What do you think?
Rate this book
Główne nurty marksizmu #2
Main Currents of Marxism: Its Rise, Growth and Dissolution Volume 2: The Golden Age
Book by Leszek Kolakowski
542 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1977
10 people are currently reading
120 people want to read
About the author
Leszek Kołakowski
132 books229 followersDistinguished Polish philosopher and historian of ideas. He is best known for his critical analysis of Marxist thought, especially his acclaimed three-volume history, Main Currents of Marxism. In his later work, Kolakowski increasingly focused on religious questions. In his 1986 Jefferson Lecture, he asserted that "We learn history not in order to know how to behave or how to succeed, but to know who we are.”
In Poland, Kołakowski is not only revered as a philosopher and historian of ideas, but also as an icon for opponents of communism. Adam Michnik has called Kołakowski "one of the most prominent creators of contemporary Polish culture".
Kołakowski died on 17 July 2009, aged 81, in Oxford, England. In his obituary, philosopher Roger Scruton said Kolakowski was a "thinker for our time" and that regarding Kolakowski's debates with intellectual opponents, "even if ... nothing remained of the subversive orthodoxies, nobody felt damaged in their ego or defeated in their life's project, by arguments which from any other source would have inspired the greatest indignation."
In Poland, Kołakowski is not only revered as a philosopher and historian of ideas, but also as an icon for opponents of communism. Adam Michnik has called Kołakowski "one of the most prominent creators of contemporary Polish culture".
Kołakowski died on 17 July 2009, aged 81, in Oxford, England. In his obituary, philosopher Roger Scruton said Kolakowski was a "thinker for our time" and that regarding Kolakowski's debates with intellectual opponents, "even if ... nothing remained of the subversive orthodoxies, nobody felt damaged in their ego or defeated in their life's project, by arguments which from any other source would have inspired the greatest indignation."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
February 20, 2018
Dense, long, intelligent, analytical — a biting exposé, ultimately, of the rise of Leninism and the Leninist revolution as a full-blown totalitarian dream. Stalin only the polished the edges.
Whether or not you agree with Kolakowski on this, this is a must read on the history of Marxist polemcs during the Second Internatonal (1889-1914) and through the Bolshevik Revolution to the death of Lenin (1924).
Whether or not you agree with Kolakowski on this, this is a must read on the history of Marxist polemcs during the Second Internatonal (1889-1914) and through the Bolshevik Revolution to the death of Lenin (1924).
June 29, 2013
We forget that there is no one Marxism. Rather there are Marxisms. This is an exceptional history of the Marxisms that sprung up from about 1870 through 1920, the period between Marx's death and the Soviet Revolution precisely because it traces how we came to mistake a plurality of interpretations for a singular unified theory. Kolalowski addresses three important aspects of the Marxism of this time period: its historical importance, its intellectual development and the inner problems and contradictions of Marx's philosophy. This makes it an invaluable work to my mind. The reader gets a broad overview of the major players in European communism, the disputes between and among orthodox Marxists, reformers and revisionists. He details their political development as well as their philosophical arguments. As a consequence, he not only addresses the questions of the role Marxists should play in political and economic reforms, but he also treats this in the context of major motifs in Marx's philosophy, particularly the role of the proletariat, trade unions, the party and revolution. These social questions also give rise to great philosophical issues like free moral agency vs. economic determinism, scientific understanding of human action, and philosophy's relation to history. The bulk of the book focuses on the German Marxists and the Russian Marxists (though important French, Italian and Polish Marxists are also treated with depth). For the Germans, the issue of revisionism vs. orthodoxy takes center stage both because this dispute was both political and philosophical and because Social Democrats have come to dominate German political life. For the Russians, of course, it is Lenin himself who acts as the motive force through which all other strains of Russian socialist thought are measured. He treats Lenin as a polemicist, a revolutionary and ultimately an apologist for totalitarianism whose political activity provided the intellectual and political foundation for both Stalin's Soviet Union and the communist revolutions in agrarian peasant societies like China and Cuba. This is really well written, it is inherently interesting and you will come away with a greater appreciation for the variety and strains of Marxism.
June 9, 2025
Not as indispensable as Vol 1, but that's down to the thinkers and activists of the Golden Age being orthodox followers, sideshow weirdos and Vladimir Lenin. Kolakowski's treatment of Lenin is nuanced and interesting, and he seems to be weaving threads to reveal themselves in Vol 3, but end up feeling unfilled in Vol 2 proper.
Bogdanov, Trotsky and a few others were subjected to Kolakowski's funniest lines yet, and his catalogue of Lenin's rhetorical tropes and polemical style was equally entertaining. Not so funny: millions of deaths more or less due to the first socialist society intellectual tradition and bureaucracy quickly morphing into a new Tsarism, but LK is saving that for Vol 3.
Bogdanov, Trotsky and a few others were subjected to Kolakowski's funniest lines yet, and his catalogue of Lenin's rhetorical tropes and polemical style was equally entertaining. Not so funny: millions of deaths more or less due to the first socialist society intellectual tradition and bureaucracy quickly morphing into a new Tsarism, but LK is saving that for Vol 3.
August 25, 2020
I started volume 1 last year but gave up. Volume 2 covers much less frequently tread ground. The encyclopediaishness is sometimes annoying but that is mitigated by the fact that some of these figures aren't covered in normal encyclopedias. No one, as near as I can tell, named in the table of contents has an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Wikipedia, as great as it for other topics, is not strong on the history of ideas. It is understandable why a book originally in Polish would cover so many Polish thinkers. But the Polish part was totally uninteresting to me. Were there really no English Marxists of this period of the importance of Kazimierz Kelles-Krauz? The amount of research that must have gone into Main Currents of Marxism is staggering. But the book is marred by its free mixing of historical explanations of what the thinkers believed and why, reconstructions of the difficulties that their views ended up creating for them, arguments that they were wrong (which tend to be underdeveloped), and insults directed at the ones that Kolakowski doesn't like.
The book really gets good when it starts discussing Russian Marxism. A lot of the previous sections, especially the ones on German Marxists, are useful background here, so I would not exactly advise you to skip the rest of the book.
The identification of the period of the Second International as Marxism's golden age is idiosyncratic, maybe even unique. The way this trilogy gets recommended as "the only thing you need to read on Marxism," a sort of massively blown up version of the Peter Singer Oxford Very Short Introduction for a more serious crowd, is really dumb. But the second volume in isolation is a strong study of the period it covers.
The book really gets good when it starts discussing Russian Marxism. A lot of the previous sections, especially the ones on German Marxists, are useful background here, so I would not exactly advise you to skip the rest of the book.
The identification of the period of the Second International as Marxism's golden age is idiosyncratic, maybe even unique. The way this trilogy gets recommended as "the only thing you need to read on Marxism," a sort of massively blown up version of the Peter Singer Oxford Very Short Introduction for a more serious crowd, is really dumb. But the second volume in isolation is a strong study of the period it covers.
January 16, 2023
It's far more readable than Volume I, perhaps because its not so heavy on the actual Marxist theory but also because of the cast of characters. Regardless of what one thinks of their theories, they led pretty exciting lives, often being driven from one country to another and of course an there was occasional stint in prison. As an aside, I don't quite understand why they were often allowed to continue writing when in prison but it seems much was in fact written while incarcerated.
One can admire their fervor, but some of these Marxists were really out there. Take George Sorel, who according to Kolakowski, was attached to the heroism of the contendant and the tradition of radical Christianity such as that of the martyrs. He believed in intuition and myths as a call to action (rather than predictions of the future). As can be imagined, there is not much philosophical analysis to be found in his work: "belief in the myth was to be a complete substitute for sociological knowledge." In the same vein his best known work, Reflections on Violence, is described as "largely an apologia for violence."
There are many other thinkers of interest, many of whom, though not all, were quite extreme in their views. Rosa Luxemburg for example was a die-hard revolutionary and completely opposed to a revision of Marxism which she understood as the "single key to all historical problems." She was, writes Kolakowski, "frequently blind to the empirical reality of social events" and lacked political understanding. It seems few of them offered much in the way of statistics to bolster their arguments, but that may have been due to the lack of such statistics, though it didn't stop Durkheim from at least trying. Luxemburg had her redeeming qualities, which is why it's still worth reading about these Marxists: She did value democracy in her own way: "Dictatorship is not a matter of abolishing democracy but of applying it correctly." Kolakowski writes that she believed in "unlimited democracy; a free public opinion, freedom of elections and the Press, the right to hold meetings and form associations." Not exactly the modern American vision of a Marxist. She was also anti-war and sent to prison for her participation in demonstrations and was the cofounder of the Spartacus League, which was an anti-war organization. Eventually she was assassinated by members of the Freikorps, a militia consisting mostly of World War I veterans.
The book ends with the career of Lenin, whom Luxemburg considered an opportunist. Reading about Lenin one wonders what he could have accomplished if he had set his mind to some other cause. Kolakowski portrays him as being laser focused on one and only one goal: achieving a communist revolution in Russia. He seems to have been able to latch on to any idea if it helped promote the final goal--a revolution. Ditto for people--he would work with them when they were useful to the cause and verbally abuse them when they were a hindrance. Personal enmity didn't seem to play a role, but no deviation from his views was permitted. This and his "coarseness and aggressiveness" of style was bad enough, but one gets an idea of the pernicious template he set for the future of Russia via the Bolsheviks and the all-powerful Party with his definition of dictatorship. He writes, "Dictatorship means unlimited power based on force, and not on law." And again, "The scientific term 'dictatorship' means nothing more nor less than authority untrammelled by any laws, absolutely unrestricted by any rules whatever, and based directly on violence." You have to wonder how more people were not scared off by these views. But I suppose it didn't matter anyway because via the party Lenin planned to overcome all resistance. He observes that there have been "innumerable examples of the better organized, more politically-conscious and better armed minority forcing its will upon the majority and defeating it." This brings up one of the key themes of many of these Marxists--that is how to win. The author does review some of their economic arguments and some of the thinkers were very philosophical (Jean Juares comes to mind, though apparently he wasn't even considered a real Marxist) but it seems a lot of the text discusses Marxists' strategies for victory. Should they focus on just Russia or does the whole world need to turn socialist for a Russian revolution to succeed (Luxemburg)? Should revolutionaries ally themselves with peasants? How modern does a country need to be in order to be ripe for a revolution? Can the process be sped up or is it just in the hands of historical fate? Is it treachery to work with the sitting government or should one subscribe to the bizarre belief that "the worse, the better" as such conditions will hasten a revolution? Even if readers are not impressed by the economic arguments, I at least found this sort of political strategy debate among the different factions quite interesting.
Overall, you would have to say Russians weren't served well by the Czars, the revolutionary leaders, or by the Bolsheviks who finally took over and basically became the party of Stalin. It's really a tragic story of misguided do gooders and sad to think Russians are still suffering from the consequences of Lenin's intolerance. And one final note which is still very relevant to our expertocracy is that Lenin justified his actions by an appeal to science:"Those who are really convinced that they have made progress in science would not demand freedom for the new views to continue side by side with the old, but the substitution of the new views for the old." Kolalowski also writes that "Lenin's idea of party hegemony developed naturally into that of the party's leading role in a socialist society—i.e., into a despotism based on the principle that the party always knows better than the community itself what are the latter's interests, needs and even desires: the people themselves may be too backwards to understand these, but the party can divine them thanks to its SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE"
One can admire their fervor, but some of these Marxists were really out there. Take George Sorel, who according to Kolakowski, was attached to the heroism of the contendant and the tradition of radical Christianity such as that of the martyrs. He believed in intuition and myths as a call to action (rather than predictions of the future). As can be imagined, there is not much philosophical analysis to be found in his work: "belief in the myth was to be a complete substitute for sociological knowledge." In the same vein his best known work, Reflections on Violence, is described as "largely an apologia for violence."
There are many other thinkers of interest, many of whom, though not all, were quite extreme in their views. Rosa Luxemburg for example was a die-hard revolutionary and completely opposed to a revision of Marxism which she understood as the "single key to all historical problems." She was, writes Kolakowski, "frequently blind to the empirical reality of social events" and lacked political understanding. It seems few of them offered much in the way of statistics to bolster their arguments, but that may have been due to the lack of such statistics, though it didn't stop Durkheim from at least trying. Luxemburg had her redeeming qualities, which is why it's still worth reading about these Marxists: She did value democracy in her own way: "Dictatorship is not a matter of abolishing democracy but of applying it correctly." Kolakowski writes that she believed in "unlimited democracy; a free public opinion, freedom of elections and the Press, the right to hold meetings and form associations." Not exactly the modern American vision of a Marxist. She was also anti-war and sent to prison for her participation in demonstrations and was the cofounder of the Spartacus League, which was an anti-war organization. Eventually she was assassinated by members of the Freikorps, a militia consisting mostly of World War I veterans.
The book ends with the career of Lenin, whom Luxemburg considered an opportunist. Reading about Lenin one wonders what he could have accomplished if he had set his mind to some other cause. Kolakowski portrays him as being laser focused on one and only one goal: achieving a communist revolution in Russia. He seems to have been able to latch on to any idea if it helped promote the final goal--a revolution. Ditto for people--he would work with them when they were useful to the cause and verbally abuse them when they were a hindrance. Personal enmity didn't seem to play a role, but no deviation from his views was permitted. This and his "coarseness and aggressiveness" of style was bad enough, but one gets an idea of the pernicious template he set for the future of Russia via the Bolsheviks and the all-powerful Party with his definition of dictatorship. He writes, "Dictatorship means unlimited power based on force, and not on law." And again, "The scientific term 'dictatorship' means nothing more nor less than authority untrammelled by any laws, absolutely unrestricted by any rules whatever, and based directly on violence." You have to wonder how more people were not scared off by these views. But I suppose it didn't matter anyway because via the party Lenin planned to overcome all resistance. He observes that there have been "innumerable examples of the better organized, more politically-conscious and better armed minority forcing its will upon the majority and defeating it." This brings up one of the key themes of many of these Marxists--that is how to win. The author does review some of their economic arguments and some of the thinkers were very philosophical (Jean Juares comes to mind, though apparently he wasn't even considered a real Marxist) but it seems a lot of the text discusses Marxists' strategies for victory. Should they focus on just Russia or does the whole world need to turn socialist for a Russian revolution to succeed (Luxemburg)? Should revolutionaries ally themselves with peasants? How modern does a country need to be in order to be ripe for a revolution? Can the process be sped up or is it just in the hands of historical fate? Is it treachery to work with the sitting government or should one subscribe to the bizarre belief that "the worse, the better" as such conditions will hasten a revolution? Even if readers are not impressed by the economic arguments, I at least found this sort of political strategy debate among the different factions quite interesting.
Overall, you would have to say Russians weren't served well by the Czars, the revolutionary leaders, or by the Bolsheviks who finally took over and basically became the party of Stalin. It's really a tragic story of misguided do gooders and sad to think Russians are still suffering from the consequences of Lenin's intolerance. And one final note which is still very relevant to our expertocracy is that Lenin justified his actions by an appeal to science:"Those who are really convinced that they have made progress in science would not demand freedom for the new views to continue side by side with the old, but the substitution of the new views for the old." Kolalowski also writes that "Lenin's idea of party hegemony developed naturally into that of the party's leading role in a socialist society—i.e., into a despotism based on the principle that the party always knows better than the community itself what are the latter's interests, needs and even desires: the people themselves may be too backwards to understand these, but the party can divine them thanks to its SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE"
October 11, 2021
less even-handed than the first volume, for obvious reasons, but that's not really an issue... leszek makes his opinions known but he doesn't play fast and loose with the facts.
July 13, 2023
he's getting a bit crankier and more tendentious here, philosophy triumphs a bit more over biography than I'd like, there's no need to look to Jaurés for a theory of mind, but it's still very good
February 28, 2009
Second volume of Main Currents of Marxism The Founders, The Golden Age, The Breakdown. Leszek Kolakowski, in the youth was a marxist, but changed his point of view after studies in Moscow. This volume is about marxism in its best time.
September 12, 2013
Rather thorough background on the rise of Marxism and the Communist Party after Marx.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews