"2.5

I have read two books this year on themes surrounding Marxism and being one. The first was Berman's Adventures in Marxism and the second is this one. Whilst Berman's book was a series of essays (mainly reviews) that was not too specific on living as a Marxist and taking more of a humanistic Marxist approach to Marx's works, this one is very much centred on what it means to live as a Marxist.

I was initially enthusiastic about this, Pendakis introduces the book with some eloquent passages that present the main argument of the book:

the notion that Marxism is not simply a means to the end of a better society but also a lived truth that creates lasting effects in the life of the individual Marxist.


I think when he is allowed to be more personal and take a more reflective approach to being a Marxist that he shines. I think it is similar to Berman in which there are moments in which the personal, humanistic side emerges and it results in some very meaningful passages that I think are important for all Marxists to reflect on from time to time.

This includes the ways in which individually it does change you in a way, Pendakis describes this in various ways in the book. At times, it is relatable and as someone who is the lone Marxist in my family, Pendakis' commentary on this in chapter 2 and of his own struggles in dealing with that as a working class academic (alongside his academic sibling) resonated with me to an extent. I think there's also how Marxism changes how you enjoy things too or the ways in which Marxism brings a sense of belonging to the struggle. I think Pendakis is trying to articulate things that are difficult to describe, it's how to avoid becoming too individualist with this or even too sentimental. At the end of it all, Marxism is a framework as to which we see and analyse the world and as helpful and inspiring as it has been for me and millions of others around the world, it is still just that.

That gets into one of the main issues I have with this book, there are a lot of presumptions about how Marxists are and how they should act. Pendakis has this tone that is very much like 'of course Marxists view their commutes differently, of course Marxists read voraciously,' which I think is not necessarily true and worryingly, can set a precedent of applying almost deterministic notions onto Marxists and how they live. There are a lot of moments where Pendakis tries to make something out of this, even down to how Marx's temper in 1840s Berlin is part of:

the body language of historical materialism, a kind of Marxist Hegelian parkour.


Even with that, the mentions of Vaush and numerous pop cultural reference (including Neon Genesis Evangelion), I would still have found something useful in this. However, all of that is gone in the final two chapters, where this presumptuousness reaches outright falsehoods and frankly some unappealing passages. To describe Luxemburg's death like this really bothered me:

there is no Marxist who would trade the sweetness of their short and angry life for an eternity of peace and quiet. This is why figures like Camilo Torres or Luxemburg, quite apart from whether or not they believed in an afterlife, died defiant and cheerful.


To read something like this, knowing the gruesome way Torres and Luxemburg died, it was upsetting. I think there are much better and more delicate ways to approach these tragic deaths whilst also understanding their significance in defining Marxists and potential martyrdom.

In the final chapter, Pendakis brings up two revolutionaries, Hua, and her life as an urban planner in 1960s China and Maase, a Naxalite revolutionary in India. At first, both accounts are inspiring and about how, even in brutal conditions, that these two women maintain a revolutionary spirit. All for Pendakis to make strange statements about the kind of Marxism Hua and Maase are engaging with:

We don’t know much about the kind of Marxist theory available to either Hua and Maase, or anything about the nature of their respective intellectual paths through the tradition. We can assume that the texts and theories available to them were simplifications of Marx’s ideas – versions that would have little in common with the cutting-edge research being done in economics, sociology, history or philosophy today by Marxist scholars.


Of course we know, the works of Mao and the literature of the CPI (Maoist) (including Anuradha Ghandy) alone are enough indicators as to such, but to word it like this, it was bordering on some orientalist notions about Marxism.

You see more of this in how the book contrasts 'their' kind of Marxism, as if a total remnant of the 20th Century to the contemporary Marxism of North America (and the wider imperial core):

Hua and Maase both missed out on certain forms of liberal freedom that most Marxists today want embedded in any future socialism – rights to privacy, intellectual variety and even free speech.


Pendakis' influences are evidently from philosophy, as well as this kind of neo-Leninism of Jodi Dean and Andreas Malm. It's not necessarily that Pendakis is being totally palatable, but to say:

not all Marxists are revolutionaries – which is to say, not all of us see the concept of revolution as necessary or useful


Something like that is simply untrue.

There was some interesting insights at the start of this book, but the book is let down by the last half and the arguments Pendakis makes there (including defending Žižek and debating with Peterson). I think Berman's book is better for anyone looking for more explorations on what it means to be a Marxist, because Berman's focus is mainly on the literature and more reflective on his personal experiences instead of telling you how Marxists are and what they should be like. I think if Pendakis focused more on a more personal, humanistic reflection on living as Marxist instead, it would have been better."