Book Reviews : The Unfinished Revolution, An Essay on the Sources of Influence of Marxism and Communism. By ADAM B. ULAM. (New York: Random House, 1960. Pp. 307. $5.00
| Date | 01 September 1961 |
| DOI | 10.1177/106591296101400342 |
| Author | David T. Cattell |
| Published date | 01 September 1961 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
804
The
Unfinished
Revolution,
An
Essay
on
the
Sources
of
Influence
of
Marxism
and
Communism.
By
ADAM
B.
ULAM.
(New
York:
Random
House,
1960.
Pp.
307.
$5.00.
The
Unfinished
Revolution
is
an
intellectual
history
of
Marxism
and
its
relationship
to
the
various
protest
movements
to
industrialization
in
the
nine-
teenth
and
twentieth
centuries.
In
his
essay
the
author,
Professor
Ulam
of
the
Russian
Research
Center
of
Harvard
University,
analyzes
the
various
social
groups
in
Western
Europe
and
elsewhere.
The
author
concludes
that
the
history
of
Marxism
&dquo;justifies
only
Marx
the
sociologist
of
revolution,
not
Marx
the
prophet
of
socialism
as
the
receiver
of
bankrupt
capitalism
and
liberalism.&dquo;
The
appeal
of
Marxism
is
nonetheless
still
very
much
alive,
because
it
is
&dquo;attuned
to
the
two
greatest
tendencies
of
the
industrial
age:
the
worship
of
science
and
mechanization
and
limitless
faith
in
their
power
to
transform
mankind;
and
the
very
opposite - protest
against
the
soullessness
and
destructiveness
of
the
machine
age.&dquo;
It
is
this
very
dichotomy
of
Marxism
which
accounts
for
its
gen-
eral
success
in
counties
in
the
early
stages
of
modernization.
In
contrast
to
most
earlier
panaceas
derived
from
moral
principles
it
is
also
an
appeal
to
social
justice
based
on
materialism
and
the
inevitability
of
history.
&dquo;In
many
respects,
Marx
culminates
rather
than
transcends
the
ideas
of
his
times
and
society.&dquo;
He
borrowed
heavily
from
the
intellectual
trends
of
his
time,
particularly
liberalism.
For
example,
Marx
was
very
much
in
the
rationalist
tradition
in
faithfully
assuming
that
history
always
solved
completely
and
de-
finitely
the
problems
it
posed.
In
discussing
the
&dquo;heirs&dquo;
of
Marx
Professor
Ulam
concludes
that
the
sum
of
Lenin’s
theoretical
innovations
was
meager.
Lenin’s
genius
lay
in
his
capability
&dquo;of
grasping
the
revolutionary
sense
of
Marxism,
its
portrayal
of
the
peasant’s
and
the
proletarian’s
psychology
of
opposition
to
the
state
and
the
forces
of
modernism,
and
applying
it
to
the
problem
of
seizing
power.&dquo;
The
most
dramatic
change
came
to
Marxism
with
the
victory
of
the
Bol-
shevik
Revolution.
It
brought
the
gradual
&dquo;realization&dquo;
that
&dquo;Marxism
in
power
is
the
exact
opposite
of
Marxism
in
revolution
and
the
first
task
of
the
victorious
Communist
party
is
the
extirpation
of
revolutionary
democracy
and
anarchism
in
its
own
ranks.&dquo;
Trotsky’s
approach
to
the
meaning
of
Marxism
in
postrevolu-
tionary
Russia
was
the
most
clear
and
direct,
but
his
bluntness
and
the
maneu-
vers
of
Stalin
were
able
to
isolate
him
as
a
&dquo;wild-eyed
fanatic.&dquo;
The
analysis
contains
many
penetrating
hypotheses
giving
the
historian
and
political
scientist
new
possible
explanations
for
the
growth
of
Marxism
as
an
ideology.
Its
weakness
is
that
proof
for
the
hypotheses
are
lacking.
For
example,
the
author
makes
generalizations
about
the
feelings
of
the
intellectuals,
the
masses,
and
the
working
man
in
Germany,
but
without
any
documentation.
The
author
excuses
himself
by
calling
his
work
an
essay
rather
than
a
documentary
history
of
Marxism.
Some
may
also
protest
the
oversimplification
of
Marx’s
intellectual
contributions
and
theories
concentrating
almost
exclusively
on
the
issue
of
industrialization.
In
all
fairness,
no
book
on
Marx
and
Marxism
can
To continue reading
Request your trial