Leaving Marxism. Studies in the Dissolution of an Ideology
- PDF / 65,204 Bytes
- 3 Pages / 442 x 663 pts Page_size
- 3 Downloads / 179 Views
Leaving Marxism. Studies in the Dissolution of an Ideology Stanley Pierson Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 2001, 255pp. ISBN: 0-8047-4404-1. Contemporary Political Theory (2003) 2, 237–239. DOI:10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300046
This book is supposedly about the ‘failure’ or ‘collapse’ of Marxism. The bulk of it consists, however, of intellectual biographies and exegeses of the work of three disparate figures tentatively united in being ex-Marxists: Paul de Man, Max Horkheimer and Leszek Kolakowski. Each essay, which recounts with extensive textual support the main ideas and theoretical development of each writer, could almost stand alone as an introduction to and examination of these authors. The uniting theme F the alleged dissolution of Marxism F arises substantially only in the introduction and conclusion. This is as well, since the material presented is insufficient for any substantive examination of this subject. Stanley Pierson’s thesis is that Marxism relies, for its popular support, mainly on quasi-religious messianic, mythical and eschatological appeals (pp. 179–180). Hence, he refers repeatedly to Marxism as a ‘faith’ (e.g. pp. 3, 92, 138) with ‘millennial hopes’ for a ‘promised land’ (p. 27), ‘apostolic zeal’ (p. 38) and a ‘theological’ outlook (p. 11). Although his conclusion suggests that he has derived this view from the exegeses, it is already presupposed in his general problematic. Further, Pierson’s thesis could only be examined effectively through a study of grassroots supporters of Marxist movements; evidence drawn from remarks after the event (pp. 36–37, 41) by three atypical individuals is simply insufficient. Pierson’s ability validly to make such claims is further compromised by the lack of any comparison of his chosen authors with others who remained within Marxism, or indeed with Marx. Furthermore, since the ‘Marxism’ to which he compares them is a restricted orthodoxy incompatible with ethical positions (pp. 38, 85), it is unclear whether the three authors were ever sufficiently within ‘Marxism’ to be said to have left it. It is often unclear whether Marx, social–democratic economism or Stalinism is Pierson’s main polemical target. Also, his reading of Nietzsche in the introduction is selective, and creatively applied: the claim that Lenin, because he pursued power, was a Nietzschean without the terminology (pp. 25, 27) stretches the idea of intellectual influence to the limits of its usefulness and beyond. Also, Pierson fails to follow up the Nietzschean theme in the substantive chapters or conclusion, weakening his supposed guiding narrative greatly.
Book Reviews
238
Pierson pursues a class analysis throughout, especially against de Man. However, his claims are contentious. The epithet ‘bourgeois’ is overused and never defined. It covers, among other things, any kind of ethical commitment (e.g. to dignity or equality), any rationality, and such contradictory phenomena as hedonism, asceticism, belief in individual autonomy and glorification of communities of work (pp. 12–13, 21, 33
Data Loading...
