The book is arranged as a series of arguments against objections to Marxism, most often detailing some kind of misconception that Eagleton then addresses. The chapter I chose deals with the belief that “Marxism is a dream of utopia.” The argument continues:
It believes in the possibility of a perfect society, without hardship, suffering, violence or conflict. Under communism there will be no rivalry, selfishness, possessiveness, competition or inequality. Nobody will work, human beings will live in complete harmony with one another, and the flow of material goods will be endless. This astonishingly naïve vision springs from a credulous faith in human nature. Human viciousness is simply set aside. The fact that we are naturally selfish, acquisitive, aggressive and competitive creatures, and that no amount of social engineering can alter this fact, is simply overlooked. Marx’s dewy-eyed vision of the future reflects the absurd unreality of his politics as a whole.
My consideration of the chapter, entitled “No Matter Your Opinion on Marx, You’re Wrong,” mostly highlights Eagleton’s convincing argument that far from being a dream of Utopia, Marxism actually is interested in changing institutions in the present. Here’s a snippet:
The solution then, for Eagleton and Marx, is to change institutions and practices in order to bring about change in people. This argument is perhaps his most convincing as he sites a number of changed practices from society’s view on the equality of genders to, perhaps most effectively, penal reform. “We now take these changes so much for granted,” he says, “that we would be revolted by the idea of breaking murderers on a wheel.” The important idea here is that human behavior and opinion does change, is shaped by the institutions that rule the day. Citing such ingrained formalities as shaking hands upon meeting or driving on the left side of the road for Britons, Eagleton posits, “Institutions shape our inner experience.” There is a moment here in the reading where the kind of change he is suggesting actually does seem quite possible.
Read the rest over at Bensonian, and stay tuned for the other chapters in days to come.
TagsAbortion Andrew Sullivan Atheism Barack Obama Bible Book Review Books Capitalism Catholic Church Catholicism Charles Taylor Christian Christianity Christianity Today Church Conservatism Conservatives Education Evangelicalism Evangelicals Facebook Faith Feminism God History Jesus Journalism Mark Driscoll Marriage Martin Heidegger Marvin Olasky Media New Sincerity New York Times Patheos Philosophy Politics Religion Religion and Spirituality Ross Douthat Same-sex marriage Secularism Theology United States Women
Subscribe to Patrol via Email