What do you think?
Rate this book
A Short History of Socialism
Here we get epigraphic stress on the importance of the particular social reality of the 1848 bourgeois revolution...expanded chiefly with snippets from Hobsbawn et al. One could forgive the fatigued recapitulation of the pre-Marxist period, given Lichtheim's Origins of Socialism; but the whole book is flaccidly incoherent in its ramblings from Marxist theory to early Russian socialism, British & continental leftist alignments since 1848, Soviet Communism & the contemporary left. Lichtheim is vulnerable on many points, from value theory to Trotskyism. Judged by its intention to provide general background & signposts for further study, the book's manner is both randomly over-detailed & simplistic. The student needs to have read, say, Lichtheim's Marxism (also a far better book} in order to begin to understand comments like "Liebknecht was a Kantian, not a Marxist, in philosophy." Lichtheim sometimes dismisses or begs just the questions which need further study, e.g. the German Communists' failure in the early '30's. Both specialists & students will suffer from the lack of a distinct, developed thesis about the Social Democrats.
384 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1970
6 people are currently reading
106 people want to read
About the author
George Lichtheim
43 books3 followers George Lichtheim (1912-1973) was a German-born intellectual whose works focused on the history and theory of socialism and Marxism. He defined himself as a socialist and stated in a 1964 letter to the New York Review of Books that "I am not a liberal and never have been. I find liberalism almost as boring as communism and have no wish to be drawn into an argument over which of these two antiquated creeds is less likely to advance us any further."
His work appeared in the Palestine Post, Commentary, Partisan Review, Dissent, the New Leader, Encounter, the Times Literary Supplement and the New York Review of Books. Additionally, he translated Gershom Scholem's Main Currents in Jewish Mysticism. His death was by suicide.
His work appeared in the Palestine Post, Commentary, Partisan Review, Dissent, the New Leader, Encounter, the Times Literary Supplement and the New York Review of Books. Additionally, he translated Gershom Scholem's Main Currents in Jewish Mysticism. His death was by suicide.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
April 6, 2015
Lichtheim is an excellent writer and a top-notch wit, which sometimes makes it easy to forget his shortcomings both as a historian and a political analyst.
First off, the first two thirds of the book are excellent. Lichthein presents an engaging history of the pre-Marxist genesis of cooperativist ideas following the French Revolution. His subtle, yet both cutting and loving critiques of the schools of the early-left are marvelously entertaining, informative, and dry.
His discussion of Marx, who he holds to be a genius despite not considering himself a "Marxist" is pretty good as well. Yet, with scant historical evidence, he declares that Marx was a social-democrat, not a communist, by the end of his life.
Indeed, one of Lichtheim's key theoretical problems is that he never properly defines "democracy" beyond that which is egalitarian and good, which hardly seems scientific.
Gradually, the book gets embarrassing. Not only is Lichtheim's critique of Lenin one-noted and simplistic, he writes his political career off as signifying the "birth of totalitarianism", but he completely ignores Lenin's immense contributions to Marxist philosophy and theory.
The author falls tooth and nail for the bourgeois critique of the Soviet Union as a mirror image "totalitarianism" to that of the Nazis. Indeed, he proclaims that no "normal" person could choose either, even though sections of capitalists did very well under fascism. Meanwhile, the life expectancies of the majority of people greatly increased under what Lichtheim labels "Stalinism".
You would thing this would be enough to convince some sane people of whatever camp that they were living under an agreeable system.
Worst of all, Lichtheim demeans all third-world socialist movements as being primitivist strong-manism. We are supposed to dismiss Castro and Mao as mere opportunists taking advantage of "simple people."
The educated Eurocentrism that at first makes Lichtheim seem clever and charming gradually just makes him seem elitist, bigoted, and clueless.
First off, the first two thirds of the book are excellent. Lichthein presents an engaging history of the pre-Marxist genesis of cooperativist ideas following the French Revolution. His subtle, yet both cutting and loving critiques of the schools of the early-left are marvelously entertaining, informative, and dry.
His discussion of Marx, who he holds to be a genius despite not considering himself a "Marxist" is pretty good as well. Yet, with scant historical evidence, he declares that Marx was a social-democrat, not a communist, by the end of his life.
Indeed, one of Lichtheim's key theoretical problems is that he never properly defines "democracy" beyond that which is egalitarian and good, which hardly seems scientific.
Gradually, the book gets embarrassing. Not only is Lichtheim's critique of Lenin one-noted and simplistic, he writes his political career off as signifying the "birth of totalitarianism", but he completely ignores Lenin's immense contributions to Marxist philosophy and theory.
The author falls tooth and nail for the bourgeois critique of the Soviet Union as a mirror image "totalitarianism" to that of the Nazis. Indeed, he proclaims that no "normal" person could choose either, even though sections of capitalists did very well under fascism. Meanwhile, the life expectancies of the majority of people greatly increased under what Lichtheim labels "Stalinism".
You would thing this would be enough to convince some sane people of whatever camp that they were living under an agreeable system.
Worst of all, Lichtheim demeans all third-world socialist movements as being primitivist strong-manism. We are supposed to dismiss Castro and Mao as mere opportunists taking advantage of "simple people."
The educated Eurocentrism that at first makes Lichtheim seem clever and charming gradually just makes him seem elitist, bigoted, and clueless.
May 6, 2013
From high school until the beginning of college I belonged to The History Book Club, history being my favorite subject by then and the Club offering the collected works of Abraham Lincoln as an almost-free come-on. Lichtheim's was one of the last books obtained from this source prior to poverty making continued membership impracticable.
I didn't get around to reading A Short History of Socialism, however, until years later when I got involved as an officer in the Socialist Party USA and its Illinois and Chicago affiliates. That association had made it very clear that "socialism" was much more than Marxism, many, if not most, of my comrades coming out of traditions which antedated Marxism as codified by Engels and then almost appropriated by the Bolsheviks and their putative successors. In addition to ethical socialists, we had religious socialists, anarcho-socialists, communitarian socialists and pure-and-simple councilist socialists--plus, of course, the usual mass of "socialists" with no clear sense of ideology or history.
Lichtheim's book served me well as a very general introduction to the history of socialism as a worldwide movement within which Marx and Engels played a part.
I didn't get around to reading A Short History of Socialism, however, until years later when I got involved as an officer in the Socialist Party USA and its Illinois and Chicago affiliates. That association had made it very clear that "socialism" was much more than Marxism, many, if not most, of my comrades coming out of traditions which antedated Marxism as codified by Engels and then almost appropriated by the Bolsheviks and their putative successors. In addition to ethical socialists, we had religious socialists, anarcho-socialists, communitarian socialists and pure-and-simple councilist socialists--plus, of course, the usual mass of "socialists" with no clear sense of ideology or history.
Lichtheim's book served me well as a very general introduction to the history of socialism as a worldwide movement within which Marx and Engels played a part.
May 23, 2010
Just passed the section on Russian socialism, and must say that I'm really not a fan of the typical Marx-worship and disdain for Bakunin/anarchists....but aside from that, it's been good.
Ok, it's gone from bad to worse. This guy dislikes mass murders almost as much as he dislikes anarchists. The whole book is now tainted by his dogmatic perspective that it's hard to tell what's actually a statement of fact and what is just extreme prejudice and apology for authoritarianism.
"The Anarchist movement is an important one, but by now its relevance for the student of European Socialism is strictly historical, for as a mass phenomenon it has faded out, even in the country of its origin, where for a while it assembled hundred of thousands of followers."
My my, how things have changed since 1970.
Ok, it's gone from bad to worse. This guy dislikes mass murders almost as much as he dislikes anarchists. The whole book is now tainted by his dogmatic perspective that it's hard to tell what's actually a statement of fact and what is just extreme prejudice and apology for authoritarianism.
"The Anarchist movement is an important one, but by now its relevance for the student of European Socialism is strictly historical, for as a mass phenomenon it has faded out, even in the country of its origin, where for a while it assembled hundred of thousands of followers."
My my, how things have changed since 1970.
June 8, 2022
Útil solo por la primera parte. Cuando llega a la I guerra mundial y la escisión del movimiento obrero en dos alas, desvaría.
November 20, 2015
Made it to page 14. So filled with historical inaccuracies that it's sheer fiction.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews