Best biographies on Karl Marx?

[~Spectre]

Help a comrade out. Which biographies on Mr. Marx would you recommend?

[graymouser]

I haven't gotten to it yet myself, but Franz Mehring (who is under-read generally on the left today) wrote a fairly classic biography of Marx.

[Zanthorus]

That depends what you're after, really. I found Liebknecht's 'Karl Marx: Biographical Memoirs' quite good in terms of a brief overview of the mans life plus some interesting insights into his personality from someone who was a close associated and confidant of Marx for something like ten years. Similar insight can be found in Lafargue's article on 'Reminscences of Marx'. For very brief overviews of his career the bio's by Engels and Eleanor Marx are good. In terms of intellectual biography the only one I have read so far is Otto Rühle's, which is weak in some respects, although I actually remember it being surprisingly good in terms of recounting the development from Hegel to Feuerbach and through to Marx. Rühle's bio also seems to overemphasise the centrality of Marx's critique of Utopian Socialism, although given that he was a Council Communist this was probably due to his own political needs rather than a poor reading of Marx per se.

[The Idler]

Francis Wheen.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Definitely NOT Francis Wheen's!

[RED DAVE]

Karl Marx – The Story of His Life - by Franz Mehring (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mehring/1918/marx/)

Available free online.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/mehring/1918/marx/

Mehring, at the end of his life, was a founder of the Spartacus League, along with Luxemburg and Liebknecht. His biography is somewhat dated, but it breathes a wonderful, nonacademic spirit.

RED DAVE

[Manic Impressive]

Definitely NOT Francis Wheen's!
Oh why's that? I've never heard anyone have a bad word against it.

[Zanthorus]

Francis Wheen.

No. Wheen wrote that thing on a bet. There is nothing new or interesting in it in terms of facts, most of the info there could easily be gleamed by reading first hand accounts like Liebknechts. The only thing original is things like his interpretation of Das Kapital as a victorian melodrama and his general raising of the bar in terms of how not to interpret Marx. Even when he was trying he couldn't take Marx seriously at all.


Oh why's that? I've never heard anyone have a bad word against it.

Terrell Carver thought it was trivialising rubbish and I would be strongly inclined to agree.

[Manic Impressive]

No. Wheen wrote that thing on a drunken wager.source?

There is nothing new or interesting in it in terms of facts, most of the info there could easily be gleamed by reading first hand accounts like Liebknechts.
Actually he was given access to previously unseen soviet archives some of the correspondence in the book were nowhere else.

The only thing original is things like his interpretation of Das Kapital as a victorian melodrama and his general raising of the bar in terms of how not to interpret Marx. Even when he was trying he couldn't take Marx seriously at all.Bollocks

[Zanthorus]

source?

"It is also said that Wheen wrote his book on a bet"

From Terrell Carver's review (http://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviewofbooks/reviews/2010/129) of Tristram Hunt's bio of Engels.


Actually he was given access to previously unseen soviet archives some of the correspondence in the book were nowhere else.

That just makes it worse.


Bollocks

So you have no defence of Wheen's mind-meltingly poor reading of Marx?

[-marx-]

I have and like:"KARL MARX" by progress Publishers, Moscow 1973. It's not some anti-Marxist crap.

[Manic Impressive]

"It is also said that Wheen wrote his book on a bet"

From Terrell Carver's review (http://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviewofbooks/reviews/2010/129) of Tristram Hunt's bio of Engels.
allegedly
I agree slightly with that review the book does deal with the personal aspect of Marx's life more than it does on the meaning of his works but for me that's what biographies are supposed to do. If you want to read solely about Marx's works then just read Marx. What I got from that review is the same sense I get from many on the left regarding the deification of revolutionary figures. The fact that the book does highlight the mans short comings is seen as blasphemy and bourgeois propaganda. While in my opinion it fairly uncritically shows Marx's flaws it is also obvious that Wheen has a great respect and admiration for Marx.


That just makes it worse.
How so?


So you have no defence of Wheen's mind-meltingly poor reading of Marx?
lol but no I was saying that I think you are speaking out of your rectum

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

allegedly
I agree slightly with that review the book does deal with the personal aspect of Marx's life more than it does on the meaning of his works but for me that's what biographies are supposed to do. If you want to read solely about Marx's works then just read Marx. What I got from that review is the same sense I get from many on the left regarding the deification of revolutionary figures. The fact that the book does highlight the mans short comings is seen as blasphemy and bourgeois propaganda. While in my opinion it fairly uncritically shows Marx's flaws it is also obvious that Wheen has a great respect and admiration for Marx.


How so?


lol but no I was saying that I think you are speaking out of your rectum

Okaaaaaaaaay, think your getting a little bit too emotional for discussing biographies..

And no, nobody is critising Wheen's book for arguing that Marx had shortcomings, or wanting to deify Marx. Its just that he does it badly. I don't know about his commentary on Marx's personal life, which while broadly sympathetic, does seem over sensationalised, but the fact he, without stated reservation, comments on Marx's theories in a way that he obviously feels is authorative but gets so much wrong and is incredibly superficial. Like Zanthorus said, he seems to paint captial as some kinda victorian melodrama and from what I recall just kinda gives the impression Marx's work is like the theoretical half of dickensesian fiction or some shit.

I think we can all see that there are some on the left who are rather into the deification of leftist figures. However, there is also a group of people who think a lot of counter critques from the left are the result of said hero worship rather than actual disagreement? Since most of the former people's intrest in communism seems to be mostly secondary to their love of T34 tank discussions I think its the latter that are more troublesome for me.

I'm not trying to say Wheen's an evil bourgeious hack or something, just that for a Marxist actually wanting to learn about marx in a substantial way the book can only hinder them. It has a few cool stories like one where Marx got chased across london by some english dockers or something for claiming german litrituture is superior but thats about it.

[Desperado]

It's very short, and has more on his thought than his life, but I really recommend "Marx" by David McLellan, which has lots of interesting unknown comments by Marx which show him in a new light (such as that he's really an instrumentalist than what we today call "materialist" for example). I can't see any obvious bias in it, although Rosa would probably have had something to say about the short bit on Marx's dialectical "method".

[Zanthorus]

It has a few cool stories like one where Marx got chased across london by some english dockers or something for claiming german litrituture is superior but thats about it.

This story is in Liebknecht's memoirs btw.

P.S


I'm not trying to say Wheen's an evil bourgeious hack or something,

Maybe you should be since he supports the Iraq war and the Israeli state.

[SacRedMan]

Do you understand Dutch? If so, I recommand "Marx in Brussel" from Edward De Maeschalck. Almost all important translated briefs and letters from, to, and about Marx. :thumbup1:

[Manic Impressive]

Okaaaaaaaaay, think your getting a little bit too emotional for discussing biographies..
lol no I wrote that with a big smile on my face. damn me for not using emoticons in one of my posts :p


And no, nobody is critising Wheen's book for arguing that Marx had shortcomings, or wanting to deify Marx.
That's the impression I got from that review and the only criticism I have heard of it was about the evidence about the possibility of Marx's illegitimate son. Which Wheen concludes by saying that the evidence is inconclusive and we will never know the truth.

Its just that he does it badly. I don't know about his commentary on Marx's personal life, which while broadly sympathetic, does seem over sensationalised, but the fact he, without stated reservation, comments on Marx's theories in a way that he obviously feels is authorative but gets so much wrong and is incredibly superficial. Like Zanthorus said, he seems to paint captial as some kinda victorian melodrama and from what I recall just kinda gives the impression Marx's work is like the theoretical half of dickensesian fiction or some shit.
Not the impression I got at all. I do know what you mean kind of it's been years since I read it and I think he does say something like it tells a story or something I can't remember, but that's not meant to trivialise it I saw it as a compliment at a point in the book where he is gushing over the genius of capital.


I think we can all see that there are some on the left who are rather into the deification of leftist figures. However, there is also a group of people who think a lot of counter critques from the left are the result of said hero worship rather than actual disagreement? Since most of the former people's intrest in communism seems to be mostly secondary to their love of T34 tank discussions I think its the latter that are more troublesome for me.
I think it's more to do with there being so much propaganda against communism that people don't know when to stop being defensive and actually critically analyse the information in front of them.

I'm not trying to say Wheen's an evil bourgeious hack or something, just that for a Marxist actually wanting to learn about marx in a substantial way the book can only hinder them. It has a few cool stories like one where Marx got chased across london by some english dockers or something for claiming german litrituture is superior but thats about it.
I think if you want to learn about Marx the man and get a good grasp of the timeline and the order in which things happened then the book is excellent but I would question anyone who reads a biography to use as a basis for their political beliefs. If you wanted to learn about Marx's works then as I said read Marx himself and if you're reading capital and want a book which helps with that I'd recommend something different.

But you're right I am actually really emotional and butt hurt and I'll come clean as to why
I Am Francis Wheen Buy Mah Book :laugh:

[RedTrackWorker]

I haven't gotten to it yet myself, but Franz Mehring (who is under-read generally on the left today) wrote a fairly classic biography of Marx.

I agree.
I would add that Riazanov's biography would probably be my first recommendation and he's too under-read today in general as well: http://www.marxists.org/archive/riazanov/works/1927-ma/index.htm.

[Alf]

I agree that David Mclellan's Karl Marx, his Life and Thought is very good. The best one on Marx as a militant is perhaps Marx: Man and Fighter by Nicolaevsky.