What do you think?
Rate this book
Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism
Joshua Muravchik traces the fiery trajectory of socialism with sketches of dreamers and doers who developed the theory, led it to power and presided over its collapse.
391 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 2002
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 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, 2011
A tremendously ignorant and badly-argued book. See my full review at http://www.logosjournal.com/schulman.htm
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.
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 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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
April 2, 2019
Great book! I found the chapters about the French Revolution and the Israeli kibbutz project the most informative.
December 30, 2018
This book is an extensive, eye-opening coverage of the history of socialism. It reads like a novel, but unfortunately, it is reality. This should be required reading for freshman college students.
July 31, 2021
Good content but weirdly structured
December 4, 2021
Great read on the history of socialism. Very strong arguments and impressive academic but easy reading.
May 14, 2023
Excellent book, goes through major figures and versions of socialism, from Babeuf to Gorbachev.
July 13, 2020
This was an interesting read about the history of socialism. The author's own personal, family connection lends some interesting insight into the history of Kibuttz settlement in Israel. It also helped me understand the generally pessimistic view that he holds throughout most of the book. Of course that's not to say I don't disagree. In particular, the history of communism seems be a history of hope and f related f to live up too those hopes.
Before reading this book I was convinced that socialism presented a naïve and alluringly simplistic reading of history without presenting any useful or workable solutions to its diagnosed injustices. Social democratic systems have proven far superior, allowing the 'invisible hand' of capitalism to direct an economy, that human minds are incapable of, whilst occasionally intervening to prevent unfair business practices and to garantee key rights (healthcare for example). After reading this book my convictions have largely remained the same, if not reinforced.
In terms of what has been written, the prose is light and readable. The one time it really dragged was due to the subject matter (the incredibly boring history of the American labor movement) rather than the author's style.
At the end of the novel, the author draws a conclusion which I disagree with.
He correctly identifies socialism with religion and observes some interesting parallels. However, he goes on to claim that socialism's lack of moral precepts allowed 20th century atrocities to be carried out in its name. He goes on to say that religion's have not committed similar atrocities. Notwithstanding the fact that 20th century technology and higher populations allowed such massacres to be committed more easily, I should point out that Ghengis Khan and the leaders of the Taiping rebellion claimed to be divinely inspired and also led to the deaths of millions (in China 20-30 million people lost their lives in the Taiping rebellion).
Anyway, minor objection aside, it's a worthwhile read. It can be satisfying to sometimes read an unapologetically impartial account of history. The author's rather withering take on Marx's life and accomplishments are worth picking up the book alone.
Before reading this book I was convinced that socialism presented a naïve and alluringly simplistic reading of history without presenting any useful or workable solutions to its diagnosed injustices. Social democratic systems have proven far superior, allowing the 'invisible hand' of capitalism to direct an economy, that human minds are incapable of, whilst occasionally intervening to prevent unfair business practices and to garantee key rights (healthcare for example). After reading this book my convictions have largely remained the same, if not reinforced.
In terms of what has been written, the prose is light and readable. The one time it really dragged was due to the subject matter (the incredibly boring history of the American labor movement) rather than the author's style.
At the end of the novel, the author draws a conclusion which I disagree with.
He correctly identifies socialism with religion and observes some interesting parallels. However, he goes on to claim that socialism's lack of moral precepts allowed 20th century atrocities to be carried out in its name. He goes on to say that religion's have not committed similar atrocities. Notwithstanding the fact that 20th century technology and higher populations allowed such massacres to be committed more easily, I should point out that Ghengis Khan and the leaders of the Taiping rebellion claimed to be divinely inspired and also led to the deaths of millions (in China 20-30 million people lost their lives in the Taiping rebellion).
Anyway, minor objection aside, it's a worthwhile read. It can be satisfying to sometimes read an unapologetically impartial account of history. The author's rather withering take on Marx's life and accomplishments are worth picking up the book alone.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews