What do you think?
Rate this book
Raj na ziemi. Wzlot, upadek i życie pozagrobowe socjalizmu
Socjalizm był najambitniejszą próbą, jaką podjął człowiek, by zastąpić religię doktryną powołującą się na podstawy „naukowe”. Każde fiasko w wysiłkach stworzenia społeczeństwa dobrobytu lub wychowania „Nowego Człowieka” inspirowało kolejne poszukiwania drogi do ziemi obiecanej: rewolucję, komuny, socjaldemokrację, komunizm, faszyzm, socjalizm arabski, socjalizm afrykański. Żadna z tych dróg nie okazała się skuteczna, a niektóre pochłonęły oszałamiające żniwo istnień ludzkich. Wreszcie, po dwóch wiekach pobożnych życzeń i gorzkich rozczarowań, socjalizm implodował wśród dekadenckiego dramatu upadających murów i walących się reżimów. Był to zdumiewający finał, lecz później działy się rzeczy nie mniej zdumiewające. Po kilkudziesięcioletniej przerwie odezwały się nowe głosy, jakby nieświadome tego wszystkiego, co było przed nimi, nawołując, aby spróbować na nowo.
Joshua Muravchik podąża śladem pościgu za tym widmem, przedstawiając szkice biograficzne myślicieli i przywódców, którzy rozwinęli teorię, doprowadzili ją do potęgi i odpowiadali za jej upadek, jak i tych, którzy próbują wskrzesić ją w naszych czasach. Raj na ziemi to wyrazista i zajmująca opowieść, stanowiąca epicką kronikę ruchu, który próbował postawić świat na głowie – i przez jakiś czas mu się udawało.
Joshua Muravchik podąża śladem pościgu za tym widmem, przedstawiając szkice biograficzne myślicieli i przywódców, którzy rozwinęli teorię, doprowadzili ją do potęgi i odpowiadali za jej upadek, jak i tych, którzy próbują wskrzesić ją w naszych czasach. Raj na ziemi to wyrazista i zajmująca opowieść, stanowiąca epicką kronikę ruchu, który próbował postawić świat na głowie – i przez jakiś czas mu się udawało.
622 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2002
116 people are currently reading
995 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
July 13, 2012
This book was very informative. It approaches a discussion of socialism from a unique perspective of focusing on the biographies of influential leaders, such as Robert Owns, Engels, Marx, Lenin, Mussolini, Attlee, and Mao, who were involved in promoting socialism. Muravchik traces the two hundred year history of socialism and shows that any leader or society who tried to implement full socialism in the government and economy fell into ruin and starvation.
All of the socialist societies had to adapt capitalist tendencies in their economies to survive, which were completely against the original tenets of the socialism set forth by its original creators,such as Hess and Marx. Even the kibbutz that scholars and socialists have held up as examples that socialism can work (I remember reading about those in school)are starting to break down. The only small social communes that have been able to be relatively successful are those that revolve around religion, which ironically is something that most socialist leaders oppose.
Another interesting fact that I noticed was that many of the big thinkers of socialism were not "of the people" or the proletariat. They had no real connection with the people who they said they were trying to help. Many were not works or had not worked for very long in their life. They more often belonged to the class of the bourgeoisie than the proletariat and were often frustrated with the proletariats for not seeing their vision as clearly as they did. The proletariats they noticed were only interested in socialism during periods of social unrest which could lead to revolutions and the overthrows of government.
Many of the socialists capitalized on this social unrest (some even tried to start revolutions or fan the unrest, even if it meant violence and death, which some saw as a necessary price). Once carried in office by revolution, many socialist leaders were either placed in the position of have to resort to violence and oppression to continue to implement the full socialist dream of trying to obtain heaven on earth or would sacrifice certain aspects of true socialism in order to keep the country afloat. This sometimes meant sometimes changing socialism to the point where some doubted it could really be called "socialism."
All of the socialist societies had to adapt capitalist tendencies in their economies to survive, which were completely against the original tenets of the socialism set forth by its original creators,such as Hess and Marx. Even the kibbutz that scholars and socialists have held up as examples that socialism can work (I remember reading about those in school)are starting to break down. The only small social communes that have been able to be relatively successful are those that revolve around religion, which ironically is something that most socialist leaders oppose.
Another interesting fact that I noticed was that many of the big thinkers of socialism were not "of the people" or the proletariat. They had no real connection with the people who they said they were trying to help. Many were not works or had not worked for very long in their life. They more often belonged to the class of the bourgeoisie than the proletariat and were often frustrated with the proletariats for not seeing their vision as clearly as they did. The proletariats they noticed were only interested in socialism during periods of social unrest which could lead to revolutions and the overthrows of government.
Many of the socialists capitalized on this social unrest (some even tried to start revolutions or fan the unrest, even if it meant violence and death, which some saw as a necessary price). Once carried in office by revolution, many socialist leaders were either placed in the position of have to resort to violence and oppression to continue to implement the full socialist dream of trying to obtain heaven on earth or would sacrifice certain aspects of true socialism in order to keep the country afloat. This sometimes meant sometimes changing socialism to the point where some doubted it could really be called "socialism."
August 2, 2019
Packed with lessons, this work should be a must-read for all aspiring politicians and economists … and lawyers. It leaves you desiring for more – in a good way. So I wish he told socialism’s story in other countries such as Cambodia… or the Middle East…
Shalom to you, sir.
Shalom to you, sir.
August 2, 2011
A tremendously ignorant and badly-argued book. See my full review at http://www.logosjournal.com/schulman.htm
July 4, 2019
This is an excellent book on socialism. Heaven on Earth is a readable and very detailed history of socialism through recent centuries. Joshua Muravchik was raised in a socialist home and was a “devout” socialist for a time. He recounts the history and life of some of the leaders of the socialist movement and shows the triumphs and failures along the way. There are four chapters on the Beginnings, four chapters on the Triumphs and four chapters on the Collapse of Socialism. At the end of this section is a very interesting chapter on the Kibbutz showing the most humane socialism. The book ends with an excellent Epilogue to bring us up to date.
The book includes footnotes and an index as well as Appendix 1 Socialism at High Tide 1985 listing 18 countries with Communism, 11 countries with Social Democracy and 41 Third World Socialism countries. Appendix 2 lists 62 Third World Socialist countries with the dates of beginning and ending. Only 12 continue in that ideology. He shows over all that socialism attempts to make everyone equal yet in doing so erases individual freedoms and often uses force which ends badly in every case.
I highly recommend this book.
The book includes footnotes and an index as well as Appendix 1 Socialism at High Tide 1985 listing 18 countries with Communism, 11 countries with Social Democracy and 41 Third World Socialism countries. Appendix 2 lists 62 Third World Socialist countries with the dates of beginning and ending. Only 12 continue in that ideology. He shows over all that socialism attempts to make everyone equal yet in doing so erases individual freedoms and often uses force which ends badly in every case.
I highly recommend this book.
June 29, 2019
I've always been fascinated by this subject. It's amazing to me how little most Americans know about it, since it is hardly possible to know anything about the history of the world over the last 200 years without knowing something about the theory and history of socialism. This book was written by someone who was born into a family of true believers, but came to the conclusion, with, I believe, a certain degree of reluctance, that he had to leave the fold.
Muravchik does a good job of telling the story of socialism. It is all there: the French Revolutionaries, the Utopian Communes in 19th century America, the Marxists in Germany, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the Fascists, the revolutions in China and Cuba, the Scandinavian attempts at Social Democracy, Third World socialism, the Israeli Kibbutzim, and the New Left. In the newest edition, there is an epilogue that comments on its current revival, but my copy is an older one, and doesn't include that.
The chapter on Fascism is worth the price of the book. Most people have no idea what Fascism is, but Muravchik correctly points out that it is a heretical offshoot of socialism. Read it, and you will understand a weird thing that socialists do. You've probably noticed it: they tend to see fascists everywhere. This illustrates the truth that the scariest bogeyman is the one you see in the mirror.
Muravchik does a good job of explaining that socialism is not a theory of property, or a theory of human development, or a spontaneous movement of the poor. It is the world's second oldest religion: the belief in man's ability to create heaven on earth, without and against God. It is as old as the Book of Genesis.
Socialism exerts a strong attraction on some of the best people in the world, especially when they are young. It is a permanent tool in the hands of the very worst people in the world. Socialism was pronounced dead in the 1990s, but it's a story that began a long time ago, never ends well, and seemingly never ends.
Muravchik does a good job of telling the story of socialism. It is all there: the French Revolutionaries, the Utopian Communes in 19th century America, the Marxists in Germany, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the Fascists, the revolutions in China and Cuba, the Scandinavian attempts at Social Democracy, Third World socialism, the Israeli Kibbutzim, and the New Left. In the newest edition, there is an epilogue that comments on its current revival, but my copy is an older one, and doesn't include that.
The chapter on Fascism is worth the price of the book. Most people have no idea what Fascism is, but Muravchik correctly points out that it is a heretical offshoot of socialism. Read it, and you will understand a weird thing that socialists do. You've probably noticed it: they tend to see fascists everywhere. This illustrates the truth that the scariest bogeyman is the one you see in the mirror.
Muravchik does a good job of explaining that socialism is not a theory of property, or a theory of human development, or a spontaneous movement of the poor. It is the world's second oldest religion: the belief in man's ability to create heaven on earth, without and against God. It is as old as the Book of Genesis.
Socialism exerts a strong attraction on some of the best people in the world, especially when they are young. It is a permanent tool in the hands of the very worst people in the world. Socialism was pronounced dead in the 1990s, but it's a story that began a long time ago, never ends well, and seemingly never ends.
May 23, 2015
A socialist is someone who, having seen birds fly, stands on the edge of cliff and insists, "I'm sure that if I just flap my arms fast enough, I could fly too." This is even AFTER someone points out the large pile of bodies at the foot of the cliff.
May 26, 2012
This book presents a history of socialism organized into one chapter for each of these major figures: Babeuf, Robert Owen, Engels, Eduard Bernstein, Lenin, Mussolini, Clement Attlee, Julius Kambarage Nyerere, Samuel Gompers and George Meany, Gorbachev and Deng, and Tony Blair. My favorite chapters were the ones about those individuals that were most unfamiliar to me: Babeuf, Nyerere, and Eduard Bernstein. Babeuf was a radical egalitarian of the French Revolution. Nyerere was the socialist leader of Tanzania. Bernstein, a protege of Engels, was the first Revisionist. He believed that the lot of the factory worker could be improved gradually, by working within the system. And he pointed out that the quality of life of the working class had improved substantially since the Communist Manifesto had been published fifty years before. Lenin hated Bernstein for weakening the justification for a violent seizure of power by the Communists. Now, I finally understand the epithet Revisionist, hurled about by Russian and Chinese communists when I was growing up.
January 16, 2020
Damn, sounds really intelligent for any novice reader, but after hundreds of books on the subject, including sources like K. Marx, etc. and some fact checking, this becomes a total B.S.
March 2, 2022
Should have been about 1/2 the length.
This book started at a 5, and ended as a 2. It's VERY detailed and, while biased, it presents a pretty measured and balanced overview of the history that it covers. I certainly learned a lot of socialism's history, and the notes I took are useful.
The first 4-5 chapters in the book are fantastic. The chapter on Marx and Engels is one that I'll definitely re-read in the future since it was such a thorough account of these two. Also the later sections of the book (while it has issues that I outline below) is important to understand if you want to make sense of what China and Russia are up to today.
That being said, quite a few times throughout this book, I was left feeling like the author's book contract had stipulated a minimum page length. For multiple pages you're stuck reading some meaningless information that has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of this book. I really could have done without the excruciatingly detailed point-by-point breakdown of political and personal relationships. That's not why I bought this book, and I have already forgotten 90% of those meaningless additional details.
About halfway through this book I just started reading with the mentality "what could I highlight in this book that I would like to come back to in the future, and that would be useful for understanding the history of socialism?" - and there would be large portions of many of the chapters where none of the information provided fit this requirement. Much of the book is stuff that you really don't care to retain.
The chapter on Tanzania and the chapter on Tony Blair are examples of this (although the Kibbutz chapter was by far the worst. If he republishes this book he should just delete that entire chapter and write a paragraph in the epilogue that covers the basics). The minutia that the author goes into about each of these characters is completely useless to the overall picture of the history of socialism.
Another criticism is that he didn't go into enough detail about some of the specifics of Marxism, which is paradoxical because of the above criticisms on other less-useful details. For instance, he very briefly mentions that both Marx and Engels were young Hegelians. I think he spends a few sentences going over "dialectic", but never really links this very well to what "synthesis" means in the Marxist secret-decoder-language. He does (sort of) quip back to this a few times in the book when he mentions other communists using the word "synthesis" explicitly, but most readers aren't going to connect those dots automatically IMO.
I can't imagine leaving this discussion out of the book, because the link to Hegel is enormously important and explains the motivations of a huge number of communists. I think he probably needed to seek an editor that was more knowledgeable in the subject. He also should have probably included a chapter on postmodernism and its connection to Marx, since this is where the Hegelian stuff is important.
Also he goes over a semi-history of the writing of the Communist Manifesto, but spends effectively zero sentences going over what is actually written in it. He doesn't have to print a word-for-word duplicate, but the overall theory is actually important to understand if you want to grasp the motivations of the characters later in the book. This is a strange oversight.
For instance, in the 2nd chapter of the communist manifesto, Marx goes into detail about his theory and its perspective on property. He says that he isn't against private property and its ownership generally, but that his theory is specifically against *bourgeois* property. This motivated Lenin's entire concept of property right in the soviet union. None of this is explained in this book, and that's a mistake.
Anyway, this book could have been a 5 if he gutted half the book - and if he's going to keep it over 400 pages, include details that are important and remove details that are not.
This book started at a 5, and ended as a 2. It's VERY detailed and, while biased, it presents a pretty measured and balanced overview of the history that it covers. I certainly learned a lot of socialism's history, and the notes I took are useful.
The first 4-5 chapters in the book are fantastic. The chapter on Marx and Engels is one that I'll definitely re-read in the future since it was such a thorough account of these two. Also the later sections of the book (while it has issues that I outline below) is important to understand if you want to make sense of what China and Russia are up to today.
That being said, quite a few times throughout this book, I was left feeling like the author's book contract had stipulated a minimum page length. For multiple pages you're stuck reading some meaningless information that has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of this book. I really could have done without the excruciatingly detailed point-by-point breakdown of political and personal relationships. That's not why I bought this book, and I have already forgotten 90% of those meaningless additional details.
About halfway through this book I just started reading with the mentality "what could I highlight in this book that I would like to come back to in the future, and that would be useful for understanding the history of socialism?" - and there would be large portions of many of the chapters where none of the information provided fit this requirement. Much of the book is stuff that you really don't care to retain.
The chapter on Tanzania and the chapter on Tony Blair are examples of this (although the Kibbutz chapter was by far the worst. If he republishes this book he should just delete that entire chapter and write a paragraph in the epilogue that covers the basics). The minutia that the author goes into about each of these characters is completely useless to the overall picture of the history of socialism.
Another criticism is that he didn't go into enough detail about some of the specifics of Marxism, which is paradoxical because of the above criticisms on other less-useful details. For instance, he very briefly mentions that both Marx and Engels were young Hegelians. I think he spends a few sentences going over "dialectic", but never really links this very well to what "synthesis" means in the Marxist secret-decoder-language. He does (sort of) quip back to this a few times in the book when he mentions other communists using the word "synthesis" explicitly, but most readers aren't going to connect those dots automatically IMO.
I can't imagine leaving this discussion out of the book, because the link to Hegel is enormously important and explains the motivations of a huge number of communists. I think he probably needed to seek an editor that was more knowledgeable in the subject. He also should have probably included a chapter on postmodernism and its connection to Marx, since this is where the Hegelian stuff is important.
Also he goes over a semi-history of the writing of the Communist Manifesto, but spends effectively zero sentences going over what is actually written in it. He doesn't have to print a word-for-word duplicate, but the overall theory is actually important to understand if you want to grasp the motivations of the characters later in the book. This is a strange oversight.
For instance, in the 2nd chapter of the communist manifesto, Marx goes into detail about his theory and its perspective on property. He says that he isn't against private property and its ownership generally, but that his theory is specifically against *bourgeois* property. This motivated Lenin's entire concept of property right in the soviet union. None of this is explained in this book, and that's a mistake.
Anyway, this book could have been a 5 if he gutted half the book - and if he's going to keep it over 400 pages, include details that are important and remove details that are not.
March 25, 2024
"The idea of ultimate salvation, religious or secular, can be used to justify many things."
November 13, 2024
Book Review
Heaven on Earth (The Rise, Fall and Afterlife of Socialism)
Joshua Muravchik
5/5 stars
"393 pages of Communism's fatal design flaws and failed efforts to create a New Man."
*******
-393 pages/13 chapters≈30/chapter
-1008 point citations/393 pages=2.56/page.
VERY well sourced.
-≈12 hours of reading time.
Verdict: Recommended.
The author is clear that each of these 13 chapters is chosen to characterize an archetypical person in the socialist dream.
A lot of times people may speak for or against Socialism, but they don't have that much concrete material to say one way or another.
Reading a book like this will help solve that problem--or at least as much as you can remember from this book's massive bulk.
Big takeaway lesson from this book (Eric Hoffer quote): "The burning conviction that we have a holy duty toward others is often a way of attaching our drowning selves to a passing raft. What looks like giving a hand is often a holding on for dear life. Take away our holy duties and you leave our lives puny and meaningless."
If somebody comes along trying to lead you in revolution, it is more likely than not that you are their self-actualization project/emotional therapy.
*******
1. Robert Babeuf. The first socialist was a product of the French Revolution; as in many cases, these socialist revolutions start out as the plaything of intellectuals - - as opposed to people that work everyday in a factory.
2. Robert Owen. The kibbutz / commune idea is not new: here is a case of it being proven to not work a full two centuries ago. (40 years before the American Civil War.) Neither is the belief in tabula rasa that would make it all possible.
3. Karl Marx ("Scientific Socialism"). Marx was a trifling bum. He never held a job a *single* day in his life. From 1851 to 1860, Engels transferred £55/annum to him--twice the yearly income of a British worker. During his lifetime, his own work was ignored and The fact that there's any memory of him is because of Engels popularization of his work.
4. Eduard Bernstein (and Vladimir Lenin). He lived long enough to see the ideas of Marx and Engels falsified by history, and at this point the question is whether or not they are treated like any other writer or as scripture. Bernstein believed the former, and Lenin believed the latter, which ultimately won out.
5. Vladimir Lenin ("Real Existing Socialism"). Details of his ascent to power and immediate pivot to brutality and suppression.
6. Mussolini+ some Hitler ("Fascism"). Fascism is his brainchild, But it is actually a product of the left and not the right (as is commonly thought these days). Mussolini started out as a socialist / anti-clericalist, and found nationalism later as a vehicle to power. Quiet as it is kept, Nazis were National Socialists.
7. Clement Atlee ("Social Democracy"). Fabian socialist. In the mold of Bentham, Mill and Owen rather than Marx and Engels. Strategy was piecemeal reform..
8. Julius Nyrere ("Ujaama"). "One party. One man, one vote, one time." He started out declaring self-reliance, but ended up being Africa's largest per capita recipient of foreign assistance. (Tanzania's GDP per capita is about $1,200 today.)
9. Samuel Gompers ("Union Card"). Gompers saw that radicals (socialists/communists/ etc) tended to co-opt labor movements for their own ends, and put as much distance between the American labor movement and the socialists as possible - - a situation that has persisted.
10. Deng Xiaoping/Mikhail Gorbachev-The first an example of successfully economic reforms, and the second an example of unsuccessful ones leading to collapse. Snippets of the brutal political conditions from the Mao years and beyond.
11. Tony Blair ("Party of Business"). Tony Blair is credited with having brought the Labor to party back to the right after successive electoral defeats. Labor à la Tony Blair≠ Labor à la Clement Atlee.
12. Israeli kibbutzim. Even the Jews couldn't make them work.
13. Afterlife. Jeremy Corbyn. Venezuela. Hugo Chavez. Xi Jinping.
Neat factoids:
1. The metric system is the only part that survived of the French attempt to decimalize everything, including months days and hours.
2. Socialism spread farther and faster than any religion. From the 1820 coinage of the word socialism until 1970, 60% of the Earth was living under socialist rule of one type or another. (Contrast this with Xtianity claiming the loyalty of 1/3 of Earth after about 20 centuries and Islam claiming about 1/4 after 13 centuries.)
3. As an example of how socialism is just another religion: When Robert Owen found out that his various collectivist projects were not going to work, he just recreated something very similar to a church. (They sang hymns and held Sunday services;They paid missionaries to missionize and called them "socialist bishops." They held seances.)
4. 58 third world states declared themselves "socialist." 7 in Asia, 13 in Latin America / Caribbean, 3 in non-African Middle East, and 35 in Africa (p.206).
5. Das Kapital had 4 volumes. The first written by Marx himself. The second and third written by Engels. And the fourth written by Eduard Bernstein.
6. Syndicalism is a variant of socialism.
7. (p.325) Tony Blair ran on a platform of "change" that was not sharply defined. In that way, B. Hussein Obama was an imitator.
8. (p.343) Amana appliances started out as a German Protestant communal sect in Iowa in the 1800s.
Second order thoughts:
1. These mass movements are also the brainchildren of wealthy people WAY more than spontaneous movements by workers.
It is amazing how many of these "revolutionaries" were either supported by their parents (Rosa Luxembourg. Vladimir Lenin. Karl Marx. Leo Jogiches. Bernie Sanders.) or from wealthy families (Clement Atlee. Beatrice and Sydney Webb. Jeremy Corbyn.)
2. "And History, with all her volumes vast,
Hath but one page."
a. You have some indigenous people somewhere that have to get educated by Western/white people to become idiots. (Pol Pot. Julius Nyrere, et al).
b. You have some people somewhere co-opting of movement representing people that they themselves don't know. (Karl Marx. Robert Mugabe.)
c. You have some people in a hurry to take over a country from colonial authorities that they promptly run into the ground. (All of Africa.)
d. Socialism --> Totalitarianism as sure as night follows day. ("We just have to make this program work come even if it's at gunpoint.)
3. Socialism is not the panacea that a lot of black people think it is, most notably in its failure to do anything in Africa. Even the early labor movements (AFL-CIO) initially did not want any part of black people. (That was part of Asa Phillip Randolph's gripe.)
4. The two party system is not such because of any shadowy conspiracy. In Britain, as in the United States each party has to rediscover its message over time. Once you stop losing elections is when you know that you've gotten the message right. (It took six consecutive elections with less than 40% of the vote before Labor got it together.
5. Socialist expenses increase the further a country goes left. In the case of Russia, it was rectified without right collapse. In places like the United States/United Kingdom, people like Bill Clinton/Tony Blair presided over cutbacks of various types to social insurance.
6. With enough churn, Labor can become the "party of business" in Britain. Or how "socialism with Chinese characteristics" can be substituted for Communism. Or, how the Republican party can become the party of working people and multi-ethnic while the Democratic party becomes one for wealthy white people.
8. In a nutshell, the Enlightenment discrediting of Christianity left Europe hungering for a new faith (p.355) which they promptly used in a lot of destruction. Engelks and Marx recast it into a compelling religious faith.
Vocab:
opéra bouffe
calumnation
doughty
parastatals
trundle bed
Knights of Labor
phthisical
stinting
voluptuary
denizen
bearded
provenance
Third Way
fillip
apposite
Quotes:
(p.67). Karl Marx: "All I know is that I am not a Marxist."
(p 79). Mark's asked him to ghostwrite the articles. Engels dutifully accepted the burden, coming from his day job at the firm, where he earned money to help support Marx, to spend his evenings doing Marx's job.
(p.88). Unlike the Torah, the New Testament or the holy Quran, all of which are studied asiduously by believers, capital fulfilled his purpose just by existing. Believers could assure themselves that it contained profound evidence that their worldview was more correct than any other.
(p.220). Western socialists looked upon the Africans like parents hoping to fulfill their dreams through their children.
(p. 165) A socialism liberated from the Democratic and cosmopolitan element fits nationalism as a well-made glove fits a beautiful hand. (Charles Maurass)
(p. 166) They were reminders of Mussolini's point that fascism was a heresy of socialism - - very much the same relationship as Christianity to Judaism or other heretical schisms.
(p. 241, S. Gompers) "I saw how professions of radicalism and sensationalism concentrated all the forces of organized society against a labor movement.... I saw that leadership in the labor movement could be safely entrusted only to those into whose hearts and minds have been woven the experiences of earning their bread by daily labor. I saw the danger of entangling alliances with intellectuals who did not understand that the experiment with the labor movement was to experiment with human life."
(p. 252) Around 70 [Gomper's] health began to fail, forcing him to reduce his cigar consumption to 25 a day.
(p. 269) Not only did American labor contribute more than its share to the downfall of Communism, it proved to be one of the great obstacles to the global advance of socialism in any form.
(p. 277) One group of local party leaders was paraded through a village street, each man led by a rusty wire that penetrated his testicles. At the village Square all were shot. "
(p.313) Socialist ranks were fortified by erstwhile Communist who hastened to realign themselves as social democrats.
(p.318) In the British system, there are no primaries; candidates are chosen in a series of meetings.
(p. 333) The mainstream Left may pour the cream that lightens the coffee of capitalism, but they are not offering any other beverage.
(p. 354) In Jewish believe the focus of messianism is not on eternal reward but on progress toward moral perfection.
(p. 355) Most anthropologists agree that religion is universal; they have yet to discover a civilization of logical positivists. (They're 5,300 members of the American humanist association and 16 million of the Southern Baptist Convention.)
(p. 359) Part of the power of Marxism was its ability to feed religious hunger while flattering the sins of being wiser than those who gave themselves over to earn unearthly faiths.... The socialist narrative turned history into a morality play without the morality.
(p. 387, Clemenceau) Any man who is not a socialist at 20 has no heart, and any who is still a socialist at 40 has no brain.
Heaven on Earth (The Rise, Fall and Afterlife of Socialism)
Joshua Muravchik
5/5 stars
"393 pages of Communism's fatal design flaws and failed efforts to create a New Man."
*******
-393 pages/13 chapters≈30/chapter
-1008 point citations/393 pages=2.56/page.
VERY well sourced.
-≈12 hours of reading time.
Verdict: Recommended.
The author is clear that each of these 13 chapters is chosen to characterize an archetypical person in the socialist dream.
A lot of times people may speak for or against Socialism, but they don't have that much concrete material to say one way or another.
Reading a book like this will help solve that problem--or at least as much as you can remember from this book's massive bulk.
Big takeaway lesson from this book (Eric Hoffer quote): "The burning conviction that we have a holy duty toward others is often a way of attaching our drowning selves to a passing raft. What looks like giving a hand is often a holding on for dear life. Take away our holy duties and you leave our lives puny and meaningless."
If somebody comes along trying to lead you in revolution, it is more likely than not that you are their self-actualization project/emotional therapy.
*******
1. Robert Babeuf. The first socialist was a product of the French Revolution; as in many cases, these socialist revolutions start out as the plaything of intellectuals - - as opposed to people that work everyday in a factory.
2. Robert Owen. The kibbutz / commune idea is not new: here is a case of it being proven to not work a full two centuries ago. (40 years before the American Civil War.) Neither is the belief in tabula rasa that would make it all possible.
3. Karl Marx ("Scientific Socialism"). Marx was a trifling bum. He never held a job a *single* day in his life. From 1851 to 1860, Engels transferred £55/annum to him--twice the yearly income of a British worker. During his lifetime, his own work was ignored and The fact that there's any memory of him is because of Engels popularization of his work.
4. Eduard Bernstein (and Vladimir Lenin). He lived long enough to see the ideas of Marx and Engels falsified by history, and at this point the question is whether or not they are treated like any other writer or as scripture. Bernstein believed the former, and Lenin believed the latter, which ultimately won out.
5. Vladimir Lenin ("Real Existing Socialism"). Details of his ascent to power and immediate pivot to brutality and suppression.
6. Mussolini+ some Hitler ("Fascism"). Fascism is his brainchild, But it is actually a product of the left and not the right (as is commonly thought these days). Mussolini started out as a socialist / anti-clericalist, and found nationalism later as a vehicle to power. Quiet as it is kept, Nazis were National Socialists.
7. Clement Atlee ("Social Democracy"). Fabian socialist. In the mold of Bentham, Mill and Owen rather than Marx and Engels. Strategy was piecemeal reform..
8. Julius Nyrere ("Ujaama"). "One party. One man, one vote, one time." He started out declaring self-reliance, but ended up being Africa's largest per capita recipient of foreign assistance. (Tanzania's GDP per capita is about $1,200 today.)
9. Samuel Gompers ("Union Card"). Gompers saw that radicals (socialists/communists/ etc) tended to co-opt labor movements for their own ends, and put as much distance between the American labor movement and the socialists as possible - - a situation that has persisted.
10. Deng Xiaoping/Mikhail Gorbachev-The first an example of successfully economic reforms, and the second an example of unsuccessful ones leading to collapse. Snippets of the brutal political conditions from the Mao years and beyond.
11. Tony Blair ("Party of Business"). Tony Blair is credited with having brought the Labor to party back to the right after successive electoral defeats. Labor à la Tony Blair≠ Labor à la Clement Atlee.
12. Israeli kibbutzim. Even the Jews couldn't make them work.
13. Afterlife. Jeremy Corbyn. Venezuela. Hugo Chavez. Xi Jinping.
Neat factoids:
1. The metric system is the only part that survived of the French attempt to decimalize everything, including months days and hours.
2. Socialism spread farther and faster than any religion. From the 1820 coinage of the word socialism until 1970, 60% of the Earth was living under socialist rule of one type or another. (Contrast this with Xtianity claiming the loyalty of 1/3 of Earth after about 20 centuries and Islam claiming about 1/4 after 13 centuries.)
3. As an example of how socialism is just another religion: When Robert Owen found out that his various collectivist projects were not going to work, he just recreated something very similar to a church. (They sang hymns and held Sunday services;They paid missionaries to missionize and called them "socialist bishops." They held seances.)
4. 58 third world states declared themselves "socialist." 7 in Asia, 13 in Latin America / Caribbean, 3 in non-African Middle East, and 35 in Africa (p.206).
5. Das Kapital had 4 volumes. The first written by Marx himself. The second and third written by Engels. And the fourth written by Eduard Bernstein.
6. Syndicalism is a variant of socialism.
7. (p.325) Tony Blair ran on a platform of "change" that was not sharply defined. In that way, B. Hussein Obama was an imitator.
8. (p.343) Amana appliances started out as a German Protestant communal sect in Iowa in the 1800s.
Second order thoughts:
1. These mass movements are also the brainchildren of wealthy people WAY more than spontaneous movements by workers.
It is amazing how many of these "revolutionaries" were either supported by their parents (Rosa Luxembourg. Vladimir Lenin. Karl Marx. Leo Jogiches. Bernie Sanders.) or from wealthy families (Clement Atlee. Beatrice and Sydney Webb. Jeremy Corbyn.)
2. "And History, with all her volumes vast,
Hath but one page."
a. You have some indigenous people somewhere that have to get educated by Western/white people to become idiots. (Pol Pot. Julius Nyrere, et al).
b. You have some people somewhere co-opting of movement representing people that they themselves don't know. (Karl Marx. Robert Mugabe.)
c. You have some people in a hurry to take over a country from colonial authorities that they promptly run into the ground. (All of Africa.)
d. Socialism --> Totalitarianism as sure as night follows day. ("We just have to make this program work come even if it's at gunpoint.)
3. Socialism is not the panacea that a lot of black people think it is, most notably in its failure to do anything in Africa. Even the early labor movements (AFL-CIO) initially did not want any part of black people. (That was part of Asa Phillip Randolph's gripe.)
4. The two party system is not such because of any shadowy conspiracy. In Britain, as in the United States each party has to rediscover its message over time. Once you stop losing elections is when you know that you've gotten the message right. (It took six consecutive elections with less than 40% of the vote before Labor got it together.
5. Socialist expenses increase the further a country goes left. In the case of Russia, it was rectified without right collapse. In places like the United States/United Kingdom, people like Bill Clinton/Tony Blair presided over cutbacks of various types to social insurance.
6. With enough churn, Labor can become the "party of business" in Britain. Or how "socialism with Chinese characteristics" can be substituted for Communism. Or, how the Republican party can become the party of working people and multi-ethnic while the Democratic party becomes one for wealthy white people.
8. In a nutshell, the Enlightenment discrediting of Christianity left Europe hungering for a new faith (p.355) which they promptly used in a lot of destruction. Engelks and Marx recast it into a compelling religious faith.
Vocab:
opéra bouffe
calumnation
doughty
parastatals
trundle bed
Knights of Labor
phthisical
stinting
voluptuary
denizen
bearded
provenance
Third Way
fillip
apposite
Quotes:
(p.67). Karl Marx: "All I know is that I am not a Marxist."
(p 79). Mark's asked him to ghostwrite the articles. Engels dutifully accepted the burden, coming from his day job at the firm, where he earned money to help support Marx, to spend his evenings doing Marx's job.
(p.88). Unlike the Torah, the New Testament or the holy Quran, all of which are studied asiduously by believers, capital fulfilled his purpose just by existing. Believers could assure themselves that it contained profound evidence that their worldview was more correct than any other.
(p.220). Western socialists looked upon the Africans like parents hoping to fulfill their dreams through their children.
(p. 165) A socialism liberated from the Democratic and cosmopolitan element fits nationalism as a well-made glove fits a beautiful hand. (Charles Maurass)
(p. 166) They were reminders of Mussolini's point that fascism was a heresy of socialism - - very much the same relationship as Christianity to Judaism or other heretical schisms.
(p. 241, S. Gompers) "I saw how professions of radicalism and sensationalism concentrated all the forces of organized society against a labor movement.... I saw that leadership in the labor movement could be safely entrusted only to those into whose hearts and minds have been woven the experiences of earning their bread by daily labor. I saw the danger of entangling alliances with intellectuals who did not understand that the experiment with the labor movement was to experiment with human life."
(p. 252) Around 70 [Gomper's] health began to fail, forcing him to reduce his cigar consumption to 25 a day.
(p. 269) Not only did American labor contribute more than its share to the downfall of Communism, it proved to be one of the great obstacles to the global advance of socialism in any form.
(p. 277) One group of local party leaders was paraded through a village street, each man led by a rusty wire that penetrated his testicles. At the village Square all were shot. "
(p.313) Socialist ranks were fortified by erstwhile Communist who hastened to realign themselves as social democrats.
(p.318) In the British system, there are no primaries; candidates are chosen in a series of meetings.
(p. 333) The mainstream Left may pour the cream that lightens the coffee of capitalism, but they are not offering any other beverage.
(p. 354) In Jewish believe the focus of messianism is not on eternal reward but on progress toward moral perfection.
(p. 355) Most anthropologists agree that religion is universal; they have yet to discover a civilization of logical positivists. (They're 5,300 members of the American humanist association and 16 million of the Southern Baptist Convention.)
(p. 359) Part of the power of Marxism was its ability to feed religious hunger while flattering the sins of being wiser than those who gave themselves over to earn unearthly faiths.... The socialist narrative turned history into a morality play without the morality.
(p. 387, Clemenceau) Any man who is not a socialist at 20 has no heart, and any who is still a socialist at 40 has no brain.
April 10, 2008
I am embarrassed to admit that even with a (useless) political science degree, I had only a superficial knowledge of socialism and its outgrowth, communism. This was my kind of book because it discussed socialism by relating it to its founders and primary leaders. And of course, it focused on its historical through modern day contexts.
All in all, an enjoyable read that also educated.
All in all, an enjoyable read that also educated.
July 27, 2020
Well written and eye opening . A must read for anyone want to examine history so that it hopefully isn't repeated. The second part of the book
Was eye opening especially when it comes the rise of the far left in the United states. Share this book with everyone you know!!
Was eye opening especially when it comes the rise of the far left in the United states. Share this book with everyone you know!!
January 20, 2011
Extraordinarily well researched but dense book. Convinced me that socialism is a theoretical utopia but a pragmatic impossibility.
June 29, 2025
I was reluctant to read this book because of it's simple format: the two hundred year history of socialism told through the biographies of 13 people. Most, of course, are well known, such as Frederich Engels and Benito Mussolini. Even the lesser known ones, Eduard Bernstein, the German Social Democrat who in "Evolutionary Socialism" tried to redefine Marxism for a more peaceful, economically improving age, or Julius Nyerere, the intellectual Tanzania autocrat who liberated his country and then wrecked it), already have extensive biographies. But Joshua Muravchick is a gifted writer, who is able to find the nuggets and surprising facts in every story and relate it to the whole. None of the biographies are told with rage or absence of perspective, but with genuine interest, as one would expect from an author who grew up socialist and spent time on a kibbutz.
One consistent theme in the book is that the true socialists were always middle or upper class reformers who understood that workers were reluctant to embrace utopianism, but whose education allowed them to jump to the head of socialist parties anyway. From Vladimir Lenin in Russia to Clement Atlee in Britain, all the socialist heads were guilt-ridden individuals surrounded by servants from youth. The real working class, even if they felt enlightened by Marxism (and one lesson here is that Marxism was in every such party, in one shape or another, from social democratic to labour to communist to national socialist), ended up pushing for gradualism, as did Samuel Gompers, the poor son of East London cigar-rollers who came to America to found the AFL and who kept socialists out of it. Another theme is that although many of these utopians were blood-thirsty from the start (as was Francois-Noel Babeuf, the Robesspierre confidant who is often cited as the first socialist) others such as Nyerere just came to realize that socialism required force, and it was never pretty.
This book was published in 2002, during what one could call the heighth of capitalism, so the "fall" of socialism looks complete here, and stories like Tony BLair and Deng Xiaopeng are told as curtain-calls for past dreams. Yes, one could say the state is back now, but in fact the old socialism, of, say, the Labour Party's Clause IV, which demanded up until Blair the complete socialization of the means of production, is truly dead, held onto only by the most recalictrant of renegades. Other dangerous philosophies, including some of socialism's offshoots, live on, but we can take comfort that this most radical and utopian idea of modern history has finally been buried along with millions of its victims.
One consistent theme in the book is that the true socialists were always middle or upper class reformers who understood that workers were reluctant to embrace utopianism, but whose education allowed them to jump to the head of socialist parties anyway. From Vladimir Lenin in Russia to Clement Atlee in Britain, all the socialist heads were guilt-ridden individuals surrounded by servants from youth. The real working class, even if they felt enlightened by Marxism (and one lesson here is that Marxism was in every such party, in one shape or another, from social democratic to labour to communist to national socialist), ended up pushing for gradualism, as did Samuel Gompers, the poor son of East London cigar-rollers who came to America to found the AFL and who kept socialists out of it. Another theme is that although many of these utopians were blood-thirsty from the start (as was Francois-Noel Babeuf, the Robesspierre confidant who is often cited as the first socialist) others such as Nyerere just came to realize that socialism required force, and it was never pretty.
This book was published in 2002, during what one could call the heighth of capitalism, so the "fall" of socialism looks complete here, and stories like Tony BLair and Deng Xiaopeng are told as curtain-calls for past dreams. Yes, one could say the state is back now, but in fact the old socialism, of, say, the Labour Party's Clause IV, which demanded up until Blair the complete socialization of the means of production, is truly dead, held onto only by the most recalictrant of renegades. Other dangerous philosophies, including some of socialism's offshoots, live on, but we can take comfort that this most radical and utopian idea of modern history has finally been buried along with millions of its victims.
October 29, 2025
Follow/Subscribe: YouTube, Patreon, Instagram
Feelings about the book:
- This is a drier history book but I liked the content. Although, it didn't cover African and South American socialism.
Premise/Plot:
- Heaven on Earth traces the social and political history of socialism, from its humble beginnings to political dominance and then falloff.
- Joshua Muravchik documents key socialist figures: Robert Owen, Karl Marx, Lenin, Mao and more.
Themes:
- Socialism, nationalism, idealism, power, corruption, hope, poverty, pragmatism and more.
Pros:
- I enjoyed reading different relevant actors throughout history such as Babeuf and Robert Owen.
- A balanced tone which highlights success and failures
Cons:
- Socialism in the non-Western world pretty much doesn't exist here. China is talked about but not African or South American socialism.
- Pacing is slower, and the writing style isn't that engaging.
Quotes:
‘In short, Owen’s argument was circular. Socialism, he said, would produce a “new man.” Until then, all people were necessarily products of the old system. If it required people reared under socialism to create socialism, then how could you get there from here?’
‘The principal reason why we know their doctrine as “Marxism” is that Engels promoted the term! It was first coined in derision by socialist rivals of Marx and Engels.’
‘The single most fundamental idea of Marxism was that class is the most important political variable, yet the response to the war proved that nationality was a more powerful bond, and few socialists were able to resist its pull.’
The party ordered that pronouns referring to him in print be capitalised, as they are for God. Among the officially sanctioned graffiti splashed across walls around Italy was the slogan “Mussolini is always right.”
‘Everywhere in the world, socialism arose as an idea of middle-class thinkers who then set about selling it to the workers… Unlike their European counterparts, American socialists failed to win over the unions in part because the workers felt more able to stand on their own.’
‘Socialist economies yielded little growth, but economic growth has been the exception, not the rule, throughout history.’
Feelings about the book:
- This is a drier history book but I liked the content. Although, it didn't cover African and South American socialism.
Premise/Plot:
- Heaven on Earth traces the social and political history of socialism, from its humble beginnings to political dominance and then falloff.
- Joshua Muravchik documents key socialist figures: Robert Owen, Karl Marx, Lenin, Mao and more.
Themes:
- Socialism, nationalism, idealism, power, corruption, hope, poverty, pragmatism and more.
Pros:
- I enjoyed reading different relevant actors throughout history such as Babeuf and Robert Owen.
- A balanced tone which highlights success and failures
Cons:
- Socialism in the non-Western world pretty much doesn't exist here. China is talked about but not African or South American socialism.
- Pacing is slower, and the writing style isn't that engaging.
Quotes:
‘In short, Owen’s argument was circular. Socialism, he said, would produce a “new man.” Until then, all people were necessarily products of the old system. If it required people reared under socialism to create socialism, then how could you get there from here?’
‘The principal reason why we know their doctrine as “Marxism” is that Engels promoted the term! It was first coined in derision by socialist rivals of Marx and Engels.’
‘The single most fundamental idea of Marxism was that class is the most important political variable, yet the response to the war proved that nationality was a more powerful bond, and few socialists were able to resist its pull.’
The party ordered that pronouns referring to him in print be capitalised, as they are for God. Among the officially sanctioned graffiti splashed across walls around Italy was the slogan “Mussolini is always right.”
‘Everywhere in the world, socialism arose as an idea of middle-class thinkers who then set about selling it to the workers… Unlike their European counterparts, American socialists failed to win over the unions in part because the workers felt more able to stand on their own.’
‘Socialist economies yielded little growth, but economic growth has been the exception, not the rule, throughout history.’
September 6, 2022
Whenever you read about Socialism or Communism, its always important (in my view) to consider the author's background and perspective. I have yet to find a book that provides a 'neutral' analysis. It is probably impossible to generate such a dispassionate analysis so long as sizable chunks of the public continue to seriously advocate for these ways of life and even larger groups oppose it.
In any event, its important to note that Muravchik was a full-on died in the wool socialist in his youth, and migrated to "neo-conservatism" in his later life. So, not surprisingly, his book has a particular point of view which takes a somewhat mocking view of Socialism and Communism. This is especially true in his descriptions of Marx's personal failings. When you read pro-Socialist/Communist polemics, Marx is a secular saint who suffered trials and tribulations to serve the cause. When you read this book, he comes off as a lazy, adulterous hypocrite. As they say, where you stand depends on where you sit.
So, why do I give a 5 for this book? I give a 5 first, because it is very well written. Its really easy to read. This book only took me about 4 nights of pre-bedtime reading and I was done. To be clear, I am not saying it is "superficial". It isn't. It's just written in a very accessible manner. The other reason I give a high review is that it conveyed 3 key facts of which I was unaware. First, I had never heard of Samuel Gompers and his role in keeping Communism out of the U.S. labor movement. Second, I had heard of George Meaney, but again had no clue about his anti-communist stance. Third, I had not realized that Mussolini (and the fascist movement more generally) really grew out of socialism with a nationalist spin. I was aware of Ernst Rohm's S.A. and their influence in Hitler's rise, but I had no knowledge of Mussolini's socialist past.
In any event, its important to note that Muravchik was a full-on died in the wool socialist in his youth, and migrated to "neo-conservatism" in his later life. So, not surprisingly, his book has a particular point of view which takes a somewhat mocking view of Socialism and Communism. This is especially true in his descriptions of Marx's personal failings. When you read pro-Socialist/Communist polemics, Marx is a secular saint who suffered trials and tribulations to serve the cause. When you read this book, he comes off as a lazy, adulterous hypocrite. As they say, where you stand depends on where you sit.
So, why do I give a 5 for this book? I give a 5 first, because it is very well written. Its really easy to read. This book only took me about 4 nights of pre-bedtime reading and I was done. To be clear, I am not saying it is "superficial". It isn't. It's just written in a very accessible manner. The other reason I give a high review is that it conveyed 3 key facts of which I was unaware. First, I had never heard of Samuel Gompers and his role in keeping Communism out of the U.S. labor movement. Second, I had heard of George Meaney, but again had no clue about his anti-communist stance. Third, I had not realized that Mussolini (and the fascist movement more generally) really grew out of socialism with a nationalist spin. I was aware of Ernst Rohm's S.A. and their influence in Hitler's rise, but I had no knowledge of Mussolini's socialist past.
August 28, 2025
The title is a bit misleading. This isn't really about the evolution of the ideas themselves (although some of that is there). Rather, it's a deeper look at the great thinkers that made and moved away from the movement, and this biographical approach subtly highlights many of socialism's faults without descending into an ideological debate.
The focus on people instead of ideas results in an ideological shallowness that makes it somewhat of an inappropriate read for beginners in political philosophy. This is not the kind of book where you can read about the difference between Socialism, Communism and Marxism. Instead, this book offers various engaging and insightful stories about socialism in action, and the (inevitable) failures of the model.
What I also appropriate is starting the history of socialism from before Marx and Engels. This focus on Babeuf and Owens offered a more nuanced perspective on the history of socialism and took some of the focus away from the often mentioned Marxian "roots". Adding on Mussolini and the "nationalization" of socialism in the form of classical fascism is a nice and important touch. It seems as if many people fail to see the socialism in national socialism, and Marxist catchphrases such as "fascism is capitalism in decay" and "late-stage capitalism" are thrown around without any care for their veracity.
Some other notable sections include the chapter on the kibbutz as the most successful implementation of socialism yet seem (and its eventual failure), as well as the two chapters focusing more on British politics (one on Attlee's democratic socialism and one on Blair's centrist pivot with New Labor).
All in all, this is a thoroughly enjoyable, well-written read with a unique structure that might not work for everyone. I would highly recommend this book, but only if you know what you're getting yourself into.
The focus on people instead of ideas results in an ideological shallowness that makes it somewhat of an inappropriate read for beginners in political philosophy. This is not the kind of book where you can read about the difference between Socialism, Communism and Marxism. Instead, this book offers various engaging and insightful stories about socialism in action, and the (inevitable) failures of the model.
What I also appropriate is starting the history of socialism from before Marx and Engels. This focus on Babeuf and Owens offered a more nuanced perspective on the history of socialism and took some of the focus away from the often mentioned Marxian "roots". Adding on Mussolini and the "nationalization" of socialism in the form of classical fascism is a nice and important touch. It seems as if many people fail to see the socialism in national socialism, and Marxist catchphrases such as "fascism is capitalism in decay" and "late-stage capitalism" are thrown around without any care for their veracity.
Some other notable sections include the chapter on the kibbutz as the most successful implementation of socialism yet seem (and its eventual failure), as well as the two chapters focusing more on British politics (one on Attlee's democratic socialism and one on Blair's centrist pivot with New Labor).
All in all, this is a thoroughly enjoyable, well-written read with a unique structure that might not work for everyone. I would highly recommend this book, but only if you know what you're getting yourself into.
May 1, 2023
Once upon a time, humanity was on a quest for a utopian society. They wanted a world where everyone lived in abundance without needing religion. The answer to their search came from socialism, a science-based doctrine. It promised to create societies of abundance and give birth to the "New Man."
Pursuing this apparition led to revolution, communes, social democracy, communism, fascism, Arab socialism, and African socialism. However, none of these attempts worked, and some resulted in a staggering human toll.
Socialism continued to be pursued for two centuries, despite wishful thinking and bitter disappointment. Finally, in a dramatic fin de siècle, socialism imploded, with falling walls and collapsing regimes.
Although it was an excellent outcome, it was not the end of the story. After a hiatus of a couple of decades, new voices emerged, proposing to try it all over again. Innocent of all that had come before, they wanted to revive socialism.
Joshua Muravchik tells the story of the pursuit of socialism, presenting sketches of the thinkers and leaders who developed the theory, led it to power, and presided over its collapse. He also highlights those trying to revive it today.
Heaven on Earth is an epic chronicle of a movement that tried to turn the world upside down and, for a time, succeeded. It is a story filled with characters and events, a reminder that the quest for utopia is ongoing.
Pursuing this apparition led to revolution, communes, social democracy, communism, fascism, Arab socialism, and African socialism. However, none of these attempts worked, and some resulted in a staggering human toll.
Socialism continued to be pursued for two centuries, despite wishful thinking and bitter disappointment. Finally, in a dramatic fin de siècle, socialism imploded, with falling walls and collapsing regimes.
Although it was an excellent outcome, it was not the end of the story. After a hiatus of a couple of decades, new voices emerged, proposing to try it all over again. Innocent of all that had come before, they wanted to revive socialism.
Joshua Muravchik tells the story of the pursuit of socialism, presenting sketches of the thinkers and leaders who developed the theory, led it to power, and presided over its collapse. He also highlights those trying to revive it today.
Heaven on Earth is an epic chronicle of a movement that tried to turn the world upside down and, for a time, succeeded. It is a story filled with characters and events, a reminder that the quest for utopia is ongoing.
October 10, 2019
Very engaging and thoughtful book. While socialism might have many potentially endearing characteristics theoretically, the practical implication is that it so misses on the nature of man it requires oppressive, controlling and often brutal political means to insure economic compliance. Surely capitalism has its problems as we are well aware of and living through, however, given socialism's miserable and destructive track record both economically and the political oppression it requires to sustain itself, it surely cannot be the solution. French politician Clememceau "any man who is not a socialist at age twenty has no heart and any man who is still a socialist at forty has no brain." Agreed
June 7, 2021
A very turbulent read where Muravchik simultaneously uses granular and achingly specific cantor, in the same chapter of vaguely glossing over important historical sore-thumbs. In the most generous way, Heaven on Earth serves as a decent steel-man against anti capitalists of today. It is overwhelmingly concerning how his idiosyncratic (yet enticingly humorous at times) writing style dismisses Sanders, Corbyn, and other vanguards of modern social democracy. As a former socialist-turned Zionist neocon, Muravchik, if nothing else, exists as an interesting case study.
December 4, 2025
Utopia Exposed As Dystopia
Muravchik’s analysis of socialism’s origins, history, scope and devastation is a canary in the coal mine type alert to the tidal wave like embrace of this utterly failed political, social, economic system embraced by the American Left and confused American youth whose disassociation with history leaves them vulnerable to the message touted by socialist minstrels. Socialism is a failed philosophy, a failed economic system and a failed social system. It is however, a gateway to dictatorial power by elites who suffer not its consequences.
Muravchik’s analysis of socialism’s origins, history, scope and devastation is a canary in the coal mine type alert to the tidal wave like embrace of this utterly failed political, social, economic system embraced by the American Left and confused American youth whose disassociation with history leaves them vulnerable to the message touted by socialist minstrels. Socialism is a failed philosophy, a failed economic system and a failed social system. It is however, a gateway to dictatorial power by elites who suffer not its consequences.
July 4, 2019
Excellent book, wonderfully written. A terrific overview of the failure of socialism and communism. Does not go into the usual atrocities of the USSR and China to describe the flaws of totalitarianism but instead looks at the economic and cultural causes of their demise. Good review of Marx and Engels and the success of the Israeli Socialist kibbutzim until they democratically decided to change. Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn bring us up to date as well as AOC. An excellent read especially for youth so enamored of socialism or social democracy today. A flawed construct which seems to have gained a foothold among the naive and idealistic.
Excellent for those interested in history and political science.
Excellent for those interested in history and political science.
December 13, 2019
Though I enjoyed this book, it had a few flaws that I found troubling. First, this book focused more closely on authoritarian and communist distortions of socialist doctrines than socialism itself. Second, the author fails to make this distinction clear and thus comes across as if they believe that, say, Communist China is a socialist nation. And, finally, he excludes entirely the socialist countries of northern Europe.
June 3, 2017
A clear and easily readable account of the broad sweep of socialism from its origins to the present day. Great if you want to read just one book to understand what actually happened when the ideology of socialism meets reality. Especially loved the chapter on the evolution of the Israeli kibbutz.
May 31, 2019
Outstanding. Covers distinct episodes of socialist history: Babeuf / French Revolution, Owens / Utopia, Marx/Engels, Russian, Labor party /England, Unions/US, Russian and Chinese paths in the 90s, Brit Labor in the 90s. Threaded throughout most of the stories is the purist left / socialist / communist true believers contrasted with the practical and reforming types.
June 4, 2024
The book is mainly biographical, not particularly about the historical impact of socialism. It rather concentrates efforts on well-known socialists themselves. At some points, I had to skip swaths of the write-up. The final chapter was either a confusing ramble or a non-focused diatribe against selected individuals. I was torn between a 2 and a 3-star rating.
May 25, 2025
A good primer on the history of socialism. While a neoconservative, the author showed more contempt for the theorists than for socialism itself. Throughout the book, he emphasized the importance of unsung figures and traditions that were often overshadowed by Marxism.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews