the religion created out of it.
The book puts forward ten propositions against Marx in a series of chapters (and Eagleton does not stint on these) where he attempts with varying success, intelligence and good faith to counter them. The end result is unconvincing.
Not that he does not write well or with logical argument but he constantly confuses categories, seeking to justify the history of Marxism, distance Marx from the history of Marxism and redraft our understanding of what Marx is supposed to have meant at different times and in different places.
Because it is partly polemical, the final result reads like a desperate attempt to wean the Lefties whose progressive god has failed, the one that thought it could ride the capitalist and markets tiger, back into the fold.
To take the religious analogy again, this is a subtle Jesuit trying to bring High Anglicans back home to Rome. But putting all this to one side (and it is noticeable that the one criticism he does not seek to counter is that Marxism is a religion in all but claim), the book is ultimately futile.
Eagleton can argue until he is blue in the face but Marxism is a busted brand at three levels 鈥�
- philosophically, it only works as essentialism in a world that is now too intelligent to take essences at face value,
- politically, in the end, no Marxist state can exist until it happens by dint of a history that will not permit consistently Marxist actions and,
- finally, at a human level, Marxists are often quite limited and neurotic people with a limited understanding of other persons and whose authoritarian instincts are only thinly veiled.
Eagleton, though he writes well, cannot help being constantly snarky about individuals 鈥� whether Paris Hilton or Mick Jagger 鈥� whom he clearly despises with the sort of snobbery that made the Fabians and Raymond Williams so detached from the population they claimed to serve.
He refuses to give respect to popular individual choices that might embrace these icons. He never really deals with sexuality or transgression except in ways that would make me fear a Cromwellian misery in his communitarian paradise.
In the end, all I see is a sour intellectual of a failed political generation filled with resentment that the current crisis is not being interpreted according to a faith dearly holds. He wants everything 鈥� to show how superior he is, how he told us so and why his ancient ways are hip.
The desperate attempt to ally Marx to the fashionable political cultures of feminism, anti-colonialism (with some justification in this one case) and environmentalism (pur-leeze!) shows an amazing lack of understanding.
These deeply flawed identity and single issue movements represent the heart of conflict within but not against market capitalism. For this reason alone, the book may be placed in the library for reference but otherwise ignored.
Marx may be studied as an authentic flawed genius with insights that match, say, those of Freud and Nietzsche but Marxism has little to teach us except to avoid intellectuals claiming to have a solution to our problems.
In reality, Marx may have been right about 鈥榠nternal contradictions鈥� in capitalism but the handling of these contradictions will arise from the street and through cultural struggle and not through Marxism.
On the contrary, Marxists are likely to be found up there trying to manage the State against us 鈥� that is certainly so across half Europe and in most of our 鈥榙emocratic鈥� centre-left parties where closet Marxists still hold sway.
Eagleton repeatedly suggests that our choice is between 鈥榮ocialism and barbarism鈥� and this is where he frightens me because he places 鈥榮ocialism鈥� on the side of Rome and order against the free creativity of the general population as individuals.
He claims otherwise but he is bluntly not to be trusted in this. In a stark choice between 鈥榮ocialism and barbarism鈥�, one is tempted to choose barbarism as the lesser evil.
Social revolution I still welcome (indeed, I think we are in the midst of it), but if you ever see a Marxist trying to take a lead within it, then remove them quickly, by any means necessary. If they do not kill you, they may end up killing your children.
May 11, 2018
I really appreciate the ability to write (on difficult issues) clearly and simply + to write a popular but not vulgar book!
August 19, 2016
The most refreshing and legitimately optimistic book I鈥檝e probably ever read. Eagleton deftly rescues Marx from the dustbin to which right-wingers, postmodernists, silly liberals and capitalist triumphalists have consigned him. And he does it in such a chummy, cant-free style, while thoroughly answering one attack after another, that it鈥檚 like the lamplight from a cottage window on a foggy night. While this will always be contentious, he makes a strong case for the fallacy of blaming Marx鈥檚 thought for 20th century totalitarianism (any more, in my view, than you would blame Adam Smith for King Leopold, Bhopal, or the genocide of the plains Indians). And frees him from the cultish or clannish behavior of some Marxists as well. In the process, you get a good tour of what the man actually wrote, and why, for as long as capitalism exists, whether it is finally superseded by 鈥渟ocialism or barbarism,鈥� Marx鈥檚 critique will be one of the best tools we have not for predicting the future, but for understanding the present.
And I'm particularly grateful to him for citing Oscar Wilde: "The problem with socialism is that it takes up too many evenings."
And I'm particularly grateful to him for citing Oscar Wilde: "The problem with socialism is that it takes up too many evenings."
March 12, 2020
I can't wait to read another book by Terry Eagleton as he is such an engaging writer. Some wonderful, amusing lines and quips as well as thought-provoking observations particularly about the victims of capitalism and the capitalist system.
Some quotations for you without giving the game away:
Successful revolutions are those which end up erasing all traces of themselves.
Most political states came about through revolution, invasion, occupation, usurpation, or extermination. Successful states are those that have managed to wipe this bloody history from the minds of their citizens.
The bad news for socialists is that men and women will be extremely reluctant to transform their situation as long as there is still something in that situation for them.
Some quotations for you without giving the game away:
Successful revolutions are those which end up erasing all traces of themselves.
Most political states came about through revolution, invasion, occupation, usurpation, or extermination. Successful states are those that have managed to wipe this bloody history from the minds of their citizens.
The bad news for socialists is that men and women will be extremely reluctant to transform their situation as long as there is still something in that situation for them.
July 11, 2017
Excelente libro que refuta las principales objeciones al Marxismo. En verdad, m谩s que objeciones, son prejuicios y opiniones basadas en la ignorancia, por eso el trabajo de Eagleton no solo sirve para derribar esos prejuicios, sino que tambien como una buena introducci贸n al marxismo, desde lo econ贸mico, filos贸fico y pol铆tico.
January 4, 2014
As unfashionable as Marxism is these days, Terry Eagleton believes that the events of our time make a strong case for it. Why Marx Was Right is an argument on two fronts, one being that Karl Marx never advocated for much of what was attributed to him, and the other that what Karl Marx actually proposed is very appropriate for our age.
When I read the book, I was open to giving Marxism a fair hearing, as I wonder if the technological developments and "post-scarcity" world of our time call for a new economic model to replace the various forms of capitalism dominant until now. Perhaps Marx was prescient enough to propose a communal system of transactions that could work smoothly and justly today with all our computers and automated manufacturing?
Eagleton makes the case that Karl Marx's thought is not what most people assume it is from the use of Marxist rhetoric in the Soviet Union and China. Far from being responsible for gulags and famines imposed by a top-down state, Eagleton suggests that Marx called on workers to organize themselves, proposing bottom-up models of doing so that even supporters of a free market might be able to sympathize with. I'm not sure how reliable Eagleton's view of Marx is, but it definitely motivates me to read Marx's original works someday to see for myself.
When it comes to the argument that "Marx was right" in what he actually wrote, Eagleton's book is a failure. As I said, I was hoping we would get a fresh argument for Marxism on the basis of the rapid technological progress we are experiencing today, but Eagleton just retreads old Trotskyist arguments from the first half of the 20th century, and omits anything that might complicate his case.
For example, nowhere does Eagleton grapple with the issue of whether force on the part of the state is justified or not. Eagleton simply assumes that the dictatorship of the proletariat (as even our contemporary mixed-capitalists states do today) is right to redistribute wealth, taking private property away from the rich to give to the needy. I happen to agree with him on this point, but the book required some rebuttal of the libertarian argument for the inviolability of private property.
Furthermore, nowhere does Eagleton discuss Marxism's oppression of religion, in spite of the general Western recognition of freedom of religion as a universal human right (as it is simply a consequence of the freedom of conscience and freedom of association that no one wants to do without). He repeatedly praises the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, claiming little blood was spilled, but ignores the fact that priests were imprisoned or murdered and churches blown up 鈥� and not just Christianity, but Russia's other indigenous faiths, namely Islam and Buddhism, also suffered.
Curiously, Eagleton writes "The state as an administrative body would live on. It is the state as an instrument of violence that Marx hopes to see the back of." How would the state have the power to administrate if it does not have a monopoly on power, which is ultimately the barrel of a gun? The Russian Bolsheviks that Eagleton admires certainly used the state as an instrument of violence. As if to avoid the unpleasant thought that the Bolsheviks imposed themselves on the unwilling, he disingenously suggests that it was a society-wide movement, which doesn't square with the actual history of Russia in 1917: a fairly small group of Bolshevik agitators was able to seize key infrastructure and overthrew the multiparty system that Russia was enjoying from the beginning of that year.
Finally, this book is written in too strident a tone, so Eagleton ends up turning off sceptical readers who want to give Marxism a chance, preaching instead to the choir. To end my review with just one example of the inflammatory rhetoric everywhere in this book:
When I read the book, I was open to giving Marxism a fair hearing, as I wonder if the technological developments and "post-scarcity" world of our time call for a new economic model to replace the various forms of capitalism dominant until now. Perhaps Marx was prescient enough to propose a communal system of transactions that could work smoothly and justly today with all our computers and automated manufacturing?
Eagleton makes the case that Karl Marx's thought is not what most people assume it is from the use of Marxist rhetoric in the Soviet Union and China. Far from being responsible for gulags and famines imposed by a top-down state, Eagleton suggests that Marx called on workers to organize themselves, proposing bottom-up models of doing so that even supporters of a free market might be able to sympathize with. I'm not sure how reliable Eagleton's view of Marx is, but it definitely motivates me to read Marx's original works someday to see for myself.
When it comes to the argument that "Marx was right" in what he actually wrote, Eagleton's book is a failure. As I said, I was hoping we would get a fresh argument for Marxism on the basis of the rapid technological progress we are experiencing today, but Eagleton just retreads old Trotskyist arguments from the first half of the 20th century, and omits anything that might complicate his case.
For example, nowhere does Eagleton grapple with the issue of whether force on the part of the state is justified or not. Eagleton simply assumes that the dictatorship of the proletariat (as even our contemporary mixed-capitalists states do today) is right to redistribute wealth, taking private property away from the rich to give to the needy. I happen to agree with him on this point, but the book required some rebuttal of the libertarian argument for the inviolability of private property.
Furthermore, nowhere does Eagleton discuss Marxism's oppression of religion, in spite of the general Western recognition of freedom of religion as a universal human right (as it is simply a consequence of the freedom of conscience and freedom of association that no one wants to do without). He repeatedly praises the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, claiming little blood was spilled, but ignores the fact that priests were imprisoned or murdered and churches blown up 鈥� and not just Christianity, but Russia's other indigenous faiths, namely Islam and Buddhism, also suffered.
Curiously, Eagleton writes "The state as an administrative body would live on. It is the state as an instrument of violence that Marx hopes to see the back of." How would the state have the power to administrate if it does not have a monopoly on power, which is ultimately the barrel of a gun? The Russian Bolsheviks that Eagleton admires certainly used the state as an instrument of violence. As if to avoid the unpleasant thought that the Bolsheviks imposed themselves on the unwilling, he disingenously suggests that it was a society-wide movement, which doesn't square with the actual history of Russia in 1917: a fairly small group of Bolshevik agitators was able to seize key infrastructure and overthrew the multiparty system that Russia was enjoying from the beginning of that year.
Finally, this book is written in too strident a tone, so Eagleton ends up turning off sceptical readers who want to give Marxism a chance, preaching instead to the choir. To end my review with just one example of the inflammatory rhetoric everywhere in this book:
We will know that socialism has established itself when we are able to look back with utter incredulity at the idea that a handful of commercial thugs were given free rein to corrupt the minds of the public with Neanderthal political views.
March 27, 2018
丕诏乇 亘賴 丿賳亘丕賱 卮賳丕禺鬲賽 丕賳丿讴蹖 毓賲蹖賯 丕夭 賲丕乇讴爻 賵 賳爻亘鬲 丌賳 亘丕 賲爻卅賱賴 賴丕蹖 賲賴賲 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 賵 丕賲乇賵夭蹖 賴爻鬲蹖丿 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 丕夭 丿爻鬲 賳丿賴蹖丿. 爻丕禺鬲丕乇 亘爻蹖丕乇 噩匕丕亘蹖 丿丕乇丿: 丿賴 倬乇爻卮 亘賱賳丿 賵 毓丕賲 丕夭 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲 賵 鬲賱丕卮 亘乇丕蹖 倬丕爻禺 亘賴 丌賳 丕夭 賲賳馗乇 賲丕乇讴爻.
丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 賳馗乇蹖賴 丕丿亘蹖 賵 賮乇賴賳诏蹖貙 丕蹖賳噩丕 趩賴乇賴 賲丕乇讴爻蹖 -丌賳賴賲 鬲睾蹖蹖乇蹖 賵 賳賴 鬲賮爻蹖乇蹖- 禺賵丿卮 乇丕 禺賵亘 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖 丿賴丿 賴乇趩賳丿 賴賲賳蹖噩丕 賴賲 讴賲 丕夭 禺噩丕賱鬲 爻乇丌賲丿丕賳 賮乇賴賳诏 賵 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 丿丕乇蹖 丿乇 賳賲蹖 丌蹖丿. 亘乇丕蹖 賴賲蹖賳 賴賲 亘丕乇 丕賯賳丕毓蹖 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱賴丕 诏丕賴丕賻 丕爻鬲賵丕乇 亘賴 賳卮丕賳賴 乇賮鬲賳 丌蹖乇賵賳蹖讴 趩賴乇賴 賴丕蹖蹖 賲孬賱 鬲乇丕賲倬 賵 倬乇賳爻 趩丕乇賱夭 賵 丌乇賳賵賱丿 卮賵丕乇鬲夭賳诏乇 丕爻鬲: 丿乇爻鬲 賴賲丕賳 讴丕乇蹖 讴賴 囟丿賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲賴丕 亘乇丕蹖 讴噩 賵 讴賵賱賴 賳卮丕賳 丿丕丿賳 丌蹖蹖賳 賲丕乇讴爻蹖 亘丕 賳卮丕賳 丿丕丿賳 诏賵賱丕讴 賵 丕賲孬丕賱賴賲 賲蹖 讴賳賳丿. 亘丕 賴賲賴 丕蹖賳賴丕 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 丕賳氐丕賮 乇丕 乇毓丕蹖鬲 讴乇丿賴 賵 亘賴 丕賯鬲囟丕 爻蹖禺蹖 亘賴 鬲賳 禺賵丿蹖 賴賲 賮乇賵 讴乇丿賴.
亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 讴賴 讴鬲丕亘 噩匕丕亘蹖 亘賵丿 丕賲丕 丕诏乇 丿賳亘丕賱 賲鬲賳蹖 賲蹖 诏乇丿蹖丿 讴賴 卮乇丨蹖 噩丕賳丕賳賴 丕夭 丕蹖丿賴 賴丕 賵 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 丕氐賱蹖 賲丕乇讴爻 亘丿賴丿貙 倬乇爻卮 賴丕蹖蹖 丕夭 賲丕乇讴爻 丕孬乇 賯丕賳毓 讴賳賳丿賴 丕蹖 亘乇丕蹖鬲丕賳 賳禺賵丕賴丿 亘賵丿. 賴丿賮 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 賴賲 丕蹖賳 賳亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲孬賱丕 賲賮賴賵賲 胤亘賯賴 賵 賲爻賱賴 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 爻賳鬲 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲蹖 乇丕 丌賳胤賵乇 讴賴 丌賱賳 賵賵丿 賵 倬賵賱丕賳夭丕爻 讴丕賵蹖丿賴 賵 亘爻胤 丿丕丿賴 丕賳丿 乇賵卮賳 讴賳丿. 賴賲丕賳胤賵乇 讴賴 丕夭 爻丕禺鬲丕乇 倬乇爻卮 賴丕蹖蹖 丕夭 賲丕乇讴爻 亘乇賲蹖 丌蹖丿 賴丿賮 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 丕賯賳丕毓 賲禺丕胤亘 毓丕賲 亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲.
..............
鬲乇噩賲賴 讴鬲丕亘 毓丕賱蹖 亘賵丿.
丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 賳馗乇蹖賴 丕丿亘蹖 賵 賮乇賴賳诏蹖貙 丕蹖賳噩丕 趩賴乇賴 賲丕乇讴爻蹖 -丌賳賴賲 鬲睾蹖蹖乇蹖 賵 賳賴 鬲賮爻蹖乇蹖- 禺賵丿卮 乇丕 禺賵亘 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖 丿賴丿 賴乇趩賳丿 賴賲賳蹖噩丕 賴賲 讴賲 丕夭 禺噩丕賱鬲 爻乇丌賲丿丕賳 賮乇賴賳诏 賵 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 丿丕乇蹖 丿乇 賳賲蹖 丌蹖丿. 亘乇丕蹖 賴賲蹖賳 賴賲 亘丕乇 丕賯賳丕毓蹖 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱賴丕 诏丕賴丕賻 丕爻鬲賵丕乇 亘賴 賳卮丕賳賴 乇賮鬲賳 丌蹖乇賵賳蹖讴 趩賴乇賴 賴丕蹖蹖 賲孬賱 鬲乇丕賲倬 賵 倬乇賳爻 趩丕乇賱夭 賵 丌乇賳賵賱丿 卮賵丕乇鬲夭賳诏乇 丕爻鬲: 丿乇爻鬲 賴賲丕賳 讴丕乇蹖 讴賴 囟丿賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲賴丕 亘乇丕蹖 讴噩 賵 讴賵賱賴 賳卮丕賳 丿丕丿賳 丌蹖蹖賳 賲丕乇讴爻蹖 亘丕 賳卮丕賳 丿丕丿賳 诏賵賱丕讴 賵 丕賲孬丕賱賴賲 賲蹖 讴賳賳丿. 亘丕 賴賲賴 丕蹖賳賴丕 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 丕賳氐丕賮 乇丕 乇毓丕蹖鬲 讴乇丿賴 賵 亘賴 丕賯鬲囟丕 爻蹖禺蹖 亘賴 鬲賳 禺賵丿蹖 賴賲 賮乇賵 讴乇丿賴.
亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 讴賴 讴鬲丕亘 噩匕丕亘蹖 亘賵丿 丕賲丕 丕诏乇 丿賳亘丕賱 賲鬲賳蹖 賲蹖 诏乇丿蹖丿 讴賴 卮乇丨蹖 噩丕賳丕賳賴 丕夭 丕蹖丿賴 賴丕 賵 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 丕氐賱蹖 賲丕乇讴爻 亘丿賴丿貙 倬乇爻卮 賴丕蹖蹖 丕夭 賲丕乇讴爻 丕孬乇 賯丕賳毓 讴賳賳丿賴 丕蹖 亘乇丕蹖鬲丕賳 賳禺賵丕賴丿 亘賵丿. 賴丿賮 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 賴賲 丕蹖賳 賳亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲孬賱丕 賲賮賴賵賲 胤亘賯賴 賵 賲爻賱賴 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 爻賳鬲 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲蹖 乇丕 丌賳胤賵乇 讴賴 丌賱賳 賵賵丿 賵 倬賵賱丕賳夭丕爻 讴丕賵蹖丿賴 賵 亘爻胤 丿丕丿賴 丕賳丿 乇賵卮賳 讴賳丿. 賴賲丕賳胤賵乇 讴賴 丕夭 爻丕禺鬲丕乇 倬乇爻卮 賴丕蹖蹖 丕夭 賲丕乇讴爻 亘乇賲蹖 丌蹖丿 賴丿賮 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 丕賯賳丕毓 賲禺丕胤亘 毓丕賲 亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲.
..............
鬲乇噩賲賴 讴鬲丕亘 毓丕賱蹖 亘賵丿.
September 28, 2024
A few days ago, I finished another book on the principles of economics via the lens of Austrian economy theory. The ideas presented there were mostly libertarian. I did agree with many of them, and I disagreed with many as well, but it was a positive experience - the author has calmly expressed his opinions, used data, and referenced cases in the past. Ideas have been backed up by a clear chain-of-thought reasoning - even the book's structure was designed in a way to back this up.
So, after finishing this book, I came up with the idea of reading something contrarian - if a libertarian economy book was fun & thought-provoking, maybe a Marxist one would be as well. Unfortunately, I was very wrong ...
But why WMWR specifically? Well, because of a few reasons:
- a respected author known of his direct and "smart" style
- published by Yale
- declared to focus on the main theses used to criticise Marxism - sounded like we're getting to the point, right?
OK, you already know (based on the star rating and "I was very wrong" comment) that this is a bad book. But why?
1. instead of facts, data & reasoning, it's fully based on being anti-capitalistic
2. instead of trying to pinpoint what is wrong in capitalism & how to fix it (if it truly needs fixing), it tries to force utopia, completely ignoring the fact that 100% of attempts to enforce it have completely failed in the past - I expected some rational view on that, maybe a summary of mistakes (except "yes, Stalin was a monster, so it's Stalin's fault") or specific list of improvements for the next "attempts" - there was literally ZERO of that here!
3. unfortunately, all "sins" of Marxism are always counter with whataboutism - a very naive one; for example: "Soviets have murdered millions, but how many have died because of feudalism across all the ages before!"; Srsly?
4. the chapter about "class" is simply ridiculous :) you read the author trying to defend Marx's thesis, but in fact - it seems like he's doing the opposite ... let's talk about how the tech. & social progress have equaled the opportunities for people within local communities, but also globally - for some reason the author pretends he doesn't see that
5. the chapter about "peace" is not even a manipulation, it's a streak of lies; when I read such statements like "the bolsheviks wanted the peace so much that their first act after the revolution was a withdrawal from WWI" my blood is boiling. Please, read the history books: why PRECISELY they have done that and what they did next (in 1919). To sum it up: yes, they wanted peace, after conquering all Europe - the communist slavery of oppressed European people.
6. the chapter about the "state" is extremely inconsistent (intellectually) - the alternative to the state is ... state, just ruled by the party - that's exactly what we've seen in the SU; no details on any real no-state alternative are presented here & TBH even libertarians have something more (the idea of the "Network State" as presented by Srinivasan).
OK, enough. It was a waste of time.
I expected an intellectual challenge, but I've approached it openly, assuming that there has to be some truth and goodwill behind the Marxist concepts. But this book has only discouraged me and convinced me that there's no rational discussion or space for common ground here.
P.S. Seriously, Yale has published THAT? I understand the freedom of speech, but there should be some quality/veracity checks. Shame on you, Yale.
So, after finishing this book, I came up with the idea of reading something contrarian - if a libertarian economy book was fun & thought-provoking, maybe a Marxist one would be as well. Unfortunately, I was very wrong ...
But why WMWR specifically? Well, because of a few reasons:
- a respected author known of his direct and "smart" style
- published by Yale
- declared to focus on the main theses used to criticise Marxism - sounded like we're getting to the point, right?
OK, you already know (based on the star rating and "I was very wrong" comment) that this is a bad book. But why?
1. instead of facts, data & reasoning, it's fully based on being anti-capitalistic
2. instead of trying to pinpoint what is wrong in capitalism & how to fix it (if it truly needs fixing), it tries to force utopia, completely ignoring the fact that 100% of attempts to enforce it have completely failed in the past - I expected some rational view on that, maybe a summary of mistakes (except "yes, Stalin was a monster, so it's Stalin's fault") or specific list of improvements for the next "attempts" - there was literally ZERO of that here!
3. unfortunately, all "sins" of Marxism are always counter with whataboutism - a very naive one; for example: "Soviets have murdered millions, but how many have died because of feudalism across all the ages before!"; Srsly?
4. the chapter about "class" is simply ridiculous :) you read the author trying to defend Marx's thesis, but in fact - it seems like he's doing the opposite ... let's talk about how the tech. & social progress have equaled the opportunities for people within local communities, but also globally - for some reason the author pretends he doesn't see that
5. the chapter about "peace" is not even a manipulation, it's a streak of lies; when I read such statements like "the bolsheviks wanted the peace so much that their first act after the revolution was a withdrawal from WWI" my blood is boiling. Please, read the history books: why PRECISELY they have done that and what they did next (in 1919). To sum it up: yes, they wanted peace, after conquering all Europe - the communist slavery of oppressed European people.
6. the chapter about the "state" is extremely inconsistent (intellectually) - the alternative to the state is ... state, just ruled by the party - that's exactly what we've seen in the SU; no details on any real no-state alternative are presented here & TBH even libertarians have something more (the idea of the "Network State" as presented by Srinivasan).
OK, enough. It was a waste of time.
I expected an intellectual challenge, but I've approached it openly, assuming that there has to be some truth and goodwill behind the Marxist concepts. But this book has only discouraged me and convinced me that there's no rational discussion or space for common ground here.
P.S. Seriously, Yale has published THAT? I understand the freedom of speech, but there should be some quality/veracity checks. Shame on you, Yale.
August 2, 2019
鬲乇蹖 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 亘賴 丕蹖乇丕丿丕鬲 毓丕賲賴鈥屬矩迟嗀� 毓賱蹖賴 賲丕乇讴爻 倬丕爻禺 賲蹖鈥屫囏�. 賲賳鬲賴丕 倬丕爻禺鈥屬囏й屫� 賴賲 丿乇 亘蹖卮鬲乇 賲賵丕乇丿 倬乇丿丕禺鬲蹖 爻胤丨蹖 丿丕乇賳丿. 丕氐賱丕 賳賮爻賽 禺賵丿-爻賵丕賱-倬乇爻蹖丿賳 賵 禺賵丿-噩賵丕亘-丿丕丿賳 讴賲蹖 賲爻卅賱賴鈥屫ж� 丕爻鬲. 倬乇爻卮鈥屬囏� 乇丕 丕睾乇丕賯鈥屫①呟屫� 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃� 賵 亘賴 鬲賳丕賯囟鈥屬囏� 賵 丕亘賴丕賲丕鬲 亘賳蹖丕丿蹖賳 賲丕乇讴爻 丕卮丕乇賴鈥屫й� 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃�. 鬲賱丕卮 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 亘蹖卮鬲乇 卮亘蹖賴 賴賲鈥屫藏� 賲丕乇讴爻 賵 丕乇夭卮鈥屬囏й� 賱蹖亘乇丕賱鈥屫呝堏┴必ж驰� 丕爻鬲貨 芦賲丕乇讴爻 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 丿賵賱鬲 賳賴貙 丕賲丕 賳賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 讴賴 讴丕賲賱丕 賴賲 賳亘丕卮丿.禄
诏賵蹖丕 賲卮讴賱 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 亘丕 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂屫� 亘蹖卮鬲乇賿 倬賵賱丿丕乇賴丕蹖 夭丕賱賵氐賮鬲 賵 卮丕賴夭丕丿诏丕賳 丕賳诏賱蹖爻 丕爻鬲. 丿乇 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳蹖貙 丕禺賱丕賯賿 賴賲蹖賳 丕禺賱丕賯 賮毓賱蹖賽 賲亘鬲賳蹖 亘乇 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴蹖 禺賵丕賴丿 賲丕賳丿 賵 丿乇 賵丕賯毓貙 讴丕乇诏乇丕賳 亘禺丕胤乇 賲賳丕賮毓 亘蹖卮鬲乇 禺賵丿卮丕賳 (倬賵賱 亘蹖卮鬲乇貙 亘乇丕蹖 賲氐乇賮 亘蹖卮鬲乇貨 丿賯蹖賯丕 禺賱丕賮 丨乇賮蹖 讴賴 賲丕乇讴爻 丿乇 丿爻鬲鈥屬嗁堌簇団€屬囏� 亘乇丕蹖 乇賴丕蹖蹖 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 賲蹖鈥屫操嗀�)貙 亘丕蹖丿 丕賳賯賱丕亘 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲蹖 亘讴賳賳丿. 賴乇趩賳丿 丕蹖賳 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 馗丕賴乇丕 禺蹖賱蹖 賴賲 趩蹖夭 丕賳賯賱丕亘蹖鈥屫й� 賳蹖爻鬲 賵 亘丕 蹖讴 鬲賯爻蹖賲 倬賵賱 毓丕丿賱丕賳賴鈥屫� --賵 賳賴 亘乇丕亘乇-- (趩賴 趩蹖夭蹖 毓丿丕賱鬲 鬲賯爻蹖賲 丨賯賵賯 乇丕 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 賲蹖讴賳丿責!) 賯囟丕蹖丕 丨賱鈥屬堎佖蒂� 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀�.
诏賵蹖丕 賲卮讴賱 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 亘丕 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂屫� 亘蹖卮鬲乇賿 倬賵賱丿丕乇賴丕蹖 夭丕賱賵氐賮鬲 賵 卮丕賴夭丕丿诏丕賳 丕賳诏賱蹖爻 丕爻鬲. 丿乇 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳蹖貙 丕禺賱丕賯賿 賴賲蹖賳 丕禺賱丕賯 賮毓賱蹖賽 賲亘鬲賳蹖 亘乇 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴蹖 禺賵丕賴丿 賲丕賳丿 賵 丿乇 賵丕賯毓貙 讴丕乇诏乇丕賳 亘禺丕胤乇 賲賳丕賮毓 亘蹖卮鬲乇 禺賵丿卮丕賳 (倬賵賱 亘蹖卮鬲乇貙 亘乇丕蹖 賲氐乇賮 亘蹖卮鬲乇貨 丿賯蹖賯丕 禺賱丕賮 丨乇賮蹖 讴賴 賲丕乇讴爻 丿乇 丿爻鬲鈥屬嗁堌簇団€屬囏� 亘乇丕蹖 乇賴丕蹖蹖 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 賲蹖鈥屫操嗀�)貙 亘丕蹖丿 丕賳賯賱丕亘 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲蹖 亘讴賳賳丿. 賴乇趩賳丿 丕蹖賳 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 馗丕賴乇丕 禺蹖賱蹖 賴賲 趩蹖夭 丕賳賯賱丕亘蹖鈥屫й� 賳蹖爻鬲 賵 亘丕 蹖讴 鬲賯爻蹖賲 倬賵賱 毓丕丿賱丕賳賴鈥屫� --賵 賳賴 亘乇丕亘乇-- (趩賴 趩蹖夭蹖 毓丿丕賱鬲 鬲賯爻蹖賲 丨賯賵賯 乇丕 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 賲蹖讴賳丿責!) 賯囟丕蹖丕 丨賱鈥屬堎佖蒂� 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀�.
May 24, 2018
亘蹖賳 4 賵 5 爻鬲丕乇賴 賲丕賳丿賴 亘賵丿賲 賵 丕賲鬲蹖丕夭 丿賯蹖賯 鬲乇卮 亘丕丕賱丕鬲乇 丕夭 4
鬲賯乇蹖乇 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 丕夭 賲丕乇讴爻貙 丕毓丕丿賴 丨蹖孬蹖鬲蹖 丕爻鬲 丿乇禺卮丕賳貙 賵 卮丕蹖丿 亘乇丕蹖 讴鬲丕亘蹖 丿乇 丕蹖賳 跇丕賳乇 賵 亘丕 丕蹖賳 賲丿毓丕 亘鬲賵丕賳 丌賳 乇丕 丕孬乇蹖 讴賲 賳馗蹖乇 蹖丕賮鬲. 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 丿乇 丿賴 賮氐賱 亘賴 亘乇乇爻蹖 乇丕亘胤賴 賲丕乇讴爻 賵 丕蹖丿賴 賴丕蹖 丕爻丕爻蹖 賲乇鬲亘胤 亘丕 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 賲賳 噩賲賱賴 丕賯鬲氐丕丿貙 丕賳賯賱丕亘貙 胤亘賯賴貙 噩賳亘卮 賴丕蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 賵 ... 賲蹖 倬乇丿丕夭丿 賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲爻蹖乇 亘賴 乇賵卮賳蹖 丕夭 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 賴丕蹖 跇乇賮蹖 亘賴乇賴 賲蹖 亘乇丿貙 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賲賳馗乇 賮氐賱 賲丕乇讴爻 賵 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 讴鬲丕亘 丕賴賲蹖鬲蹖 丕爻丕爻蹖 丿丕乇丿.
賮賯胤 毓賱蹖 乇睾賲 鬲乇噩賲賴 賮丕乇爻蹖賽 乇賵丕賳 賵 禺賵丕賳丿賳蹖賽 讴鬲丕亘 丕蹖賳 爻賵丕賱 倬蹖卮 賲蹖 丌蹖丿 讴賴 趩乇丕 亘乇诏乇丿丕賳 毓賳賵丕賳 丕氐賱蹖賽 why marx was right?
亘賴 "倬乇爻卮 賴丕蹖蹖 丕夭 賲丕乇讴爻" 鬲乇噩賲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲責
丕鬲賮丕賯丕 讴鬲丕亘 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 丿賯蹖賯丕 丿乇 倬蹖 倬丕爻禺 丿丕丿賳 亘賴 丕蹖賳 爻賵丕賱 丕爻鬲 讴賴 趩乇丕 丨賯 亘丕 賲丕乇讴爻 亘賵丿責 賵 亘賴 賳馗乇賲 丿乇 倬丕爻禺 賴丕 賵 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 賴丕蹖 丕賵 亘氐蹖乇鬲 賴丕蹖 鬲蹖夭亘蹖賳丕賳賴 丕蹖 賳賴賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 爻丕丿诏蹖 賳賲蹖 卮賵丿 丕夭 讴賳丕乇卮丕賳 诏匕卮鬲!
鬲賯乇蹖乇 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 丕夭 賲丕乇讴爻貙 丕毓丕丿賴 丨蹖孬蹖鬲蹖 丕爻鬲 丿乇禺卮丕賳貙 賵 卮丕蹖丿 亘乇丕蹖 讴鬲丕亘蹖 丿乇 丕蹖賳 跇丕賳乇 賵 亘丕 丕蹖賳 賲丿毓丕 亘鬲賵丕賳 丌賳 乇丕 丕孬乇蹖 讴賲 賳馗蹖乇 蹖丕賮鬲. 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 丿乇 丿賴 賮氐賱 亘賴 亘乇乇爻蹖 乇丕亘胤賴 賲丕乇讴爻 賵 丕蹖丿賴 賴丕蹖 丕爻丕爻蹖 賲乇鬲亘胤 亘丕 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 賲賳 噩賲賱賴 丕賯鬲氐丕丿貙 丕賳賯賱丕亘貙 胤亘賯賴貙 噩賳亘卮 賴丕蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 賵 ... 賲蹖 倬乇丿丕夭丿 賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲爻蹖乇 亘賴 乇賵卮賳蹖 丕夭 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 賴丕蹖 跇乇賮蹖 亘賴乇賴 賲蹖 亘乇丿貙 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賲賳馗乇 賮氐賱 賲丕乇讴爻 賵 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 讴鬲丕亘 丕賴賲蹖鬲蹖 丕爻丕爻蹖 丿丕乇丿.
賮賯胤 毓賱蹖 乇睾賲 鬲乇噩賲賴 賮丕乇爻蹖賽 乇賵丕賳 賵 禺賵丕賳丿賳蹖賽 讴鬲丕亘 丕蹖賳 爻賵丕賱 倬蹖卮 賲蹖 丌蹖丿 讴賴 趩乇丕 亘乇诏乇丿丕賳 毓賳賵丕賳 丕氐賱蹖賽 why marx was right?
亘賴 "倬乇爻卮 賴丕蹖蹖 丕夭 賲丕乇讴爻" 鬲乇噩賲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲責
丕鬲賮丕賯丕 讴鬲丕亘 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 丿賯蹖賯丕 丿乇 倬蹖 倬丕爻禺 丿丕丿賳 亘賴 丕蹖賳 爻賵丕賱 丕爻鬲 讴賴 趩乇丕 丨賯 亘丕 賲丕乇讴爻 亘賵丿責 賵 亘賴 賳馗乇賲 丿乇 倬丕爻禺 賴丕 賵 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 賴丕蹖 丕賵 亘氐蹖乇鬲 賴丕蹖 鬲蹖夭亘蹖賳丕賳賴 丕蹖 賳賴賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 爻丕丿诏蹖 賳賲蹖 卮賵丿 丕夭 讴賳丕乇卮丕賳 诏匕卮鬲!
July 27, 2011
The title grabbed me, and it was well-worth the read. Great writing, and surprisingly, not at all dogmatic or shrill. You didn't get an impassioned, furious defense of Marxism against our capitalist overlords. Instead, Eagleton simply talks you through how Marx himself is grossly misunderstood and misconstrued in most popular criticisms. And he doesn't place Marx above reproach; Eagleton is perfectly willing to disagree with him.
Interesting, readable, and balanced, at least for a book of this title.
Interesting, readable, and balanced, at least for a book of this title.
April 7, 2020
It has long been my policy that every once in a while, I confront myself with a book that I am almost certain I will disagree with. It is my firm belief that every conviction should be challenged and the other side of the debate heard, and afterwards, if your convictions are unshaken, or - better yet - shaken but then erected on a more solid foundation, you can go back to being smug. Or, you must admit you were wrong all along. That can also happen. Just ask all these blogposts on the merits of atheism that I never published.
While you can find plenty of debating opportunities online whether you try to or not, online debates are badly sourced, you rarely find experts in them, and even more rarely do people fire their best shots online. When you do stumble on a knowledgeable, intelligent opponent with impeccable arguments, chances are that person has published them somewhere before, in a more didactically and academically sound manner. That is one reason why I prefer to go with books if I need a devil's advocate, the other is that the dynamics of a debate incline both parties to try to win at any cost. Sophistry can earn you these nice points for your ego, openmindedness usually can't.
With Why Marx Was Right, I intended to challenge my libertarian convictions, something I haven't done in a while. Did this book succeed where , , , and the first few hundred pages of failed? The brief answer is, no. It didn't.
The longer answer is that Terry Eagleton is sometimes badly wrong, at other times he is right either on trivial points, or right only because he abandons a hundred years of Marxist tradition, and instead establishes what Marx "really" meant. Of course, this also implies that no one understood Marx until Eagleton came along, and not only did they not understand him, they misunderstood him so spectacularly that it caused around a hundred million deaths. That is not a flattering conclusion, either.
The bulk of the book consists of Eagletons attempts to debunk ten popular claims made about Marxism.
The first of these claims is this:
Marx, Eagleton says, was perfectly aware that capitalism was constantly changing, and in fact his theory assumes that capitalism is dynamic and not static. Eagleton does not quite put it this way, but he does basically say that what changed are merely accidents, whereas the essence of capitalism has remained ever the same, and thus, Marxism remains as relevant as it was at its conception. QED.
Now, first of all, Marxism was never a good or even a decent theory. Marx never defined the concept of class himself, and every definition of it that I have found could not be applied to real situations without creating a host of ambiguities. He never justified his use of the labor theory of value against the competing utility based theory of value. In fact, his argument against the latter was that it was not the labor theory of value; I have read the relevant passage in his magnum opus at least two or three times over to see if I was missing something, because I could not believe such a huge blunder could have happened, but no, I did not miss anything, his argument really was that unintelligent. (For that matter, did not do a much better job justifying it, which I will talk about in my upcoming review of his book.) As David Osterfeld has pointed out in , the stages of history, supposedly a clear-cut model, underwent constant revision by him and Engels. And do I have to say anything about this weirdest of life-forms, the alienation-theory? At least that one has some logical derivation, unlike the social necessity-criterion, which Marx created ex nihilo to make his labor theory of value operable.
This neatly brings me to my second argument against Eagleton, which is that if Marx' theory is so bad, then it's hard to make out the essentials. Personally, I regard Marxism as the intellectual superstructure of a mindset characterized by rampant envy and misguided, sentimental "compassion" (God, save us from the compassionate!). The marxist mythology of capitalism is much more important to this mindset than the precise details of Marx' theoretical framework, and this mythology is based on historical data. This data has not only changed - we don't see many british kids in steel factories, do we? - it was never accurate to begin with, as Terence Kealey has pointed out in : Engels, unaware of Eagletons pleading that Marxism understands capitalism as a dynamic system, at one point forgot to mention that the terrible workshops he described had been supplanted years ago by factories which offered safer and better working conditions. Creating a still-picture of a dynamic system from a wild array of data, some contemporary, some long outdated, is just one of several falsifications he engaged in.
The second claim begins thus:
The response to that is one part tu quoque, one part extolling the many achievements of socialism. On the first part, I'd really like to see the breakdown of Eagletons numbers. He claims that tens of millions died of preventable famine in the late nineteenth century, and that many of them were the result of "free market dogma", such as allowing grain prices to rise uncontrollably (which pretty clearly indicates there isn't enough grain to go around, as he'd know if he had ever learned about supply and demand). Whenever I looked at such a famine in detail, I found that the culprit was either a natural catastrophe or bad economics, but usually a mix of both. Quite often, war also played a role. Not a single famine I have ever looked into was caused by laissez-faire policies, however. Even if you disregard that, however, you will probably find that socialism has killed more people than any other ideology or than any religion: One hundred million, if I am not mistaken, although from the top of my hat, I don't know if Nazi Germany was counted among them. Supposing it isn't, I strongly doubt any other ideology or religion can compete with eighty million corpses. Not just that, the crimes of communism reached a cruelty and intensity that I have seldom heard of elsewhere. You have to look deep into the history of the witch hunts, or into the basements of serial killers, to find atrocities that rival the sheer inhumanity of Pitesti or Tuol Sleng.
Space does not permit me to talk in detail of the achievements of communism. Those seem to be chiefly a higher literacy rate, better healthcare, and an improved economy. The former is a little funny, in light of the abysmal record in communist countries at fostering open discourse. The price goes to Hoxhas Albania, . Not only does not everyone have to be able to read (not every worker is secretly crying over not being an academician, believe it or not), but if the only reading material are Hoxhas collected works, then being illiterate is probably a mercy. Healthcare is mostly a function of economic growth, and that communist countries are improving economically should not surprise us when the entire world does. A beggar in a rich city lives better than one in a poor village, because even the scraps he gets are superior to what a very poor villager might have for dinner. Likewise, a communist country surrounded by capitalist countries can get by, and even grow, on the scraps of capitalism. The real prices of goods (not the nominal prices!) are constantly decreasing when the economy improves, and that means a country may afford goods, including capital goods, that were previously unavailable, despite having abysmal economic policies that sound like a recipe for stagnation.
The third claim is that Marxism is deterministic. Eagletons rebuttal is uninteresting. He partially engages a strawman, and partially simply applies a common sense to Marxism that has simply not existed in it for a good hundred years. Yes, it obviously makes no sense that people would fight so hard to establish something that will arise of its own (although to me, it does make some sense, just not in the Marxist ethical framework). Still, didn't Marx' followers act as if his socialist dream would inevitably become reality whenever that was opportune? If the Marxist tradition is so poisonous, then I don't see why we should try so hard to revive it, even if Marx really was smarter than his followers. Whether he was is an academic question, it shouldn't be a political one.
The fourth claim is that Marx was a utopian, which Eagleton informs us is not the case. I don't find his arguments at all convincing. His main argument, from what I recall, is that Marx never painted a rosy, detailed picture of the communistic future. He did, however, paint a rosy picture, of mankind reaching ever new heights and finally overcoming the class conflict that has divided it since primordial times. He didn't promise an immediate end to disease and bad dreams and that we would all ride superlions, but his vague description combined with his entire theory could only impregnate his followers with the idea that he'd bring the end of history and the end of all strife and conflict. This utopianism doesn't come from nowhere, and I am not even convinced Marx himself didn't suffer from it.
The fifth claim is that Marxism reduces everything to economics. This, Eagleton informs us again, is not the case, because it would be silly if it were. So yes, more of the same: Him applying common sense to Marxism. If all Marxists before him lacked it, maybe Marx taught them wrong, after all? At the very least, we can charge him with not making himself understood very well. I'd excuse that if he was a more contemplative author, but he aimed to change the world by sparking a global revolution. A blueprint or a legal code is not the place for the kind of ambiguity that is at home in a train-of-thought essay.
So much about common sense and Marxism, and hopefully for the last time in this review. Now, Eagleton also counters the claim that Marxism is reductionist by saying that actually, capitalism reduces everything to economics, and Marxism will free us of that. Under capitalism, production serves itself, not the people. In other words, production is seen as a good in itself, not as a means to an end. Personally, I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. Aren't capitalists manufacturing precisely the goods we want? If they didn't, if they baked useless mudpies for the sake of producing mudpies, they'd quickly be out of business. Yes, I am aware you can tiptoe around that, or, less scientifically, that we don't really "need" all this useless stuff. The former is nonsense, but I can't address it in detail here, although I might have reviewed Galbraiths book by now. The latter is not nonsense, but it misses the point. If people demand useless consumer stuff, then you should take that up with them first, not with the capitalists. And if you do that, judge consumers for their bad taste, maybe start with yourself? If you cannot stop buying accessories and merchandise and lootboxes, then maybe you are part of the problem and should not judge others so harshly? And a judgement is all that is. It does not answer the question of how we differentiate what we need and what we want with the level of clarity that a legal framework for an economic order demands, or how we can do so without reducing individuals to templates. The law is based on generalization and categorization, so I would say the latter is impossible. One mans necessity is anothers luxury.
The sixth claim is quite closely related: Marxism is materialistic and atheistic. Eagletons thoughts on this are not terrible, but they miss the mark. If he manages to cram a vision of the soul and human dignity into his materialism, good for him. I am not even being sarcastic here, there is a reason why I rated this two stars and not one. This does not alleviate my fear that Marxists will burn my church down, as they historically did.
Besides that, Eagleton, while spiritually richer than other Marxists, still did not impress me.
I think contemplation of the eternal and divine and its relation to our temporal existence is a tad more spiritual than emotionalism and hooliganism. To admit this is not to view spirituality as "loftily remote" from our life on this earth. Personally, I see the unceasing prayer of 1 Thessalonians 5:17 as a life with God in mind, whatever we do. Even when you just booze it up with your friends, you can take a moment to thank God for having created alcohol for our pleasure (ask Psalm 104:14-15). The ascetic lifestyle is superior, but it is not for everyone. If it isn't for you, the alternative is to be joyful, not a miser. Besides, the Bible is full of calls to action, and Catholicism is more vibrant than Marxism ever was.
I am running out of characters, but have enough for a remark on Eagletons "humor": Snarky remarks about celebrities like Mel Gibson don't make you funny, they only make you sound bitter and slightly envious.
While you can find plenty of debating opportunities online whether you try to or not, online debates are badly sourced, you rarely find experts in them, and even more rarely do people fire their best shots online. When you do stumble on a knowledgeable, intelligent opponent with impeccable arguments, chances are that person has published them somewhere before, in a more didactically and academically sound manner. That is one reason why I prefer to go with books if I need a devil's advocate, the other is that the dynamics of a debate incline both parties to try to win at any cost. Sophistry can earn you these nice points for your ego, openmindedness usually can't.
With Why Marx Was Right, I intended to challenge my libertarian convictions, something I haven't done in a while. Did this book succeed where , , , and the first few hundred pages of failed? The brief answer is, no. It didn't.
The longer answer is that Terry Eagleton is sometimes badly wrong, at other times he is right either on trivial points, or right only because he abandons a hundred years of Marxist tradition, and instead establishes what Marx "really" meant. Of course, this also implies that no one understood Marx until Eagleton came along, and not only did they not understand him, they misunderstood him so spectacularly that it caused around a hundred million deaths. That is not a flattering conclusion, either.
The bulk of the book consists of Eagletons attempts to debunk ten popular claims made about Marxism.
The first of these claims is this:
Marxism is finished. It might conceivably have had some relevance to a world of factories and food riots, coal miners and chimney sweeps, widespread misery and massed working classes. But it certainly has no bearing on the increasingly classless, socially mobile, postindustrial Western societies of the present. It is the creed of those who are too stubborn, fearful or deluded to accept that the world has changed for good, in both senses of the term.
Marx, Eagleton says, was perfectly aware that capitalism was constantly changing, and in fact his theory assumes that capitalism is dynamic and not static. Eagleton does not quite put it this way, but he does basically say that what changed are merely accidents, whereas the essence of capitalism has remained ever the same, and thus, Marxism remains as relevant as it was at its conception. QED.
Now, first of all, Marxism was never a good or even a decent theory. Marx never defined the concept of class himself, and every definition of it that I have found could not be applied to real situations without creating a host of ambiguities. He never justified his use of the labor theory of value against the competing utility based theory of value. In fact, his argument against the latter was that it was not the labor theory of value; I have read the relevant passage in his magnum opus at least two or three times over to see if I was missing something, because I could not believe such a huge blunder could have happened, but no, I did not miss anything, his argument really was that unintelligent. (For that matter, did not do a much better job justifying it, which I will talk about in my upcoming review of his book.) As David Osterfeld has pointed out in , the stages of history, supposedly a clear-cut model, underwent constant revision by him and Engels. And do I have to say anything about this weirdest of life-forms, the alienation-theory? At least that one has some logical derivation, unlike the social necessity-criterion, which Marx created ex nihilo to make his labor theory of value operable.
This neatly brings me to my second argument against Eagleton, which is that if Marx' theory is so bad, then it's hard to make out the essentials. Personally, I regard Marxism as the intellectual superstructure of a mindset characterized by rampant envy and misguided, sentimental "compassion" (God, save us from the compassionate!). The marxist mythology of capitalism is much more important to this mindset than the precise details of Marx' theoretical framework, and this mythology is based on historical data. This data has not only changed - we don't see many british kids in steel factories, do we? - it was never accurate to begin with, as Terence Kealey has pointed out in : Engels, unaware of Eagletons pleading that Marxism understands capitalism as a dynamic system, at one point forgot to mention that the terrible workshops he described had been supplanted years ago by factories which offered safer and better working conditions. Creating a still-picture of a dynamic system from a wild array of data, some contemporary, some long outdated, is just one of several falsifications he engaged in.
The second claim begins thus:
Marxism may be all very well in theory. Whenever it has been put into practice, however, the result has been terror, tyranny and mass murder on an inconceivable scale.
The response to that is one part tu quoque, one part extolling the many achievements of socialism. On the first part, I'd really like to see the breakdown of Eagletons numbers. He claims that tens of millions died of preventable famine in the late nineteenth century, and that many of them were the result of "free market dogma", such as allowing grain prices to rise uncontrollably (which pretty clearly indicates there isn't enough grain to go around, as he'd know if he had ever learned about supply and demand). Whenever I looked at such a famine in detail, I found that the culprit was either a natural catastrophe or bad economics, but usually a mix of both. Quite often, war also played a role. Not a single famine I have ever looked into was caused by laissez-faire policies, however. Even if you disregard that, however, you will probably find that socialism has killed more people than any other ideology or than any religion: One hundred million, if I am not mistaken, although from the top of my hat, I don't know if Nazi Germany was counted among them. Supposing it isn't, I strongly doubt any other ideology or religion can compete with eighty million corpses. Not just that, the crimes of communism reached a cruelty and intensity that I have seldom heard of elsewhere. You have to look deep into the history of the witch hunts, or into the basements of serial killers, to find atrocities that rival the sheer inhumanity of Pitesti or Tuol Sleng.
Space does not permit me to talk in detail of the achievements of communism. Those seem to be chiefly a higher literacy rate, better healthcare, and an improved economy. The former is a little funny, in light of the abysmal record in communist countries at fostering open discourse. The price goes to Hoxhas Albania, . Not only does not everyone have to be able to read (not every worker is secretly crying over not being an academician, believe it or not), but if the only reading material are Hoxhas collected works, then being illiterate is probably a mercy. Healthcare is mostly a function of economic growth, and that communist countries are improving economically should not surprise us when the entire world does. A beggar in a rich city lives better than one in a poor village, because even the scraps he gets are superior to what a very poor villager might have for dinner. Likewise, a communist country surrounded by capitalist countries can get by, and even grow, on the scraps of capitalism. The real prices of goods (not the nominal prices!) are constantly decreasing when the economy improves, and that means a country may afford goods, including capital goods, that were previously unavailable, despite having abysmal economic policies that sound like a recipe for stagnation.
The third claim is that Marxism is deterministic. Eagletons rebuttal is uninteresting. He partially engages a strawman, and partially simply applies a common sense to Marxism that has simply not existed in it for a good hundred years. Yes, it obviously makes no sense that people would fight so hard to establish something that will arise of its own (although to me, it does make some sense, just not in the Marxist ethical framework). Still, didn't Marx' followers act as if his socialist dream would inevitably become reality whenever that was opportune? If the Marxist tradition is so poisonous, then I don't see why we should try so hard to revive it, even if Marx really was smarter than his followers. Whether he was is an academic question, it shouldn't be a political one.
The fourth claim is that Marx was a utopian, which Eagleton informs us is not the case. I don't find his arguments at all convincing. His main argument, from what I recall, is that Marx never painted a rosy, detailed picture of the communistic future. He did, however, paint a rosy picture, of mankind reaching ever new heights and finally overcoming the class conflict that has divided it since primordial times. He didn't promise an immediate end to disease and bad dreams and that we would all ride superlions, but his vague description combined with his entire theory could only impregnate his followers with the idea that he'd bring the end of history and the end of all strife and conflict. This utopianism doesn't come from nowhere, and I am not even convinced Marx himself didn't suffer from it.
The fifth claim is that Marxism reduces everything to economics. This, Eagleton informs us again, is not the case, because it would be silly if it were. So yes, more of the same: Him applying common sense to Marxism. If all Marxists before him lacked it, maybe Marx taught them wrong, after all? At the very least, we can charge him with not making himself understood very well. I'd excuse that if he was a more contemplative author, but he aimed to change the world by sparking a global revolution. A blueprint or a legal code is not the place for the kind of ambiguity that is at home in a train-of-thought essay.
So much about common sense and Marxism, and hopefully for the last time in this review. Now, Eagleton also counters the claim that Marxism is reductionist by saying that actually, capitalism reduces everything to economics, and Marxism will free us of that. Under capitalism, production serves itself, not the people. In other words, production is seen as a good in itself, not as a means to an end. Personally, I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. Aren't capitalists manufacturing precisely the goods we want? If they didn't, if they baked useless mudpies for the sake of producing mudpies, they'd quickly be out of business. Yes, I am aware you can tiptoe around that, or, less scientifically, that we don't really "need" all this useless stuff. The former is nonsense, but I can't address it in detail here, although I might have reviewed Galbraiths book by now. The latter is not nonsense, but it misses the point. If people demand useless consumer stuff, then you should take that up with them first, not with the capitalists. And if you do that, judge consumers for their bad taste, maybe start with yourself? If you cannot stop buying accessories and merchandise and lootboxes, then maybe you are part of the problem and should not judge others so harshly? And a judgement is all that is. It does not answer the question of how we differentiate what we need and what we want with the level of clarity that a legal framework for an economic order demands, or how we can do so without reducing individuals to templates. The law is based on generalization and categorization, so I would say the latter is impossible. One mans necessity is anothers luxury.
The sixth claim is quite closely related: Marxism is materialistic and atheistic. Eagletons thoughts on this are not terrible, but they miss the mark. If he manages to cram a vision of the soul and human dignity into his materialism, good for him. I am not even being sarcastic here, there is a reason why I rated this two stars and not one. This does not alleviate my fear that Marxists will burn my church down, as they historically did.
Besides that, Eagleton, while spiritually richer than other Marxists, still did not impress me.
Spiritual matters are not disembodied, otherworldly affairs. It is the prosperous bourgeois who tends to see spiritual questions as a realm loftily remote from everyday life, since he needs a hiding place from his own crass materialism. It comes as no surprise that material girls like Madonna should be so fascinated by Kabbala. For Marx, by contrast, 鈥樷€榮pirit鈥欌€� is a question of art, friendship, fun, compassion, laughter, sexual love, rebellion, creativity, sensuous delight, righteous anger and abundance of life. (He did, however, sometimes take the fun a bit too far: he once went on a pub crawl from Oxford Street to Hampstead Road with a couple of friends, stopping at every pub en route, and was chased by the police for throwing paving stones at street lamps. His theory of the repressive nature of the state, so it would seem, was no mere abstract speculation).
I think contemplation of the eternal and divine and its relation to our temporal existence is a tad more spiritual than emotionalism and hooliganism. To admit this is not to view spirituality as "loftily remote" from our life on this earth. Personally, I see the unceasing prayer of 1 Thessalonians 5:17 as a life with God in mind, whatever we do. Even when you just booze it up with your friends, you can take a moment to thank God for having created alcohol for our pleasure (ask Psalm 104:14-15). The ascetic lifestyle is superior, but it is not for everyone. If it isn't for you, the alternative is to be joyful, not a miser. Besides, the Bible is full of calls to action, and Catholicism is more vibrant than Marxism ever was.
I am running out of characters, but have enough for a remark on Eagletons "humor": Snarky remarks about celebrities like Mel Gibson don't make you funny, they only make you sound bitter and slightly envious.
January 25, 2025
賵囟丨 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘毓囟 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 丕賱賲睾賱賵胤丞 丕賱賲賳鬲卮乇丞 毓賳 賲丕乇賰爻 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 毓卮乇丞 賮氐賵賱貙 賰賱 賮氐賱 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 賵丕丨丿丞 賲賳 鬲賱賰 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲. 卮丿丿 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 毓賱賶 兀賳:
丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 亘丕賱賮乇丿賷: 賰丕賳 賱賲丕乇賰爻 廿賷賲丕賳 卮丿賷丿 亘賲丕 賴賵 賮乇丿賷貙 賵丨爻 賲賳 丕賱賰乇丕賴賷丞 賱賱毓賯賷丿丞 丕賱賲噩乇丿丞. 賱賲 賷賰賳 賱丿賷賴 賵賯鬲 賱賲賮賴賵賲 賲噩鬲賲毓 賰丕賲賱貙 賵賰丕賳 丨匕乇賸丕 賲賳 賮賰乇丞 丕賱賲爻丕賵丕丞 丕賱賲胤賱賯丞. 賱賲 賷丨賱賲 亘賲爻鬲賯亘賱 賳乇鬲丿賷 賮賷賴 噩賲賷毓賸丕 孬賷丕亘賸丕 丿丕賮卅丞 賲毓 兀乇賯丕賲 鬲兀賲賷賳賳丕 丕賱賵胤賳賷 賲胤亘賵毓丞 毓賱賶 馗賴賵乇賳丕. 亘賱 兀賲賱 兀賳 賷乇賶 鬲賳賵毓賸丕 賱丕 鬲胤丕亘賯賸丕.
丕賱兀丿賵丕鬲 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞: 賱賲 賷毓鬲賯丿 賲丕乇賰爻 兀賳 丕賱乇噩丕賱 賵丕賱賳爻丕亍 賴賲 兀丿賵丕鬲 賲睾賱賵亘 毓賱賶 兀賲乇賴丕 賮賷 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺. 亘賱 乇兀賶 兀賳 丕賱亘卮乇 賴賲 氐丕賳毓賵 鬲丕乇賷禺賴賲貙 賵廿賳 賰丕賳賵丕 賷賮毓賱賵賳 匕賱賰 賮賷 馗賱 馗乇賵賮 賱賷爻鬲 賲賳 丕禺鬲賷丕乇賴賲.
丕賱毓丿丕亍 賱賱丿賵賱丞: 賰丕賳 賲丕乇賰爻 兀賰孬乇 毓丿丕亍賸 賱賱丿賵賱丞 賲賳 丕賱噩賳丕丨 丕賱賷賲賷賳賷 賱賱賲丨丕賮馗賷賳. 賳馗乇 廿賱賶 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賰兀丿丕丞 賱賱賯賲毓 丕賱胤亘賯賷貙 賵賱賷爻 賰丨賱 賱賲卮丕賰賱 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓.
丕賱丕卮鬲乇丕賰賷丞 賵丕賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞: 賱賲 賷賳馗乇 賲丕乇賰爻 廿賱賶 丕賱丕卮鬲乇丕賰賷丞 毓賱賶 兀賳賴丕 鬲毓賷賯 丕賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞貙 亘賱 賰賵爻賷賱丞 賱鬲毓賲賷賯賴丕. 賰丕賳 賷毓鬲賯丿 兀賳 丕賱丕卮鬲乇丕賰賷丞 賷噩亘 兀賳 鬲賰賵賳 丕賲鬲丿丕丿賸丕 賱賱丨乇賷丕鬲 丕賱賲丿賳賷丞 賵丕賱丨賯賵賯 丕賱鬲賷 賳丕囟賱鬲 賲賳 兀噩賱賴丕 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱賵爻胤賶.
丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱噩賷丿丞: 賰丕賳 賲孬丕賱賴 賱丨賷丕丞 噩賷丿丞 賯丕卅賲賸丕 毓賱賶 賮賰乇丞 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 丕賱賮賳賷 毓賳 丕賱匕丕鬲貙 賵賱賷爻 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賲賱 丕賱賲賮乇胤 兀賵 丕賱廿賳鬲丕噩 丕賱賲丕丿賷.
丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 丕賱爻賱賲賷丞: 丕毓鬲賯丿 賲丕乇賰爻 兀賳 亘毓囟 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賯丿 鬲賳噩夭 亘氐賵乇丞 爻賱賲賷丞貙 賵賱賲 賷賰賳 亘兀賷 賲毓賳賶 賲賳 丕賱賲毓丕賳賷 賲毓丕丿賷賸丕 賱賱廿氐賱丕丨 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 丕賱鬲丿乇賷噩賷.
丕賱鬲乇賰賷夭 毓賱賶 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱毓丕賲賱丞: 賱賲 賷乇賰夭 賲丕乇賰爻 丕賳鬲亘丕賴賴 亘卮賰賱 囟賷賯 毓賱賶 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱毓丕賲賱丞 丕賱賷丿賵賷丞 賮賯胤貙 亘賱 賰丕賳 賲賴鬲賲賸丕 亘鬲丨乇賷乇 噩賲賷毓 丕賱胤亘賯丕鬲 丕賱賲囟胤賴丿丞貙 亘賲丕 賮賷 匕賱賰 丕賱賮賱丕丨賷賳 賵丕賱賲孬賯賮賷賳.
丕賱廿賳鬲丕噩 丕賱賲丕丿賷: 賱賲 賷噩毓賱 賲丕乇賰爻 賲賳 丕賱廿賳鬲丕噩 丕賱賲丕丿賷 賲毓亘賵丿賸丕. 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賰爻貙 賮賯丿 丕毓鬲賯丿 亘兀賳賴 賷賳亘睾賷 廿賱睾丕丐賴 賯丿乇 丕賱廿賲賰丕賳. 賰丕賳 賲孬丕賱賴 丕賱兀毓賱賶 賴賵 賵賯鬲 丕賱乇丕丨丞 賵賱賷爻 丕賱毓賲賱.
丕賱賲丕丿賷丞 賵丕賱兀禺賱丕賯: 賰丕賳鬲 賲丕丿賷鬲賴 賲鬲賵丕賮賯丞 賲毓 賯賳丕毓丕鬲 兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 賵乇賵丨賷丞 毓賲賷賯丞. 賱賲 賷賰賳 賲丕乇賰爻 賲丕丿賷賸丕 亘丕賱賲毓賳賶 丕賱囟賷賯貙 亘賱 賰丕賳 賷乇賶 兀賳 丕賱鬲丨乇乇 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷 賴賵 卮乇胤 賱賱鬲丨乇乇 丕賱乇賵丨賷 賵丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷.
丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱賵爻胤賶: 賰丕賳 賲丕乇賰爻 賷睾丿賯 丕賱孬賳丕亍 毓賱賶 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱賵爻胤賶貙 賵賷乇賶 丕賱丕卮鬲乇丕賰賷丞 亘賲孬丕亘丞 丕賱賵乇賷孬 賱鬲乇賰丕鬲賴丕 丕賱賲鬲毓賱賯丞 亘丕賱丨乇賷丞 賵丕賱丨賯賵賯 丕賱賲丿賳賷丞 賵丕賱丕夭丿賴丕乇 丕賱賲丕丿賷.
September 24, 2011
by seems to me to be a good candidate for required reading for all high school students-as well as people my age looking for a good introduction to Marx. It doesn't hurt to be a little left of center but it's not a prereq. Well-written, well-reasoned, the book is a welcome introduction to an important figure by an excellent writer. Eagleton is not rabid on his subject and is able to see flaws in his subject. And while this book won't tell someone all they need to know about Marxism (could any one book?), I found it accessible and interesting (always a great combination of traits in a non-fiction book on a dense subject.
I personally think everyone should read it. And I would welcome any suggestions for other accessible books on the topic, not necessarily "pro" but not impassioned "anti" either.
I personally think everyone should read it. And I would welcome any suggestions for other accessible books on the topic, not necessarily "pro" but not impassioned "anti" either.
December 12, 2024
丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 丿賴 鬲丕 芦卮亘賴賴禄 賵 讴丕乇蹖讴丕鬲賵乇蹖 讴賴 乇丕噩毓 亘賴 賲丕乇讴爻 乇丕蹖噩賴 乇賵 鬲賵囟蹖丨 賵 亘毓丿 亘賴卮賵賳 噩賵丕亘 賲蹖鈥屫�. 賲蹖鈥屭� 丕诏乇 賴賲 亘賴 賲丕乇讴爻 丕賳鬲賯丕丿蹖 賵丕乇丿 亘丕卮賴貙 讴賴 夭蹖丕丿 賴賲 賵丕乇丿賴貙 丕蹖賳 丿賴 鬲丕 亘賴 胤賵乇 禺丕氐 夭蹖丕丿蹖 囟毓蹖賮 賵 丕丨賲賯丕賳賴鈥屬� 賵 亘丕蹖丿 丿賯蹖賯鈥屫� 賲丕乇讴爻 乇賵 禺賵賳丿. 賵 鬲賲丕賲 賲丿鬲蹖 讴賴 丕蹖賳 丨乇賮鈥屬囏й� 毓賱賲蹖 賲賴賲 乇賵 賲蹖鈥屫操嗁� 丕丿丕蹖蹖 賵 胤賳丕夭 賵 禺賵卮鈥屬嗁呞┵�. 賵丕賯毓丕賸 禺蹖賱蹖 噩丕賴丕蹖 讴鬲丕亘 亘賱賳丿亘賱賳丿 禺賳丿蹖丿賲 賴賲夭賲丕賳 讴賴 蹖賴 毓丕賱賲賴 賴賲 趩蹖夭 蹖丕丿 诏乇賮鬲賲 賵 賴賲蹖賳 丕賲乇賵夭 賯乇丕乇賴 卮乇賵毓 讴賳賲 亘賴 丿賵亘丕乇賴 禺賵賳丿賳 讴鬲丕亘. 賲賴賲鈥屫� 丕夭 賴賲賴 禺賵卮丨丕賱賲 讴賴 亘丕 丕蹖诏賱鬲賵賳 丌卮賳丕 卮丿賲. 丕賲蹖丿賵丕乇賲 禺蹖賱蹖 亘蹖卮鬲乇 丕夭卮 亘禺賵賳賲貙 亘賴 禺氐賵氐 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏й� 丕丿亘蹖卮 乇賵貙 賵 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗁� 丕诏乇 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 乇賵 亘讴賳賲 賯乇丕乇賴 禺蹖賱蹖 亘賴賲 禺賵卮 亘诏匕乇賴.
October 6, 2016
賰賳丕 賴賳丕賰 賲賯賵賱丞 卮丕卅毓丞 "兀賳 賲丕乇賰爻 賱賷爻 賲丕乇賰爻賷丕賸" 亘賲毓賳賶 兀賳 賴賳丕賰 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱鬲賯丕胤毓丕鬲 亘賷賳 賰丕乇賱 賲丕乇賰爻 賵丕賱賲丕乇賰爻賷丞 丕賱丨夭亘賷丞 丕賱賲鬲兀孬乇丞 亘爻鬲丕賱賷賳 賵賲丕賵 鬲爻賷 鬲賵賳睾..
賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷爻鬲毓乇囟 丕賱賲丐賱賮 毓卮乇丞 丕卮賰丕賱賷丕鬲 兀賵 賲賮丕賴賷賲 賲睾賱賵胤丞 丨賵賱 賲丕乇賰爻 賲丨丕賵賱丕賸 鬲賵囟丨 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇 賲丕乇賰爻 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 賰鬲丕亘丕鬲賴..
賴賱 賳噩丨責 丨爻亘 賮賴賲賷 丕賱賲鬲賵丕囟毓 賱賱賲丕乇賰爻賷丞 兀毓鬲賯丿 丕賳賴 賯丿賲 鬲賵囟賷丨丕鬲 賱丕 亘卅爻 亘賴丕..
賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 乇亘賲丕 兀乇亘毓 賳噩賵賲 賵爻兀賯賱賱 賳噩賲丞 賱爻賵亍 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞..
賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷爻鬲毓乇囟 丕賱賲丐賱賮 毓卮乇丞 丕卮賰丕賱賷丕鬲 兀賵 賲賮丕賴賷賲 賲睾賱賵胤丞 丨賵賱 賲丕乇賰爻 賲丨丕賵賱丕賸 鬲賵囟丨 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇 賲丕乇賰爻 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 賰鬲丕亘丕鬲賴..
賴賱 賳噩丨責 丨爻亘 賮賴賲賷 丕賱賲鬲賵丕囟毓 賱賱賲丕乇賰爻賷丞 兀毓鬲賯丿 丕賳賴 賯丿賲 鬲賵囟賷丨丕鬲 賱丕 亘卅爻 亘賴丕..
賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 乇亘賲丕 兀乇亘毓 賳噩賵賲 賵爻兀賯賱賱 賳噩賲丞 賱爻賵亍 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞..
April 25, 2021
3 y mucho que redondeo a 4.
Es una especie de "grandes 茅xitos" anti-marxistas que el autor se dedica a desmontar, con mayor o menor 茅xito.
En general me parece un libro excelente para empezar a leer sobre las teor铆as "marxianas", incluso para alguien como yo que ya ha le铆do cosas previamente.
Un muy buen resumen, super ligero de leer (el 煤nico cap铆tulo m谩s durillo es el que se acerca a la parte m谩s filos贸fica de Marx, pero es a su vez uno de los m谩s interesantes), y con toques pop, que recorre desde la econom铆a al estado, las libertades individuales, la ecolog铆a, etc.
Muy buen libro introductorio, por tanto, muy recomendable.
Hasta aqui la rese帽a, ahora una peque帽a reflexi贸n:
No siendo yo, como ya digo, ni siquiera un principiante en marxismo hay una tesis que me ha dejado descolocado: la de que el socialismo pleno necesitar铆a o se aprovechar铆a de la riqueza creada previamente -justa o injustamente- por el capitalismo para triunfar y liberarnos. Algo que no habia visto hasta ahora y que me genera un torrente de argumentos propios, y que tego que estudiar si es interpretaci贸n de Eagleton o de verdad subyace a lo escrito por Marx.
En cualquier caso, se est茅 o no de acuerdo con sus ideas, Marx es un gigante. Hay que seguir estudi谩ndolo.
Es una especie de "grandes 茅xitos" anti-marxistas que el autor se dedica a desmontar, con mayor o menor 茅xito.
En general me parece un libro excelente para empezar a leer sobre las teor铆as "marxianas", incluso para alguien como yo que ya ha le铆do cosas previamente.
Un muy buen resumen, super ligero de leer (el 煤nico cap铆tulo m谩s durillo es el que se acerca a la parte m谩s filos贸fica de Marx, pero es a su vez uno de los m谩s interesantes), y con toques pop, que recorre desde la econom铆a al estado, las libertades individuales, la ecolog铆a, etc.
Muy buen libro introductorio, por tanto, muy recomendable.
Hasta aqui la rese帽a, ahora una peque帽a reflexi贸n:
No siendo yo, como ya digo, ni siquiera un principiante en marxismo hay una tesis que me ha dejado descolocado: la de que el socialismo pleno necesitar铆a o se aprovechar铆a de la riqueza creada previamente -justa o injustamente- por el capitalismo para triunfar y liberarnos. Algo que no habia visto hasta ahora y que me genera un torrente de argumentos propios, y que tego que estudiar si es interpretaci贸n de Eagleton o de verdad subyace a lo escrito por Marx.
En cualquier caso, se est茅 o no de acuerdo con sus ideas, Marx es un gigante. Hay que seguir estudi谩ndolo.
January 6, 2023
Hyv盲 tiivistelm盲 ja kommentaari, tykk盲sin erityisesti muodosta, jossa kappaleet alkavat v盲itteell盲 marxismista (tyyliin 鈥漧uokkajako ei ole en盲盲 relevantti鈥�) ja teksti jatkuu vastaamalla v盲itteeseen. Loppua kohti kirja v盲h盲n toistaa itse盲盲n ja varsinkin feminismi盲 ja luonnonsuojelua k盲sittelev盲 kappale oli musta turhan suopea Marxia itse盲盲n kohtaan. Tuomas Nevanlinnan kommentti lopussa tuntui sekin aika ylim盲盲r盲iselt盲: tarvitsiko t盲h盲n tosiaan kommentaarin kommentaarin?
September 22, 2022
Funcional para una charleta de bar con personas poco afines al marxismo y prejuiciosas al respecto. Sencillo. Puntos interesantes pero tambi茅n numerosos deslices. De lectura muy r谩pida.
January 4, 2021
"Kapitalisme telah merampas kemanusiaan kita, kenapa Marxisme malah diposisikan juga sebagai perampas kebebasan individu? Jadi, 鈥榤etanarasi鈥� utama yang sebetulnya patut dipetik dari sini adalah tidak terlepasnya Marxisme dari kontestasi pemaknaan. Jangan-jangan yang selama ini dibela mati-matian itu bukanlah Marxisme, melainkan cara berpikir kapitalisme. Ironis sekali, bukan?"
Baca selengkapnya di
atau di
Baca selengkapnya di
atau di
Displaying 1 - 30 of 545 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.