What do you think?
Rate this book
The Marxian Revolutionary Idea
"In his parting word about Marx at Highgate Cemetery, Engels characterized his friend as 'before all else a revolutionist.' This was a true summation of Marx both as a man of action and as a thinker. For as a theorist Marx was before all else a theorist of revolution. The revolutionary idea was the keystone of his theoretical structure. Marxism, as he fashioned it with the assistance of Engels, was in its essence a theory and program of revolution." In this volume Robert C. Tucker looks critically at the later writings of Marx and Engels, not only as political theory but as the ideology for political revolution. From the vantage point established in his earlier work--that there is a continuity underlying Marx's writing from the newly discovered manuscripts of 1844 to the mature work, Capital --Professor Tucker examines Marx as a social, moral, and political theorist, and a theorist of modernization. "The Marxian Revolutionary Idea" is followed, in thought and application, through infancy to maturity, in success and failure, and finally as it has been transformed by modern socialism.
260 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1969
7 people are currently reading
119 people want to read
About the author
Robert C. Tucker
36 books27 followersA scholar of Marxism and the Soviet Union, Robert Tucker studied at Harvard University. While working on a doctorate in philosophy, he spent two years as a translator for the United States Embassy in Moscow, where he met his wife Evgeniya Pestretsova. His inability to gain an exit visa for her when he returned to the United States in 1946, which proved a key experience in stimulating his studies.
After completing his dissertation, Tucker worked for the RAND Corporation and taught at Indiana University. He wrote a number of books about Marxism and Stalinism, most notably a two-volume biography of Josef Stalin which adopted a psychological interpretation to explain how Stalin gained and used power.
After completing his dissertation, Tucker worked for the RAND Corporation and taught at Indiana University. He wrote a number of books about Marxism and Stalinism, most notably a two-volume biography of Josef Stalin which adopted a psychological interpretation to explain how Stalin gained and used power.
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
May 9, 2018
Great book for anyone looking to understand traditional teachings of Marx!
September 20, 2020
If you want to see Tucker speak to get a feel for him:
Robert Tucker - Russia Since the Communist Revolution - 1984 Interview [29 min]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85gY7...
November 2, 2019
"[Marx's] theory of society is a theory of society-in-history, and his theory of revolution is a theory of the transformations of society in history, a theory of history itself as a process of man's revolutionary evolution."
Regardless of whatever weaknesses do exist in this book, and there do exist weaknesses, this work gets to the heart of Marx's philosophy like no other book I know, and for that merits far more praise and attention than it currently gets. The first three chapters of this book are among the finest popularization of Marx's thought that exists and more than a few self-proclaimed Marxists would do well to learn from it.
The first chapter of this book is essentially a compressed version of Tucker's earlier 1961 book Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx. In cutting out the fat, Tucker is able to express with far greater clarity here just what it was he thought Marx was on about. He hits on many points that are often obscured or even outright missed in many traditional studies of Marx: that communism entails the abolition of the economy as such, that wage-labor (and estranged labor more generally) cannot exist in a communist society, and that Marx develops the content of his concept of alienation into his mature work despite dropping that particular terminology. On all accounts here, Tucker ought be lauded for being among the only academics to seriously grasp Marx during the height of the Cold War.
The following two chapters are equally good, one discussing Marx's hostility towards the concept of distributive justice and the second Marx's political philosophy. It is, unfortunately, after this that Tucker begins to slip. In essence, Tucker attempts to grapple with Marxism as a tradition, not simply as Marx's philosophy. He tries to account for the developments of different 20th century Marxists like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc etc. These chapters are fully infected by Cold War mentalities.
That isn't to say that Tucker is too harsh on Marx's followers. Quite the contrary, its his inability to criticize that is his downfall. Despite having such a robust grasp of Marx, Tucker can't admit the blatant and obvious truth that the philosophy of the Marxists and the philosophy of Marx are fundamentally incompatible. The possibility that Marx's followers failed to grasp Marx either did not cross Tucker's mind or was too radical for him to consider fully.
It is without a doubt Lenin who receives the most worthwhile commentary. While undoubtedly limited by ideas inherited by Second International Marxism, Lenin WAS recognizably a Marxist. Tucker rightly praises Lenin in the opening of chapter one for helping return to Marxist theory its revolutionary soul after it had been buried by the likes of Bernstein and Kautsky. Because of this, Tucker is able to actually engage with Lenin's ideas and give meaningful commentary on Lenin's strengths and weaknesses as a Marxist.
When it comes to Stalin, Mao, and Khrushchev, Tucker can do little but spin his wheels. Since the ideas of these men were in such clear contradiction with Marx's, but Tucker was incapable of acknowledging this, he's forced to simply not engage with their thoughts in any meaningful capacity. These sections of the book are, more than anything else, simply hollow.
Tucker is similarly incapable of providing anything meaningful in regards to the experiences of the communist revolutions of the 20th century more broadly speaking. He's reduced to banalities. He'll state that it's "notable" that the communist revolutions of the 20th century have not occurred on "Marx's model." This is well and good; it's certainly a true observation. Had Tucker been able to acknowledge that the "communist" nations of the 20th century were nothing of the sort, however, he may have been able to explore how these unconventional methods of revolution led to non-communistic ends.
If it sounds I'm being harsh on Tucker, I don't mean to be. His grasp of Marxism, in the abstract anyway, was remarkable for the time. That he failed to make use of this knowledge when analyzing Cold War politics is unfortunate, but does little to change the value of the book's first half. To my knowledge, no other book has managed to equal the clarity Tucker gives to Marx here. For any students of Marx looking for a place to start, there are far worse places to choose than here.
Regardless of whatever weaknesses do exist in this book, and there do exist weaknesses, this work gets to the heart of Marx's philosophy like no other book I know, and for that merits far more praise and attention than it currently gets. The first three chapters of this book are among the finest popularization of Marx's thought that exists and more than a few self-proclaimed Marxists would do well to learn from it.
The first chapter of this book is essentially a compressed version of Tucker's earlier 1961 book Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx. In cutting out the fat, Tucker is able to express with far greater clarity here just what it was he thought Marx was on about. He hits on many points that are often obscured or even outright missed in many traditional studies of Marx: that communism entails the abolition of the economy as such, that wage-labor (and estranged labor more generally) cannot exist in a communist society, and that Marx develops the content of his concept of alienation into his mature work despite dropping that particular terminology. On all accounts here, Tucker ought be lauded for being among the only academics to seriously grasp Marx during the height of the Cold War.
The following two chapters are equally good, one discussing Marx's hostility towards the concept of distributive justice and the second Marx's political philosophy. It is, unfortunately, after this that Tucker begins to slip. In essence, Tucker attempts to grapple with Marxism as a tradition, not simply as Marx's philosophy. He tries to account for the developments of different 20th century Marxists like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc etc. These chapters are fully infected by Cold War mentalities.
That isn't to say that Tucker is too harsh on Marx's followers. Quite the contrary, its his inability to criticize that is his downfall. Despite having such a robust grasp of Marx, Tucker can't admit the blatant and obvious truth that the philosophy of the Marxists and the philosophy of Marx are fundamentally incompatible. The possibility that Marx's followers failed to grasp Marx either did not cross Tucker's mind or was too radical for him to consider fully.
It is without a doubt Lenin who receives the most worthwhile commentary. While undoubtedly limited by ideas inherited by Second International Marxism, Lenin WAS recognizably a Marxist. Tucker rightly praises Lenin in the opening of chapter one for helping return to Marxist theory its revolutionary soul after it had been buried by the likes of Bernstein and Kautsky. Because of this, Tucker is able to actually engage with Lenin's ideas and give meaningful commentary on Lenin's strengths and weaknesses as a Marxist.
When it comes to Stalin, Mao, and Khrushchev, Tucker can do little but spin his wheels. Since the ideas of these men were in such clear contradiction with Marx's, but Tucker was incapable of acknowledging this, he's forced to simply not engage with their thoughts in any meaningful capacity. These sections of the book are, more than anything else, simply hollow.
Tucker is similarly incapable of providing anything meaningful in regards to the experiences of the communist revolutions of the 20th century more broadly speaking. He's reduced to banalities. He'll state that it's "notable" that the communist revolutions of the 20th century have not occurred on "Marx's model." This is well and good; it's certainly a true observation. Had Tucker been able to acknowledge that the "communist" nations of the 20th century were nothing of the sort, however, he may have been able to explore how these unconventional methods of revolution led to non-communistic ends.
If it sounds I'm being harsh on Tucker, I don't mean to be. His grasp of Marxism, in the abstract anyway, was remarkable for the time. That he failed to make use of this knowledge when analyzing Cold War politics is unfortunate, but does little to change the value of the book's first half. To my knowledge, no other book has managed to equal the clarity Tucker gives to Marx here. For any students of Marx looking for a place to start, there are far worse places to choose than here.
November 13, 2023
Marxism is fundamentally a revolutionary idea. While the revolution can start in individual nations it is global in nature. The primary aim of Marxism is to overcome mankind's self alienation that arises from the division of labor.
The Anarchist strain of Socialism is focused on overthrowing the state since it see's it as the source of evil and oppression and capitalism is just a tool of the state.
Marxism see's the state as an oppressive institution that is used by one class to oppress the other. Thus the revolution must overthrow the state and set up the dictatorship of the proletariat as a stage on the way to utopia.
Many socialists are concerned about distribution but Marxism see's this as a distraction from getting to the root of the problem which is alienation caused by the division of labor.
Marxism seems to typically take place in underdeveloped countries such as Russia and China. Countries where development has been stagnated by seemingly unjust means, as a small part of the nation is modernized and very affluent but the rest is backwards and poor. The revolution in such places then takes on a nationalistic flavor due to the desire to modernize and reform the nation.
Most Communist revolutions that develop organically begin to transform the country as they seize power such as in China. Another way they can come to power is my a foreign power imposing them as in Eastern Europe after WW2. Russia is a unique case since they seized power first and then began transforming things and the civil war that followed was a reaction to what they had achieved so far and not something they started.
Communist movements after a violent period of brutal radicalization begin to soften in their old age. This is the case for the Social Democratic parties in Europe as well as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Once new leaders take over who are more concerned about maintaining the current achievements of the movement, deradicalization ensues. One should not be distracted by strong language and propaganda to the contrary though as such protestations to the opposite is used by the leaders to maintain their image and party unity. In the post Stalin era Russia verbally claimed to be pursuing violent and global revolutionary measures, in practice they began to work with noncommunist countries such as India and to try and beat the West economically instead of confrontationally.
The Anarchist strain of Socialism is focused on overthrowing the state since it see's it as the source of evil and oppression and capitalism is just a tool of the state.
Marxism see's the state as an oppressive institution that is used by one class to oppress the other. Thus the revolution must overthrow the state and set up the dictatorship of the proletariat as a stage on the way to utopia.
Many socialists are concerned about distribution but Marxism see's this as a distraction from getting to the root of the problem which is alienation caused by the division of labor.
Marxism seems to typically take place in underdeveloped countries such as Russia and China. Countries where development has been stagnated by seemingly unjust means, as a small part of the nation is modernized and very affluent but the rest is backwards and poor. The revolution in such places then takes on a nationalistic flavor due to the desire to modernize and reform the nation.
Most Communist revolutions that develop organically begin to transform the country as they seize power such as in China. Another way they can come to power is my a foreign power imposing them as in Eastern Europe after WW2. Russia is a unique case since they seized power first and then began transforming things and the civil war that followed was a reaction to what they had achieved so far and not something they started.
Communist movements after a violent period of brutal radicalization begin to soften in their old age. This is the case for the Social Democratic parties in Europe as well as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Once new leaders take over who are more concerned about maintaining the current achievements of the movement, deradicalization ensues. One should not be distracted by strong language and propaganda to the contrary though as such protestations to the opposite is used by the leaders to maintain their image and party unity. In the post Stalin era Russia verbally claimed to be pursuing violent and global revolutionary measures, in practice they began to work with noncommunist countries such as India and to try and beat the West economically instead of confrontationally.
January 20, 2023
comprehensive boom which explains marx's ideology in simple words.
key points:
-man has massive potential, he should realize it at the earliest. for that capitalist system should be abolished and man should be kept in free environment. then he can pursue his creativity effectively.
-proletarian revolution can turn into dictatorship.
-state is just the instrument which can be used by dominating class to prevent the dominated from changing status quo
key points:
-man has massive potential, he should realize it at the earliest. for that capitalist system should be abolished and man should be kept in free environment. then he can pursue his creativity effectively.
-proletarian revolution can turn into dictatorship.
-state is just the instrument which can be used by dominating class to prevent the dominated from changing status quo
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews