Donald trump, in his announcement of his presidential candidacy, promised that if elected he would curb democracy: allowing only paper ballots, only one day to vote, etc. However in reality he can’t actually do these things because the constitution mandates that our election system must be regulated and controlled at the state level (Article I, Section 4, Clause 1). In this way a dose of anarchy is baked into our system, since states are free to design their own unique and esoteric election systems which are beyond the reach of the president/congress (and therefore the national electorate), who are all prevented (or at least strongly discouraged) from creating a single national election system.
(Note: the congress does have the authority to make general rules governing national elections, even if those rules occasionally over-ride state law. For example, congress has established a single election day on which the whole country votes for national candidates, and congress has also limited the amount that individuals can donate to candidates. However, traditionally the power to design and implement an election system within each state has been vested in the states themselves, and congress rarely intervenes. So long as a state’s election system is in line with its own state constitution and the national constitution – especially the 14th Amendment, which dictates that no state law shall deprive a citizen of his right to vote without due process of law – the congress and the Supreme Court generally do not get involved. In this way states are, for the most part, free to do as they please).
This constitutional rule that states may design their own election systems can only be amended via the laborious amendment process, not by the decree of the president, nor by a vote in congress. Though a law passed by congress could establish certain national voting rules, congress would be loath to overturn via legislation the various voting systems of all the states at once, unless they had very strong reason for doing so, since a multitude of lawsuits (not to mention massive political fall-out) would likely follow if congress attempted to mettle with so many varied and wide-spread systems in one fell swoop. This would be especially true if the congress was clearly doing so for political reasons, such as to make it more difficult for a given political party’s constituents to cast votes. Such behavior would draw the wrath of the states, the press, and likely the Supreme Court, who has ruled in the past that neither the states nor the congress may dictate election outcomes via legislation. Therefore Trump will very likely be unable to establish new national voting rules, even if a national majority of voters support his initiative. It seems this dose of anarchy in our election systems – the power of states to make their own election rules – is itself a limit on democracy since it deprives the national electorate the power to establish a single system.
What is ironic about this is that this check on democracy also preserves our democracy! For if the people lawfully elect a wannabe tyrant who promises to overturn the election, and a majority of the people support that effort, only this check on the people’s power will preserve the very democracy that elected the tyrant. The constitution blocks the grass roots and democratic movement to limit democracy itself. Therefore the constitution, by blocking one kind of democracy, preserves the franchise as a whole.
Any who call for unbridled national democracy should remember this example (and the example of the ancient Athenian democracy, whose people voted for the war that brought on their own destruction): too much democracy opens the way for a charismatic leader – who has fully captivated the minds and captured the love of his people – to sweep away limits on his own power, convince the people to vote for war, or otherwise destroy or suppress pieces of the government and culture that he and his constituency despise. If it wasn’t for this limit on the majority’s power, Trump-supporters (or any faction for that matter), assuming they constituted a slim majority of the electorate, could simply vote to disable democracy itself by creating a national voting system that forever entrenches their own power.
So I guess sometimes we need to limit democracy to save it? Or perhaps it’s more accurate to say that democracy in this instance is “scattered” rather than limited, since at the state level democratically-elected representatives can change that state’s election system as the people dictate. Though while the democracy may be scattered, the rules which govern it are centralized in the constitution, and are damn-near impossible to change, regardless of how a majority of the national electorate might feel about those rules. So we scatter the democracy in order to protect it from itself, and set the rules which govern that democracy beyond the reach of voters (which does in the end mean that democracy is limited). I have to ponder this more.
For now I’ll end with this thought: it’s so interesting how the constitution can at the same moment be a check on the national government’s power (thereby guarding the people from tyrants who hate democracy) and a check on the national electorate as a voting body (thereby guarding the people from the “tyranny of the majority,” which may seek to entrench its own power by suspending democracy or severely limiting access to it). What a clever document.
Why? Well that’s a good question. Let me come back to that.
My ultimate goal is this: I want to do something about climate change. How can becoming an expert on Marxism help fight the climate battle? I’m not exactly sure, but that’s what I hope to find out.
First let me talk for a moment about climate change. It isn’t like the other political issues of our time. Sure when most media figures talk about gun control, abortion, voting rights, minimum wage laws, free trade, etc., they act as if the world itself hangs in the balance. But climate change stands above all those other issues. It is a real-life bona fide existential threat to humankind. When I picture in my mind the tribulation my children and grandchildren will face because of climate change, and the ambivalent responses our so-called leaders tend to offer toward addressing the crisis, I’m left feeling empty inside. The sense of frustration, impotence, and hopelessness are intense, I can hardly bear to engage with the issue whatsoever. Climate change is the reason I gave up watching cable news a few years ago; I simply can’t stomach to watch politicians and media outlets obsess about small-ball issues while ignoring or down-playing the actual looming threat that is staring us directly in our faces.
There are many reasons why politicians and corporate media outlets choose to ignore or downplay climate change, or pretend it isn’t caused by human activity, or cast doubts upon climate science itself as a field of study, but I will not go into that here. The point is that I want to do something about climate change. I want to contribute any way I can.
But how?
It just isn’t possible for me to change jobs and start working at a climate-focused non-profit, at least not right now. We have two young children who need our love, time, attention – and our financial stability. Our son Charlie has leukemia, so we need a good healthcare plan and a steady enough income to pay hospital bills. The point is that I can’t simply leave my job and go work for some organization that studies carbon capture technology. I have people who depend on me, so my life must maintain a certain level of stability for their sake. I won’t be switching careers just yet.
I’m also not a scientist. I do not have the necessary knowledge or credentials to work as a climate researcher. I would love to help advance the crucial research efforts that are taking place on the frontier of climate science, but that kind of research is not my strong suit. So I won’t be joining the army of citizen scientists who are seeking some kind of scientific solution to this problem.
And If I am being completely honest, I’m probably also not cut out to play an active role in a climate-focused political party either. Maybe it’s because I just don’t do particularly well with committee politics. Put me in a situation where I’m a member of a committee and we need to discuss and decide on an important issue, and I completely lose my mojo. Maybe I’m a bit too outspoken and tactless when debates gets started, which is not a helpful trait if one is trying to build up a fledgling political party (or trying to talk politics with friends). Or it could be that I have problems with authority; this has been suggested at various times in my life. So I’m not sure entering into party politics is the right path for me. I would still like to join a climate-focused party, but I’d prefer a behind-the-scenes role.
So what the heck can I do to help? How can a guy with no science background or political acumen, possessing very little free time or spending money, contribute to the most critical scientific and political problem facing mankind? I had to turn this problem over in my mind for a long while. What I came up with is this: I can write.
Maybe by writing I can be of some use. But what will I write about? Well I’m not sure about that yet either. I’ve never been especially serious about writing, though I’ve always known I have a certain knack for it. Thus far I’ve mostly only written about music composition. But I feel an intense urge to write something, anything, that might help with this cause. The motivation is there, so maybe that’s how I can play my small part, how I can help move the ball down the field.
Ultimately what I want to write about is not science but philosophy, political philosophy to be exact. Political philosophers study how people solve big problems, and sometimes they develop potential (or even groundbreaking) solutions to those problems. Climate change is the biggest problem we (our species) may ever face, so studying how our species can best respond to the crisis seems a fitting use of my time. Perhaps through philosophy I can help develop some workable solutions, collaborate with others on larger projects, find a suitable role for myself in a climate-focused party, and make some kind of impact. It’s a long shot I know, but it’s better than where I’ve been up to now: frustrated to such an extent at my inability to help in any way, that extreme apathy is my only weapon against despair.
I’ve chosen Marxism as my starting point. Marxism is a philosophical tradition that focuses on critiquing systems that are unjust, exploitative, and oppressive. It rips the mask off and reveals all the layers of rot lying beneath the surface, all the contradictions and lies. It also proposes (sometimes revolutionary) solutions to these problems; it is not a tradition that supports empty theorizing, but instead it seeks to pair theory with actual practice. In other words, Marxism takes a stab at understanding and solving big problems. So I will start there, and see what it has to offer. I’m not sure whether the solutions Marxism proposes will be worth a damn in the climate fight, but as I said it’s a starting place.
I am no expert in Marxism, so I will have to start from scratch. This is going to mean an intense course of study, and hopefully a lot of writing as I process these new ideas (new to me anyways). I genuinely wish to discover what concepts/philosophies/worldviews/lenses exist in the Marxist tradition, and whether any of them can actually be put to good use solving the climate crisis in the real world. And while there is a relatively new thread of Marxist thought that specifically examines the intersection of Marxism and environmentalism (see as an example: Organic Marxism – An Alternative to Capitalism and Ecological Catastrophe by Philip Clayton and Justin Heinzekehr), I will not start my course of study with environmental Marxism. I will start instead with Karl Marx’s own writings, and from there I will branch out into the writings of his predecessors and peers, and then onto the many diverse writers who took Marx’s worldview and extended it in so many directions. Along the way I will also read critiques of Marx and Marxism, as well as writers from other philosophical traditions who shared their views on Marxism, and whatever other angles I haven’t thought of yet. I’m looking to dive deep into this tradition, and see if I come out a changed man on the other side.
I am not starting this endeavor as a Marxist. Though my political leanings have always been on the left, I do not at this time call myself a Marxist, nor do I exactly understand what that even means. Can one be a Marxist if he simply concurs with Marx’s critique of capitalism? Or does one also have to believe in Marx’s vision of a future communist utopia to call oneself Marxist? For that matter, what did Marx really say about the future? Did he really advocate for a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” or was that just something Lenin added in? Did Marx actually believe that we could usher in communism via a worldwide revolution, or was that more of a metaphor for long-term change? How much of Marxism is just pure critique of the status quo, and how much consists of potential solutions to our problems? I want to know what this tradition has to offer a sick, sad world on the brink of ecological collapse. If there is anything useful in there, I want to learn it.
I also plan to separate out the parts of the tradition that are beyond saving: hopelessly outdated analyses, advocacy of programs for which the destructive or dangerous results far out-weigh potential benefits, one-sided or fallacious or propagandistic philosophical reasoning, and critique of a long-past world whose relevance to our own has faded beyond usefulness. One could say I am hunting for a “workable” Marxism, a “realistic” Marxism, one with real applicability in the modern world, shed of its darker or utopian elements. I seek in Marxism a tool that can be harnessed to bring beneficial change. I’m not sure at this time how much of this mission is possible. Critics tell me that it isn’t at all possible. It seems that most conservative (and many liberal) pundits want me to believe that 1) Marxism is evil and dangerous, 2) it will necessarily lead to the destruction of freedom, democracy, our children, religion, America, everything we hold dear, etc., and 3) it is also hopelessly irrelevant, a product of the 19th century that belongs in the dustbin of history. But listening to those guys – those corporate pundits whose large paychecks depend on their ability to endlessly and relentlessly flog Marxism – I get the impression they are really saying “whatever you do, don’t look over there! Don’t question capitalism. The status quo is perfect. Don’t look behind the curtain!” Well I intend to take a peek.
I recognize that Marxism has a checkered past. This philosophical/economic system has been blamed for many epic historical catastrophes, including genocides and totalitarianisms. I intend to discover exactly how the writings of Karl Marx are linked across the generations to Stalinism. I am going to learn in what ways those views were distorted or adapted by myriad thinkers and politicians and polemicists along the way. I want to examine the good and the bad of this tradition, with the intention of cutting out the bad parts and salvaging only what is useful. Are there parts of the Marxist philosophical framework that differ wildly from the dystopian Stalinist nightmare many Americans picture when they think about Marxism, or is totalitarianism the inevitable result of Marxism? Can we have Marxism without secret police, without gulags, without severe limitations on personal freedoms? For that matter, can we have Marxism without revolution, without violence? Based on what I’ve read so far, Marxist scholars have many disagreements on these questions.
Though many Americans likely picture Stalin as the timeless symbol of Marxism, in reality Stalinism is but one thin branch of the enormous Marxist tree. At this early stage in my studies I can already conclude that there is no longer just “one Marxism,” but many. During the past 150 years, a wide range of Marxist scholars and authors have weighed in on this tradition, each adding his or her own unique spin, each adapting or modernizing the tradition to meet the realities of the author’s time, each taking it in a new and exciting direction. In fact Marxism has become like a huge cave with countless labyrinthine tunnels; I plan to explore these tunnels and see where they lead (or where they dead-end). Of course not only Marxists have weighed in on Marxism; moral philosophers, feminists, economists, political scientists, and legal scholars have all explored how Marxism can weave and intertwine with these various disciplines. On top of that, a handful of countries have attempted to implement Marxist programs, and each time the result has been that Marxism combines with the culture of that country and comes away changed (and also Marxism changes the culture of the country as well). To make the tradition even more complex, modern Marxist organizations and parties are each contributing their own novel ingredients to the stew.
Despite all this vibrancy and diversity of thought, Marxism has been declared a dead tradition countless times (especially after the fall of the Soviet Union). Yet the tradition continues to attract talented writers and intellectuals to this day. I suspect there is something of monumental value here, and I intend to seek it out – and to disregard all that is toxic. So I’m aiming for that workable form of Marxism. And if that turns out not to exist (or if it only exists in such a corrupted form that it decays quickly or does more harm than good), then at least I’ll know that. But I’m hoping it exists! Above all, I hope that the collected wisdom of the Marxist tradition can actually help us fix our big problems.
This is only my first step toward becoming a political philosopher; Marxism is just my starting place. I’m uncertain where this study will lead me, but I intend to go as deep into it as I can. I intend to take it seriously. And of course I will always keep in mind my over-arching long-term goal: to work on climate change. But I still need to start somewhere. This starting point will allow me to work on my research/writing chops, build up a kind of foundational knowledge that will make it easier to jump into other areas of study later, and perhaps even uncover unforeseen truths that will help me build a philosophical system of my very own someday.
This graphic lays out the steps of my very rough “how I will help fight climate change” plan:
Obviously there are a lot of gaps in there. I’ll work on filling those in as I go. You may also notice that “enroll in a university” is not currently listed on there. Let me just say that I would love to pursue a higher degree in political philosophy. If I get the opportunity to do so, I will jump at it. However at this moment in my life that just isn’t feasible. I have neither the time nor the money to become an academic – though becoming an academic is my secret dream. Maybe when my kids are older I will make the jump, a step which is probably crucial if I actually wish to accomplish my goals. Not only would I learn so much from having peers and teachers (rather than studying alone), but the academic life would also give me the opportunity to build networks of friends and colleagues, professors and mentors, publishers and journals contributors. If I ever wish to see my work published outside of this website, those connections will be critical. Not to mention that the academic life gives one the opportunity to shine, if one sees fit to take up the challenge. There are endless research opportunities, access to the best libraries in the world, and colleagues with whom to collaborate on writing projects and new ideas; in other words universities offer a support network for those who wish to take their studies seriously, and a platform for those who want to break new ground. I believe I could rise to that occasion if given the opportunity, but that is for another day.
You may also wish to know why I don’t simply skip all the rigamarole and get straight to helping. Why not simply start writing about climate change right now, instead of going through all those extra steps? Why wait!
My answer is: I don’t want to just write about climate change. I don’t want to be a pundit, simply commenting on the here and now (as if I could even do that properly without research). I want to develop solutions! But I don’t feel ready to do that yet; I don’t feel like I know enough. I don’t know what’s possible or what’s been tried. I don’t have foundational knowledge on my topic – not the science of climate change, nor the political philosophies that might address it. If I hastily crank out a bunch of essays right now without doing any research, they will be full of factual or logical errors. They would certainly demonstrate my ignorance and lack of erudition on my topic, but probably would not accomplish much more than that. No, I need to do some studying first. I need to learn how to think and write and argue like a philosopher.
So onto Marx then!
Selected Writings by Marx and Engels
“On the Jewish Question” by Karl Marx
Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 by Karl Marx
The German Ideology by Karl Max and Friedrich Engels
Capital (3 vols.) by Karl Marx
Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte by Karl Marx
Critique of the Gotha Program by Karl Marx
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Friedrich Engels
Anti-Dühring by Friedrich Engels
Revolution and Counter Revolution by Friedrich Engels
Some areas I plan to explore:
Marx’s general contributions to philosophical/political thought
Marxism and Rights/Liberty
Marxism and Materialism
Marxism and Humanism
Marxism’s views on parliamentarism (using the state apparatus to create change)
Marxism’s different views on revolution
Marxism and Moral Philosophy
Marxism and Religion
Marxism and Political Violence
Marxism vs. Anarchism
Marxism and Science (Marxism is sometimes called a science)
Marxism and Grand Prophesies about the Future
Marxism and Human Nature
Marxism and Democracy
Marxism and the Dialectic
Criticism of Marxism
Distortions of Marx’s Ideas (i.e. how the ideas changed over time)
Marxism and its application in various countries
Marxism today (current Marxist movements/groups/parties and the arguments/tactics they employ)
Marxism and Environmentalism
I’m not particularly interested in writing an exhaustive study of how Karl Marx discussed certain themes or issues. I’m not after finding the ultimate orthodox Marxism. Instead I want to study the tradition, which outlived Marx and changed in countless ways as later scholars and thinkers expanded the tradition. The tradition lives on to this day, and changes every time a new writer picks it up. This allows the tradition to change with the times, and adapt to humankind’s changing needs. It’s a living tradition.
Here are some of the different thinkers and schools of thought I plan to study:
Classical Marxists: Marx, Engels, Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxembourg
Social democrats and reformists: Bebel, Liebknecht, Eduard Bernstein, Lasalle
Leninists and Trotskyists: Lenin, Trotsky (perhaps also Alex Callinicos, Perry Anderson, Hal Draper – not sure if these guys would actually call themselves Leninists).
Western Marxists: Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Karl Korsch, Ernst Bloch. Sometimes included: Bertolt Brecht, Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm, Alfred Sohn-Rethel
Frankfurt School: Horkheimer, Marcuse, Habermas, Adorno, Leo Lowenthal, Walter Benjamin, Alfred Schmidt
French Hegelians: Henri Lefebvre, Lucien Goldmann
Existentialist Marxists: Sartre, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Simone de Beauvoir
Anti humanist, anti-Hegelian Marxists: Althusser, Galvano Della Volpe
Autonomist Marxists: Tony Negri, Harry Cleaver, Michael Hardt, John Holloway
Analytical Marxists (anti-dialectic): GA Cohen, Jon Elster, Adam Przeworski, John Roemer, Robert Brenner
English Marxists: Maurice Dobb, Christopher Caudwell, Maurice Cornforth, Raymond Williams
Neo-Marxists (Post-Marxists): Samuel Bowles, Herbert Gintis
Marxist historians: Christopher Hill, Eric Hobsbawm
Marxist writers working today: Philip Clayton, Justin Heinzekehr, Zizek, and many many more.
Critics of Marx: Leszek Kolakowski, Thomas Sowell, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, and many many more.
This endeavor may not actually lead anywhere useful, but it feels good to try something. It feels right to learn and better myself and expand my mind, even if climate change still kills us all in the end. But who knows, maybe I’ll learn something that makes a difference to someone somewhere. All I can do is try.
The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad by Fareed Zakaria
Zakaria’s full-throated defense of Madisonian democracy is still, 20 years later, surprisingly prescient and powerfully persuasive. He argues with great strength and cleverness that, though democracy is a good thing (and though we may worship it in the West), too much democracy makes governments dysfunctional, economies inefficient, and politics frustrating. He claims that in America we have democratized to such an extreme degree, that we’ve created a situation where our congressional leaders pander to public opinion rather than making difficult choices, where our outdated and voluminous tax code and byzantine subsidy system can never be reformed because of the power of lobbyists and special interest groups to sway legislation, where we have become convinced that the average citizen (though he doesn’t trust himself to fill out his own tax forms or write his own will) is qualified to go to Washington as a senator and write our laws. Along the way Zakaria predicts, in so many words, the rise of Trumpian billionaire-worshipping celebrity populism, the degradation of our corporate media, and the ever-worsening political gridlock in the congress. His solution is a return to elitist democracy (rather than the populist democracy gaining popularity on the right and left today), a democracy where the citizens delegate law-making and regulatory authority to undemocratic but highly qualified bodies that can steer our country in the right direction without having to contend with the whims of a fickle public. He wants the experts to rule, and for limits to be placed on the power of the majority (just as James Madison argued for), but simultaneously the civil liberties of the citizenry must be set in stone. In other words, the limits should be on democracy, not on individual liberty. He points to the Supreme Court and the Federal Reserve as examples of elitist bodies that get it right more times than not, and calls for us to turn away from the sloppy sort of direct democracy that not only caused the downfall of Ancient Athens but is also responsible for the complete dysfunction of California’s own legislature. So in a sense, he wishes for the return of the smoke-filled room where important decisions get made. Zakaria is very wise, for though he lays this argument out in great detail, he does take time to acknowledge that the reason so many people have turned away from elitist democracy in recent years is because the elitists and experts, back during a time when people had more faith in leaders and institutions, caused so much irreparable harm through their poor decisions (see: Vietnam War). I was very pleased with this lovely book, so full of mind-expanding perspectives and deep research, and the ability to question his own arguments (something I consider crucial in any philosophical text). I am not entirely convinced yet that elitism is better or worse than democratization, nor do I agree with his main thesis that what ails America is TOO MUCH democracy (it often seems as if we are actually an oligarchy, or a democracy in name only). What Zakaria calls democratization, I call corporate takeover of our politics and culture… But this book still gave me much to think about.
November 2021
Debating Democracy by Bruce Miroff, Raymond Seidelman, and Todd Swanstrom
I loved reading this book. Every chapter addresses a particular question about democracy: is elite democracy better than popular democracy, should the federal government or the states control public policy, is the modern media beneficial or harmful to democracy, etc. Then for each issue, the editors place two competing essays side by side, each addressing the issue at hand and offering up an answer, both equally compelling and well-argued. I found my self impressed over and over with the arguments contained in the book. I really gained some new perspectives, and have been forced to reexamine some of my preconceived notions about democracy. This book makes me want to write about democracy.
Great Courses: The Big Questions of Philosophy by David Kyle Johnson
This is a fun and challenging course. While the main content is the “big questions” from philosophy (Is God real? How do we know we exist? Is true knowledge possible? Is there such a thing as objective moral laws? What is the most ethical type of government? etc), I think this course is actually about something else: how to make compelling logical arguments that can withstand scrutiny, and how to find flaws in philosophical/political arguments that rob the arguments of their power. For every lecture, the professor lays out major arguments that have been made throughout the history of philosophy by many of the greatest minds, then he systematically pokes holes in them all. Of course this is the nature of philosophy: there are no right answers to these unanswerable questions. So instead of seeking an absolute truth, the real purpose of studying these issues is two-fold: 1) get as close to the truth as we possibly can while making sure we aren’t being misled by faulty logic, and 2) learn how to craft one’s own arguments in such a way that they can withstand scrutiny. In other words, this course taught me how to look more carefully at philosophy and debate, to sniff out the logical fallacies, and thereby refine my own belief systems so I never fall into the same traps as past thinkers. And if I do hit those traps, I need to recognize it and adapt my thinking to make it as logical and correct as possible. This course is about how to reason carefully, which is a skill with endless applicability in the real world, whether or not one cares whether God’s existence can be proved or which type of government is the most ethical.
October 2021
After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre
This author argues that in our modern world the state of morality is in disarray. This is because one can never use reason to determine the right answer to moral questions, yet people often speak as if there are right and wrong answers to moral questions. Example: if a person opposes abortion because she believes all lives are sacred (and the fetus, being alive, is therefore sacred), while another person supports abortion rights because she believes strongly in the principle of liberty (so therefore the pregnant woman must possess the right to do as she pleases with her own body), there is no logical argument anyone can make that proves one of these women is correct and the other is wrong. One cannot use reason to prove that liberty supersedes the sanctity of an unborn life or vice versa; in the end it just comes down to personal preference. Yet in an abortion debate, all the different sides will speak as if their particular and unique sense of morality is the only absolute correct way of thinking. And in an age where there are so many different philosophies, religions, political perspectives, cultures, ideologies, and world views to choose from, and many of them offer compelling answers to the moral quandaries of our time, we find ourselves living in a world there everyone thinks he/she has found the correct answer, but in truth there isn’t one. If, when trying to solve a moral problem, multiple contradictory points of view are all equally valid, it makes the problem at hand even more intractable. Even historians, sociologists, philosophers, and economists ultimately fall back on their own personal preferences and biases when forming their conclusions and predictions, masking their personal opinions under a veneer of expert credibility. It seems this all leads to a bad case of moral relativism. The author has a solution in mind to this sticky problem: a deep reexamination of Aristotelian virtue ethics, and a prescription that we all join small communities or clubs where we can work with other humans to accomplish agreed-upon goals. While Aristotle’s ethics can definitively teach individuals how to live full and happy lives, I remain unconvinced that this solution even begins to solve the macro problem of moral relativism that pervades modern societies. Our world faces existential problems, so telling people simply to go find happiness in their individual lives smacks of nihilism… though I fall into this same moral relativism/nihilism trap as well (it’s not like I have a solution to climate change), and when I do I can at least find comfort in strategies that allow me to flourish in my own life. Maybe that’s the best most of us can do in the face of existential crises: join our little communities, focus on individual virtues, and work hard to construct happy lives, even in the face of the enormous intractable problems facing mankind. Or maybe I’ve just been super cucked by our individualist culture into thinking that humans are incapable of solving big problems, and all I’m left with is the selfish desire to live my own best life while I can. More to explore there. Anyways this book was my first deep dive into moral philosophy, and I’m glad I went in, though at times the writing meandered like a lazy river. This author’s knowledge of ethical philosophy is unimpeachable, and he makes me want to plunge even deeper into this rich intellectual tradition.
The Bhagavad Gita (translated by Eknath Easwaran)
The philosophy contained in this ancient little book is profound, elegant, and so very useful. It speaks right to the real challenges we all face in real life, and arms the reader with tools not only to weather whatever storms life may bring, but also to walk away with one’s soul and spirit intact. In other words, it’s basically a handbook on how to live a happy and fulfilled life, even when faced with tragedies or ethical quandaries or challenging situations where no matter which choice you make you (or someone you care about) will suffer a loss. One can use this book as a tool to find his or her own unique purpose in life, to find meaning in each day and through the decades. It was also Gandhi’s favorite book! I’ve written more about what I learned from the Bhagavad Gita here: https://www.senigaglia.com/timeless-lessons/
September 2021
Philosophy 101 by Paul Kleinman
I really enjoyed this charming little survey of philosophy! The book is not in chronological order, so the authors are free to jump from Bertrand Russell to Aristotle to moral relativism to ethics to Jean-Jacques Rousseau to the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The way the author leads the reader from topic to topic is really creative way to present this material. The author especially excelled whenever he discussed language. Great book to pick up and put down over the course of many months.
The Great Courses: Moral Decision Making: How to Approach Everyday Ethics by Clancy Martin
Each episode of this series deals with a moral question we all face in daily life, such as “am I morally obligated to give to charity?” and “Is it ever ok to lie?”. The professor, Clancy Martin, is a real hoot! I really appreciate the insight, honesty, and personal touch he brings to each lecture. He not only dives into what history’s great thinkers wrote about ethics, but he also shares about his own personal tragedies, his alcoholism, his divorces, hard lessons he’s learned in life, and choices he’s made that he’s not proud of. Just a quick example of this honesty: here’s an article he wrote about all the times he’s been arrested for being drunk in public. The professor’s style and honesty really made this course for me. The only limitation was that sometimes the author’s own personal philosophies steered the conversation, and that limited the breadth of the teaching. For example, in the episode that discussed whether private property as a concept is ethical, he did not really explore the thinkers who have argued that it is not (such as Karl Marx). The professor seemed to operate from an assumption that it is ethical, and it’s only a matter of figuring out whether it is only somewhat or very ethical. But really, I still recommend this one. I felt a genuine connection with this guy.
State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin
The State and Revolution is perhaps Vladimir Lenin’s most influential piece of writing. The book is many things: a scathing polemic directed against Lenin’s political adversaries, a stirring collection of prophesies and predictions about the socialist revolution to come, a call to arms for workers to unite and rise up, and a philosophical treatise that argues for the violent overthrow of the capitalist state. There is much I disagree with in this text, and I hope to write a proper critique sometime soon.
August 2021
On Violence by Hannah Arendt
This short book was supposed to be a philosophical deep dive into the concept of violence: how and why humans use it, its justifications, how to define it, what proper role – if any – it should play in human affairs, its morality, the psychological effect it has on those involved in violent acts, etc. However the book was simply too brief to accomplish all that, and the author got too caught up in seemingly minor tangents that carried outsize importance during the time the book was written (e.g. the student uprisings of the late 1960s), but today seem laughably unimportant in comparison to other more momentous historical events that could have been analyzed instead. I wish she had taken the task at hand more seriously, because I genuinely want to read such a study on violence, and I’d love to read normative analysis of the role violence should or should not play in future revolutions. Instead, I think this essay devolves into simple commentary on the events of her day, which of course prevents this from being any kind of timeless philosophical tract.
The Great Courses: Quest for Meaning: Values, Ethics, and the Modern Experience by Robert H. Kane
This course is really about how our modern, technologically advanced, capitalist, liberal, individualist, democratic society has created a pandemic of moral relativism. In other words, people no longer know what to believe, in terms of belief systems, morals, and even basic facts. It may have been easier for people to make up their minds in ancient and medieval times, when societies weren’t so pluralistic, and entities like the church or monarchy were able to effectively control public opinion and morals. But today there are oh so many opinions available in our free society – religious, political, ethical, economic, scientific, cultural – that it can be difficult for thinking people to take a firm stance, or to know which outlook is the most valid. Should I be a Marxist, a Christian, a liberal, a fascist, a Hindu, a rugged individualist, a communitarian, a nihilist, an incrementalist, or one of the other infinite options? How to choose?? This professor does a fine job laying out the arguments for and against moral relativism, as well as what philosophers have thought about freedom, ethics, democracy, and public morality, and he does so with a charming Boston accent and a lot of cute jokes thrown in. At times sadly I think this course is a bit dated, caught up in a that “late nineties, pre-9/11, pre-climate disaster, post-fall of the Soviet Union” fad of believing there was a growing worldwide “overlapping consensus” that liberal capitalism was the best possible solution to the world’s ills. I think, if that consensus did at one time exist, it is badly fracturing. The professor also confidently states that Marxism is dead, but he doesn’t explain whether he is speaking about Marx’s prescient critique of capitalism, or Marx’s more utopian predictions about the future. I got the impression the professor dismissed Marx when it was trendy to do so, without really wrestling with Marx’s class-focused lens, nor with the impending disasters wrought by capitalism. Really, the professor’s own opinions (classical liberal, opposed to moral relativism, believer in capitalism) shined through just a hair too frequently, and made this piece a class for its time (the 90s), rather than a timeless classic.
July 2021
The Great Courses: Meaning of Life: Perspectives from the World’s Great Intellectual Traditions by Jay L. Garfield
I entered this course with a mild interest in philosophy, and left it with a profound hunger to consume philosophical texts, and to think consciously about how to live a fulfilled life. I’ve never been so inspired to read and think about this subject, though I suppose I have been pondering it casually since I was a kid. I took a philosophy course in college, but only now am I beginning to understand how philosophy can be used as a tool to understand the world, the universe, the self, the point (or lack of a point) of it all. My hat is off to this gifted and eloquent teacher. I will listen to this again I am certain. I also have much reading to do. Ok I’ll just say it: this course may have changed my life.
May-June 2021
An Introduction to Political Philosophy by Jonathan Wolff
This author is a masterful explainer, and he possesses a powerful philosophical mind. He doesn’t just summarize the major ideas of great political philosophers, but he challenges them, and puts them through a gauntlet of philosophical analysis. In the end, we see the perks and flaws of the theories of Locke, Rousseau, Mill, and we also understand that all “normative” philosophies are up for debate. His description of the leftist critique of liberalism was the clearest I’ve ever encountered. However I do wish there was a bit more of a Marxist lense at certain points, and at times the book speaks lovingly about modern liberal capitalism in a way that feels a bit dated, especially since the only allusion to climate change (a direct result of modern capitalism) is a brief mention of “externalities”. When the book is on philosophical ground the writing is superb, but when he dips into pure economics he seems somewhat out of his depth (or behind the times anyhow). Regardless, I recommend! I learned a lot, and it got me thinking. I would retitle this book Intro to Western Liberal Political Philosophy.
April 2021
Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson
Einstein’s story is lovingly told in a quite informal manner, which fits the subject quite well. Einstein remade physics in the 20th century, but was never fully comfortable with the ramifications of his own theories (quantum spookiness), nor did he ever really seem to fit in anywhere he went. This story dives into how an unknown patent clerk revolutionized our understanding of the universe and became a world-wide mega celebrity for it, yet somehow maintained his disarming, sloppy, absent-minded manner to the end. Einstein is funny and kind and lovable, a sweet and (in some ways) innocent genius wandering amusedly through a wacky life. Even when he had to flee Nazi Germany, when the Germans confiscated his home and labelled him an enemy, he kept his sense of humor. Above all, I learned that Einstein was very human. Unlike Gandhi, Einstein was no saint on earth. He was a skilled physicist, but struggled at times with being a loving husband or an attentive father (he preferred to focus on work). He never quite learned to hold his tongue, and often got into public arguments with those who disagreed with him (or his theories). And even in physics, he wasn’t always correct (he never accepted quantum uncertainty, even when it was experimentally verified). Despite his genius, I found him entirely relatable.
March 2021
Two Years Before the Mast by Richard Henry Dana
This book is still, after almost 200 years, powerfully moving and often hilarious. The author was a Harvard grad (and talented writer) who decided to try his hand as a sailor on board a merchant ship, and this book is the harrowing story of his two year trip from Boston, around Cape Horn, to California and back. The narrative is filled with wry first-hand observations of the sailors life, and many funny stories of the ridiculous characters the author encounters along the way. His telling of the perilous voyage around the horn, as their ship battled arctic storms and advancing scurvy, is terrifying and incredible. And there’s some flogging action in there for good measure.
February 2021
Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess by Bobby Fischer
This is a great book to start with if you’ve never played chess, or if you know the basics of the game but have never put much thought into how to play well. This book dives into the most basic checkmates, and also starts to train the reader on the kinds of pattern recognition that underpins Bobby Fischer’s chess genius.
The Great Courses:Redefining Reality: The Intellectual Implications of Modern Science by Steven Gimbel
These lectures are unique, varied, and deeply interesting! Every lecture is a different topic: physics, sociology, genetics, culture, economics, and more. The professor is a brilliant summarizer of big new ideas, as well as the current unanswered questions that taunt philosophers and scientists today. Pick any lecture, and there will be something in there that opens your eyes and maybe even challenges the way you see the world.
January 2021
Great Ideas in Classical Physics by Steven Pollock
Dr. Pollock is a truly gifted teacher. His explanations of the major discoveries in classical physics are so clear and understandable, that he allows you to focus on just how mind-blowing the laws of physics really are. This course really opened my eyes, and taught me many new ways to see the universe. I want to know more!
Meetings with Remarkable Manuscripts by Christopher De Hamel
This author lovingly leads the reader on an in-depth tour of some of the world’s oldest and most treasured books, as well as the libraries where they are kept. The stories behind the books are fascinating, as are the author’s breathless descriptions of the books themselves, and the meaning behind the magnificent artwork inside them (not to mention the scribbles in the margins made by some anonymous monk 1,200 years ago). Full of glossy pictures of the old books. Great book to pick up and put down whenever you want.
Fascinating and funny too! Goes into epic detail about how the different parts of the brain affect human behavior, and how brain chemistry can help us understand why humans can be so aggressive/racist/warlike and also so nurturing/sensitive/empathetic.
Isaac Asimov’s Magical World of Fantasy, Volume 1: Wizards by various authors
Such a fun collection! My favorite is the story “Mazirian the Magician” by Jack Vance.
September – November 2020
The Expanse Series (Books 1-8) by James S.A. Corey
What can I even say about one of the greatest sci-fi series ever written by man? These stories are so innovative and far-reaching, truly mind-bending; meanwhile the characters are so lovable and relatable… I just love these books so much. And they got me interested all over again in learning much more about physics!
August 2020
The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South by Vijay Prashad
Though the writing style is a bit monotonous, this book is eye opening and heartbreaking. It rips the veil away and reveals the lies underpinning the “story of America’s economic greatness” that is taught in every classroom in this country. I left this book feeling fully disenchanted with economics, capitalism, billionaires, and the way America conducts itself in the world.
July 2020
Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari
This writer is a master at making connections, tying together different branches of science and sociology and archeology into a picture that explains who we are, how we got here, and what drives us. His writing style is forceful, even aggressive at times, but brilliant throughout; he paints such a convincing and captivating picture of the way he sees things, it’s tough to argue with his logic. His views can be controversial at times, and he presents his ideas with a lot of attitude, which make this book a real fun read. I’m not certain that Harari is spot-on with all his theories, but don’t let that stop you from allowing this book to change the way you see humanity.
Understanding Marxism by Richard Wolff
This is a very brief book, basically aimed at identifying the major problems with capitalism. While I sympathize with the arguments, the author did not go into any level of depth regarding solutions to these problems. He simply takes for granted that socialism is the solution, without bothering to prove it, or to dive into any of the sticky situations socialism can create. I need solutions, not just identification of problems. Here are some thoughts on the matter.
April – June 2020
Gandhi and India Trilogy by Ramachandra Guha
When the Covid-19 virus hit the US and we all had to lockdown, I decided to finally research a man I had long wanted to understand: Mohandas Gandhi. These books did much more than tell me about his life; they expanded my mind and invited me into a completely different way of seeing (and existing in) the world. Gandhi still has so so much to teach us all: about how to somehow feel so much love and passion and connection with all of humanity that you’d be willing to sacrifice your body to spread peace, while also embodying detachment and desirelessness, a man without anger or pride, a man at peace with himself and universe. Gandhi took these dual, perhaps opposing, outlooks to their extremes throughout his life. Was he successful at creating a more peaceful world? Well that’s a question worth discussing.
January 2020
How the Earth Works by Michael Wysession
This is probably my favorite Great Course I’ve ever listened to. This professor is so talented: with a calm a laid-back demeanor he dives into so many fascinating scientific topics, and his mastery is apparent in every lecture. Learn the inner workings of Earth, the formation of the solar system, the role that life plays in the geology of the planet, why earth is a giant magnet, and how each and every one of us are all part of a giant connected cycle that never ends. This lecture course made me feel so connected to my planet and the living things on it. It also made me question whether anything humans create can ever be called permanent or important. Eye opening and mind blowing all the way through.
I’ve read this book twice, and both times I just marveled at the skill of this writer. This history reads like a novel, packed full of fascinating characters. The star is Queen Elizabeth I, a politically savvy and multi-faceted operator, who managed to maintain her decades-long political grip on England in an age where women were not often allowed into the halls of power, now forced to fight her greatest battle for survival against her relentless nemesis, the pious and humorless King Philip II of Spain, who will stop at nothing to conquer England and force Catholicism on her people. This author spent years in the archives of multiple European cities, personally translating the letters and battle plans he discovered there, building this story that would become his masterpiece. His love for these characters and these events is apparent on every page.
The Meaning of Life: Perspectives from the World’s Great Intellectual Traditions
by Jay L. Garfield
I entered this course with a mild interest in philosophy, and left it with a profound hunger to consume philosophical texts, and to think consciously about how to live a fulfilled life. I’ve never been so inspired to read and think about this subject, though I suppose I have been pondering it casually since I was a kid. I took a philosophy course in college, but only now am I beginning to understand how philosophy can be used as a tool to understand the world, the universe, the self, the point (or lack of a point) of it all. My hat is off to this gifted and eloquent teacher. I will listen to this again I am certain. I also have much reading to do. Ok I’ll just say it: this course may have changed my life.
Gandhi and India Trilogy
by Ramachandra Guha
When the Covid-19 virus hit the US and we all had to lockdown, I decided to finally research a man I had long wanted to understand: Mohandas Gandhi. These books did much more than tell me about his life; they expanded my mind and invited me into a completely different way of seeing (and existing in) the world. Gandhi still has so so much to teach us all: about how to somehow feel so much love and passion and connection with all of humanity that you’d be willing to sacrifice your body to spread peace, while also embodying detachment and desirelessness, a man without anger or pride, a man at peace with himself and universe. Gandhi took these dual, perhaps opposing, outlooks to their extremes throughout his life. Was he successful at creating a more peaceful world? Well that’s a question worth discussing.
How the Earth Works
by Michael Wysession
This is probably my favorite Great Course I’ve ever listened to. This professor is so talented: with a calm a laid-back demeanor he dives into so many fascinating scientific topics, and his mastery is apparent in every lecture. Learn the inner workings of Earth, the formation of the solar system, the role that life plays in the geology of the planet, why earth is a giant magnet, and how each and every one of us are all part of a giant connected cycle that never ends. This lecture course made me feel so connected to my planet and the living things on it. It also made me question whether anything humans create can ever be called permanent or important. Eye opening and mind blowing all the way through.
Histories (The Persian Wars)
by Herodotus
This is a masterpiece! The author, Herodotus, is often nicknamed the “father of history” (or alternatively, the “father of lies”), and when you read this book it’s easy to see why. On the surface what makes this book remarkable is that it’s the first systematic historical chronicle in the western world. Herodotus, who composed this history around the year 430 BC, tells with vivid detail the stories of all the major battles of the Greco-Persian wars, including the battles of Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis, and Plataea. But at heart this book is so much more than a history. Herodotus traveled extensively through the Greek world, and everywhere he went he collected stories, interviewed priests and historians and seers, visited battlegrounds and famous monuments, and most importantly absorbed the cultures, customs, and myths of the diverse peoples he encountered. He then poured all of this knowledge (both factual and mythical) into his Histories. Thus his tale opens up the entire ancient world to the reader, rendering it personal, intimate, and real. One can luxuriate in all the local myths, oracular visions, religious customs, and superstitions that permeate the story. The author clearly believes in the visions of oracles and the awesome power of the Greek gods, so when he tells of prophesies that were proven true, or desecrations of temples that angered the gods and invited their wrath, or battles that were won due to the favorable omens obtained through human sacrifice, it becomes impossible for the reader to disentangle fact from fiction in his narrative. But the writing is so delicious that the reader need not care about this! Instead it is best to let oneself become completely submerged in the story, and take the entire narrative as it comes. The author’s knowledge of the ancient world (and even of the back-room dealings of the various monarchs) borders on omniscient, which makes him the perfect guide on this whirlwind tour of a long-lost place. Though perhaps it’s not so lost as one might think. The characters within are at once so fascinatingly foreign, and yet simultaneously so relatable, so human. When the leaders of Persia debate whether democracy is superior or inferior to monarchy, the arguments they make (on both sides) are still potent today; they still ring true (including the critique of democracy). When the best laid Persian war plans are spoiled by poor weather, the soldiers who attribute the outcome to divine intervention sound much like modern believers who see divine planning in every historical event. When ancient politicians take bribes, or parents flee with their children from war zones, or enslaved tribes revolt to regain their freedom, or powerful oligarchs lobby for government hand-outs, or leaders in times of crisis choose pride instead of compromise and so perish, I see the modern world in ancient dress. Though much has changed, much remains as it was. Humans are still just as human today as they were then, and in many ways their problems are our problems: How can we best govern ourselves? How can we best share scarce resources? When is it best to compromise and make common cause with our enemies, and when is it best to fight? In times of war and crises, when we are beset by danger on all sides, what is the best and most ethical path for one to take? How can one live a good life, find happiness, and survive the seemingly random perils that each person faces in life? These questions all still matter today, and we as a species still do not agree on the correct answers. What a fun book to get a person thinking! I never thought a book this old would hold such sway over me, but that’s the power of timelessly excellent writing.
The Devil’s Broker – Seeking Gold, God, and Glory in Fourteenth Century Italy
by Frances Stonor Saunders
The Great Hunger – Ireland 1845-1849
by Cecil Woodham-Smith
This book was so moving, it inspired me to make this series on the Irish potato famine:
The Reason Why – The Story of the Fatal Charge of the Light Brigade
by Cecil Woodham-Smith
The Cambridge Companion to Marx
edited by Terrell Carver
I felt quite sad to reach the end of this lovely book, though also immensely satisfied with the experience of reading it. A collection of gifted philosophers/writers gather to examine Marxism from a variety of angles. These are not all Marxist scholars, so we hear critiques of Marx’s vision as well as agreement. But all agree that Marx gave a contribution to the history of thought, and how we interpret that thought can reveal many hidden truths about humanity and the world we inhabit. How does moral philosophy challenge Marxist thought, and how does Marxist thought challenge moral philosophy? How did Marx’s theory of history become so mainstream that modern historians who are very far from being Marxist still unwittingly deploy Marx-style materialism when explaining how societies change and adapt over time? Can Marxism go hand-in-hand with feminism, and what are some areas that Marxist feminism can be expanded by future thinkers? Is Marxism a science, and if so then what part of it is scientific: the critique, or the prophesies, or both? Has Marxism been debunked by the events of modern history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union), or does it still have much to offer us? Or perhaps it was only Lenin who was debunked, but Marxism lives on? So much to ponder, if one cares to explore a controversial field of study. This book is for readers possessing a mind already open, who wish to expand it further. Caution: one must enter with the understanding that this book will not draw the conclusion that Marxism is irrelevant, or that capitalism has ultimately been proven victorious for all time and forever amen. While these authors don’t slavishly praise Marx (and they certainly don’t treat him as a saint beyond reproach, nor do they respect the sanctity of Marxist orthodoxy as an unchanging and timeless series of truths), they all recognize that the school of thought he founded still has much to offer our sick sad world. In fact, while reading this book the thing that struck me most about Marxism was its sheer applicability. Despite the failures of many “Marxist” experiments during the 20th century, the Marxian worldview still holds many keys to understanding what really makes society tick, and why we humans keep finding ourselves in such serious jams (I’m looking at you climate change). But even thought Marx helps us understand our jams and how we wound up in them, that does not necessarily mean that Marxism holds to key to solving them. I hope to study many more sources to find out any way this worldview can contribute to a workable solution to climate change. I consider Marxism a premier lens to apply when seeking to understand our world, but remain skeptical that Marxism can rise above being a system of critique, and finally assume the mantle of “problem-solving tool”. But anyways, this book put me on the right track in that hunt. Highly recommend!
Unsettled – An Anthropology of the Jews
by Melvin Konner
The Crusades – The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land
by Thomas Asbridge
The Wars of the Roses – The Fall of the Plantagenets and the Rise of the Tudors
by Dan Jones
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era
By James McPherson
Great Ideas of Classical Physics
by Steven Pollock
Dr. Pollock is a truly gifted teacher. His explanations of the major discoveries in classical physics are so clear and understandable, that he allows you to focus on just how mind-blowing the laws of physics really are. This course really opened my eyes, and taught me many new ways to see the universe. I want to know more!
Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
by Yuval Noah Harari
This writer is a master at making connections, tying together different branches of science and sociology and archeology into a picture that explains who we are, how we got here, and what drives us. His writing style is forceful, even aggressive at times, but brilliant throughout; he paints such a convincing and captivating picture of the way he sees things, it’s tough to argue with his logic. His views can be controversial at times, and he presents his ideas with a lot of attitude, which make this book a real fun read. I’m not certain that Harari is spot-on with all his theories, but don’t let that stop you from allowing this book to change the way you see humanity.
Main Currents of Marxism, Volume 2: The Golden Age
by Leszek Kołakowski
This book is a masterpiece of philosophical summary and deep-diving analysis. Kolakowski has an uncanny ability to break down and explain even the most complex philosophical arguments in a clear and concise manner. At times he plays the part of omniscient referee, diligently sorting the good ideas from the flawed ones. But never does he simply tell us that a writer’s theory is wrong; instead he identifies the holes in it and pries them open, exposes them to the light, lets the reader decide what to think.
In this book his main target is Leninism, a philosophical tradition absolutely bursting with contradiction and double-talk. Kolakowski’s even-handed tone and mind-bogglingly high level of erudition suggest that he did not intend to write a polemic against Leninism. But in the end Kolakowski’s even-handed philosophical critique of Leninism amounts to a withering indictment of Lenin’s method, his philosophical rigor, his honesty, and his contradictory actions once in power. Lenin is revealed to be a boor, a liar, a tyrant, a power-hungry despot. Kolakowski does not draw these conclusions explicitly, but instead allows the reader to do so. Perhaps Kolakowski is a masterful propagandist who possesses the ability to incept these opinions into the reader’s brain, but I don’t really believe that. Instead he just exposes various thinkers’ theories to the light, that’s all. This doesn’t mean Kolakowski is a constant critic; his analysis is so much more subtle and productive than that. If a theory has enough qualities to withstand the author’s scrutiny, it comes out stronger for it in the end. Kolakowski analyzes many Marxist ideas and traditions throughout his magnum opus, and a good portion of them – those based on sound reasoning, honest argumentation, and deep philosophical reflection – show their quality under Kolakowski’s scrutiny. It just turns out that when we shine this same light on Lenin’s theories, they wither, crack, and fall apart. They are revealed to be hollow and decrepit. (Oh dang I’m being too polemical again).
Kolakowski sees Lenin’s dismantling of Soviet democracy as the original sin of Bolshevism. Lenin’s critique of bourgeois democracy hinged on the notion that modern democracy is a sham: the propertied classes (who overwhelmingly benefit from capitalism and bourgeois law) trick the exploited masses into believing they are sovereign in order to pacify them and prevent revolution, though in reality the workers are largely disenfranchised. In other words, the masses are led by our culture, media, and propaganda (all of which is shaped by the ruling class) to believe in freedom, democracy, individualism, and the sanctity of private property, but all of that is a veil over their eyes that prevents them from noticing that they are slaves. This sentiment, borrowed wholesale from Marx, is compelling in itself. Here’s the sad irony: once in power Lenin banned all democratic expression (including dissent from the proletarians he claimed to speak for), imprisoned his political adversaries, and disallowed any political party but his own. A man who rose to power by arguing that only communism could bring authentic democracy to the masses turned out to be a despot who was so desperate to hold on to power that he fully and permanently disenfranchised the masses. To make it worse, while doing so he claimed that the new Soviet system was a more authentic form of democracy than a parliamentary system could ever be. Kolakowski punishes Lenin for this betrayal of his own principles, simply by laying out the actual actions Lenin took once in power. Turns out that listing Lenin’s achievements is enough to reveal his naked opportunism and staggering hypocrisy.
Kolakowski’s main argument, if one must be identified, is that Bolshevism did not deteriorate into totalitarianism because of Stalin (as is often argued, especially by Lenin sympathizers), but instead because totalitarianism was baked into Lenin’s philosophy from the start, despite all the noises he made about wanting to create a better democracy. Before he was even in power, Lenin fantasized about liquidating all his political opponents, using violent coercion to keep all dissenters in line, and dictating to the masses what was and was not in their best interest. He desired to create a new permanent elite (the communist party officials), but dressed it up as if he was actually abolishing all elites forever, as if his new elite would better represent the masses than could parliamentary democracy. Lenin described in detail his dream of conducting mass confiscations of all private land and surplus (see Lenin’s State and Revolution), and imagined that the bulk of the people would not only celebrate these actions but assist in the mass thievery. In reality, Lenin’s first economic policy of requisitioning “surplus” grain from peasants (or what the requisitioners considered to be surplus) led to widespread mistrust of Lenin’s new state, as well as bribery and coercion. The people did not want to give up their product to the state, and the officials in charge of snatching the goods were highly susceptible to bribes. Their only carrot for making the people obey was threat of force, and use of Lenin’s massive police state infrastructure. Meanwhile all political activity that did not “further the socialist revolution” was anathematized.
This was not Stalinism, but Lenin’s original ideas and policies, the tactics that he used when he (Lenin) was in charge. Modern lovers of Lenin argue that he truly fought for the good of the people, and that after his death it was Stalin who corrupted his ideas and policies, warping them into a totalitarian, violently repressive, hyper-bureaucratic police state. But Lenin was the true founder of Soviet totalitarianism. Kolakowski lays this bare without becoming overly angry in the process (something I would struggle with). In the end, his critique of Lenin is devastating, yet really he lets most of Lenin’s ill-conceived ideas and shameful policies speak for themselves.
