Çok iyi bir metin olmuş. Artık çevreme bıkkınlık getiren açıklamalar yerine bu kitabı önereceğim.
Yazar tüm başlıca iddalara yanıt veriyor. Marksist kişilere de eleştirisini getiriyor Stalin gibi. Kitabı anlamak için biraz temelin olması gerekiyor onun dışında bir eksisi yok. Yordam’da çok iyi çalışmış kitap için.
Marksizm’in mezarını en derin derine gömmeye çalışanlar bu hortlayan gerçekler karşısında yeni argümanlar getirecektir hiç kuşkusuz.
The title (possibly selected by the publisher looking to maximize sales--capitalism has its fingers everywhere) sets up a complex thesis to prove. No one is totally right or totally wrong all the time. I mean, what if we set out to prove (to pick yet another controversial subject) that Islam is a religion of peace. We can choose convincing passages from the Quran, skipping over those which seem to suggest otherwise or explaining those away as metaphor about spiritual struggle. We can use examples from the life of the prophet (should I capitalize that?) for how the text is to be interpreted. We can take surveys of those who identify as Muslim (choosing those we like.) We can argue that those committing terrorist acts are not really true Muslims (or true Scottsmen.) In the end, who is convinced?
So if we accept that Stalin and Mao are not true …
The title (possibly selected by the publisher looking to maximize sales--capitalism has its fingers everywhere) sets up a complex thesis to prove. No one is totally right or totally wrong all the time. I mean, what if we set out to prove (to pick yet another controversial subject) that Islam is a religion of peace. We can choose convincing passages from the Quran, skipping over those which seem to suggest otherwise or explaining those away as metaphor about spiritual struggle. We can use examples from the life of the prophet (should I capitalize that?) for how the text is to be interpreted. We can take surveys of those who identify as Muslim (choosing those we like.) We can argue that those committing terrorist acts are not really true Muslims (or true Scottsmen.) In the end, who is convinced?
So if we accept that Stalin and Mao are not true Marxists, that revolutions needn't be violent (and the violence that is produced by capitalism is still greater when you tally it all up), that Marx never thought the end justifies the means (a turn of phrase that actually comes from Machiavelli), and didn't intend a philosophical stance by the term "materialism," merely that the maintenance of our material existence is a prerequisite for all else we do, that Marxism anticipated movements such as feminism and environmentalism, that Marx appreciated capitalism and didn't intend to eliminate markets altogether but merely to not let them be the runaway determinant of how goods are distributed, that Marx never thought of communism as a utopia, that Marx saw classes not as stylistic and cultural but determined by the role they played in production (which includes production of services), that by the withering away of the state, Marx didn't mean there wouldn't be an administrative state, just not a despotic one, and that Marx supported reform movements and didn't just advocate revolution, then Marx was indeed right. Still, a lot of people who have claimed to be Marxists are wrong.
Much of the audience for this book will already have an opinion and will read to confirm it. This isn't a good introduction to the topic and if you didn't already have some knowledge of Marxism going in, it would be confusing at times.
I picked up this book because I have enjoyed reading Eagleton's literary criticism and I generally enjoy his style. And I learned things reading it.
