The Longing for Total Revolution: Philosophic Sources of Social Discontent from Rousseau to Marx and Nietzsche, Bernard Yack (Princeton University Press, 1986). This is a book by Bernard Yack. Who is Bernard Yack? Yack is fun, because for a mild-mannered liberal Canadian political theorist he’s dropped some dank truth-bombs over the years. For example, check out his short and punchy 2001 journal article “
I think the idea that radicalism was invented in the 17th/18th century fails by a strict reading of the claim, but succeeds if you weaken the claim a bit.
I can think of very few, but nonzero radical movements that precede the 17th century, and you definitely wouldn’t call them undertheorized. The Anabaptists of Muenster are 17th century, the Levellers of the English Civil War are 16th century. You’ve got Christianity and Islam (extremely socially radical by any definition), you’ve got Mazdak, a Zoroastrian radical slightly pre-Islam, and then I’m gonna throw Akhenaten in for good measure. I’m sure there are plenty more. Lycurgus of Sparta perhaps.
They all made or wanted sweeping social changes, but the context and driving ideology was exclusively religious. So I think the original claim is false, but can be rescued by appeal to “not exclusively religious radicalism.”
I know that’s not quite the main thrust of the book review, but I think it’s worth pointing out that the radical impulse is definitely not new. To paraphrase Tom Holland, in the ancient world all reforms had to be couched in a fiction of returning to a glorious past (or at least divine approval). Maybe what changed is our lack of need for authoritative validation.
Would you put the prophet Mani in this group? They must have been doing something revolutionary in order to get both Christians and Muslims riled up so much that they hunted them into extinction. Then again, those two groups appeared to hate anything different, especially each other.
You mention Mazdak, so I thought Mani might be another Iran-born man of great historical significance.
Yes, from very very early on, the story of Noah's ark seems to be an example of a longing for total revolution. (This is not mutually exclusive with it being a retelling of an older flood myth, or being literally true as written.)
Many other passages in the Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament, also seem to mix longing and dread for God's wrath purifying his people of wicked ways and starting over with a remnant. (This is also not mutually exclusive with it being a post hoc interpretation of the Jewish people suffering exiles or foreign rule, or being literally true as written.)
I've been slowly reading all your book reviews. In general very thought provoking. I just wanted to add (the obvious) that the right in the US took over the working class when it was abandoned by the left. And I think Trumps popularity is strong because he remains one of the few political voices that speaks to the working class. Gotta run Saturday is a work day for us cooks. :^)
You mention Machiavelli, but not the Republics of Venice or Genoa. They were rather forceful in their rejection of kings. They did have an "elected" leader (such as the Doge of Venice), but these men were not able to force their sadistic monster sons into their role.
Otherwise, this is a fun review. I can never finish books with any of the Marxist sleep aid-style that intentionally use superfluous and confusing language to hide the absurdity of their position. With economics it is especially bad if one has formal training in the subject. I appreciate you giving a serious yet interesting look at a book such as this.
I would love to find a book that analyzes the myth of human history being driven to modernity. That book Steven Pinker wrote about the myth of the blank slate (nurture is 100% and your genetic inheritance has no impact), I would love to find a similar analysis of the myth of unending human progress. I am guessing this started with Hegel, but I am probably wrong. It seems like Marxists all believe in this, along with their supposed love of "science."
I'm tempted to quote long passages from the end of Rousseau's first discourse.
Victor Gourevitch was stuck on this otherwise unfortunate panel about his thinking, and I think he's right in saying, "Roussea, as I understand him, is... very moderate in his proposals and practical suggestions... He is certainly not revolutionary. He anticipated revolution, but he never advocated revolution. And on the contrary, warned against it." : https://youtu.be/HSZDYYFBk2A?t=1450
Does Yack talk about the ideas of the Anabaptists/Radical Reformation?
I think the idea that radicalism was invented in the 17th/18th century fails by a strict reading of the claim, but succeeds if you weaken the claim a bit.
I can think of very few, but nonzero radical movements that precede the 17th century, and you definitely wouldn’t call them undertheorized. The Anabaptists of Muenster are 17th century, the Levellers of the English Civil War are 16th century. You’ve got Christianity and Islam (extremely socially radical by any definition), you’ve got Mazdak, a Zoroastrian radical slightly pre-Islam, and then I’m gonna throw Akhenaten in for good measure. I’m sure there are plenty more. Lycurgus of Sparta perhaps.
They all made or wanted sweeping social changes, but the context and driving ideology was exclusively religious. So I think the original claim is false, but can be rescued by appeal to “not exclusively religious radicalism.”
I know that’s not quite the main thrust of the book review, but I think it’s worth pointing out that the radical impulse is definitely not new. To paraphrase Tom Holland, in the ancient world all reforms had to be couched in a fiction of returning to a glorious past (or at least divine approval). Maybe what changed is our lack of need for authoritative validation.
You reversed the Anabaptist and Levellers' centuries, I think.
Would you put the prophet Mani in this group? They must have been doing something revolutionary in order to get both Christians and Muslims riled up so much that they hunted them into extinction. Then again, those two groups appeared to hate anything different, especially each other.
You mention Mazdak, so I thought Mani might be another Iran-born man of great historical significance.
Yes, from very very early on, the story of Noah's ark seems to be an example of a longing for total revolution. (This is not mutually exclusive with it being a retelling of an older flood myth, or being literally true as written.)
Many other passages in the Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament, also seem to mix longing and dread for God's wrath purifying his people of wicked ways and starting over with a remnant. (This is also not mutually exclusive with it being a post hoc interpretation of the Jewish people suffering exiles or foreign rule, or being literally true as written.)
I've been slowly reading all your book reviews. In general very thought provoking. I just wanted to add (the obvious) that the right in the US took over the working class when it was abandoned by the left. And I think Trumps popularity is strong because he remains one of the few political voices that speaks to the working class. Gotta run Saturday is a work day for us cooks. :^)
You mention Machiavelli, but not the Republics of Venice or Genoa. They were rather forceful in their rejection of kings. They did have an "elected" leader (such as the Doge of Venice), but these men were not able to force their sadistic monster sons into their role.
Otherwise, this is a fun review. I can never finish books with any of the Marxist sleep aid-style that intentionally use superfluous and confusing language to hide the absurdity of their position. With economics it is especially bad if one has formal training in the subject. I appreciate you giving a serious yet interesting look at a book such as this.
I would love to find a book that analyzes the myth of human history being driven to modernity. That book Steven Pinker wrote about the myth of the blank slate (nurture is 100% and your genetic inheritance has no impact), I would love to find a similar analysis of the myth of unending human progress. I am guessing this started with Hegel, but I am probably wrong. It seems like Marxists all believe in this, along with their supposed love of "science."
But in general, great review.
Broken link: https://zerohplovecraft.substack.com/the-gig-economy
Argh, it looks like he's taken down that story and deleted it from every archiving site that I know of. Huge loss, it was good.
I have an archived copy if you want it.
If you post it somewhere on the web, I'll update the link.
I want it.
I'm tempted to quote long passages from the end of Rousseau's first discourse.
Victor Gourevitch was stuck on this otherwise unfortunate panel about his thinking, and I think he's right in saying, "Roussea, as I understand him, is... very moderate in his proposals and practical suggestions... He is certainly not revolutionary. He anticipated revolution, but he never advocated revolution. And on the contrary, warned against it." : https://youtu.be/HSZDYYFBk2A?t=1450
Does Yack talk about the ideas of the Anabaptists/Radical Reformation?