Sidney Hook was an outstanding philosopher who tried to fashion a synthesis of Marxism and Dewey's pragmatism. But his most important work was as a defender of the values of a free society against totalitarian ideologies.

This posthumous collection of essays contains Hook's reflections on a range of public policy questions, from an essay on euthanasia (which, while I do not agree with his conclusion, is a most moving account of his closeness to death) to a characteristically robust defence of the western enlightenment tradition against the educational obscurantists who would misunderstand it as 'eurocentric' and 'imperialist'. What shines through the book - especially in a gem of an essay in which he patiently explains to the pseudo-historian Howard Zinn why an imperfect liberal democracy has immeasurably great merits that are worth defending - is Hook's belief in the power of human reason applied to human affairs, tempered by his insistence on the necessity of constitutional government to protect us from the arbitrary power of totalitarian ideologies. A fine testament to a great man.

Sidney Hook analyzes the two philosophers utilizing opposition among Hegelian and Marxist theory: ethical idealism, dialectics, and continuity. This allows the reader to adopt the differences between the two influential authors,thereby introducing major theories written by Marx and Hegel. The remaining chapters interject comparisons between Karl Marx and esteemed German philosophers who studied Hegel, contributed or correlated with Marxist philosophy. Overall, the text forms an essential basis to the understanding and development of Marxist philosophy, and the struggles of a young-Hegelian in the nineteenth century.

Sidney Hook's philosophical works, notably those expounding pragmatism and Marxism, are of enduring value and are still in print. But his most consistent writings were his shorter pieces attacking totalitarianism and defending the ideals of a free society. It was a feature of his exemplary life that he wrote an enormous volume of correspondence, where he felt it worthwhile to explain and explicate democratic values.

This book contains a small, chronologically-ordered selection of those letters, which make fascinating reading. The defence of democracy is never less than erudite and thought-provoking. Hook was often criticised for being impatient of those who differed from him, but these letters give no such indication. On the contrary, his unfailing generosity of spirit is evident in the letters reproduced here to his fellow-philosopher and humanist Corliss Lamont, who unfailingly defended the vicissitudes of Stalin and than whom no more egregious apologist for Soviet tyranny existed. The editor, Edward Shapiro provides a useful introduction to each decade's correspondence, and observes that in later years Hook's political writings were dominated by the subject of the Communist threat, and that the spark seemed to be lacking in, for example, Hook's defence of social democracy. I am sure this is right, and equally I am sure that Hook's emphasis was justified. The differences between conservatives and social democrats on economic philosophy are family differences among those who share a commitment to democratic processes and institutions; the differences between that heterogeneous collection of democrats and totalitarianism are fundamental and extreme. Hook's letters provide a powerful contribution to the defence of democratic values.

This collection of essays, published in 1983 (in the last decade of the author's life) serves as an apt summary of the philosopher Sidney Hook's intellectual legacy as America's pre-eminent scholar of Marxism. To the end of his long life, Hook never abandoned his belief that the essence of Marx's thought was alien to the monstrous totalitarian regimes that, for much of the twentieth century, bore his name. The principal long essay in this book aims to give a 'synoptic exposition' of Marx's thought, and is the finest - and certainly the clearest - such attempt I know. At the same time, Hook allied his respect for Marx's thought to a passionate belief in the defence of western liberal democratic values against Communist tyranny. This idiosyncratic combination informs almost every essay in this volume, which comprises philosophical treatments of Marx, some excoriating book reviews of those who overlook the moral imperative of a vigorous prosecution by the western democracies of the Cold War, and various expositions of Hook's own credo as an anti-Communist social democrat.

Inevitably the reader's estimate of the success of this set of arguments will depend on the degree to which he believes Hook succeeds in allying his sympathies for Marx with his anti-Communist principles. To my mind, Hook's attempt fails because he underestimates the extent to which Marx's notion of Communist society - a perfect social unity - is essentially, and not accidently, totalitarian. Hook reviews - highly favourably - in this volume the Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski's magnificent Main Currents of Marxism, but never really comes to grips with this insight that Kolakowski first articulated some 30 years ago. Nonetheless, Hook's courage and eloquence in defending western civilisation against Communist despotism are displayed at length in this book. There is a particularly fine review demolishing David Caute's tendentious attempt, in his book The Great Fear, to draw an analogy between Stalin's purges and McCarthy's denunciations: as Hook acidly comments, whereas McCarthyism produced an abridgement of civil liberties, Stalinism produced rivers of blood. As an exponent of a principled anti-Communism of the Left, Hook stands in the company of George Orwell and Arthur Koestler. This book is an apt testament to the qualities of intellectual honesty and a devotion the principles of a free society.

Sidney Hook was a strong believer in both reason applied to human affairs and the merits of deliberative democracy in keeping arbitrary authority in check. This book comprises a fine series of essays over a long period that give testament to those beliefs. Some of them deal with subjects that appear superficially dated (an account of his meeting with the Indian religious pacifist Vinoba Bhave, for example), yet the essays always expound social principles of a wide application.

The most sparkling of all is his devastating analysis, dating from the 1960s, of the pretensions of the 'War Crimes Tribunal' established by Bertrand Russell to investigate fairly US conduct in the Vietnam War: "An investigation into the way the war has been conducted in Vietnam, into its crimes as distinct from its accidents, may be perfectly in order.... But whoever conducts such an investigation must not be a party to the conflict or violently prejudiced against either side. He must not be so precommitted to an antecedent conclusion that he weighs the evidence unfairly." Such wise words come to mind now when considering the efforts of the totalitarian Left to indict statesmen such as Henry Kissinger and Ariel Sharon. It is a shame Hook's long life did not extend even longer, so that we might still have the benefit of his powers of reason.

Here after decades of supression we have an updated edition of a classic work of American Marxism. This was the book that gave Hook his reputation as this countries most original Marxist thinker in the 1930's. Rejected by the Communist Party USA as revisionist for his pragamatist/Marxist co-mixing, Hook eventually became a dedicated Cold Warrior and refused to allow this book to be reprinted. (He even tried to have it taken out of libraries!) Now his son had authorized this new addition that contains enough supplemental material to satisfy nearly all sides regarding Hook's contentious legacy.
In this new edition we find Hook's son giving us a full scale apolagia for his fathers political drift from revolutionary to cold war polemicist; C. Phelps providing an excellent historical introduction that finds merit with the young Hook's democratic Marxism for todays generation of radicals; a reprint of a 1968 essay by L. Feuer giving the standard cold war-liberal (soon to be neoconservative) view of Hook's relation to Marxian scholarship; and P. Berman's very interesting remake of one of Hook's own essays, in which he, Berman, interviews a dead Hook (as Hook himself did in 1955 when he interviewed Marx in Heaven).
As to the Text itself, what Hook essentially did was introduce English speaking readers to the praxis orinted tradition of western Marxist intellectuals such as G. Lukacs and K. Korsh, years before they became better known through translations of their works. This I have argued elsewere was more profound than the famous notion that TOWARDS THE UNDERSTANDING OF KARL MARX should be seen as a work of Deweyian-Marxism. Most impressive of the book's assets are Hook's explantions of Marx's dialectical method and his defence of the democratic nature of the Marxian revolutionary ideal. These stand heads above his later attempts to repudiate them, which is likley why he did not want this work reprinted.
Those interested in a more detailed look at my views on this subject can read my article "Praxis American Style" in HISTORICAL MATERIALISM No. 4 1999. Also one should read Alan Wald's THE NEW YORK INTELLECTUALS and C. Phelps excellent YOUNG SIDNEY HOOK.

The later career of Sidney Hook is well known. However, his earlier career as a Marxist intellectual and activist has been long ignored by historians and biographers. In this short but brilliant work, Christopher Phelps shows us a completely different Hook and makes an important contribution to the literature on American socialists of the twentieth century. This book is even more crucial because Hook himself disavowed his radical past, making an examination of the complexity of his political trajectory more difficult to follow and study. From the first to the last page, this is a compelling book, providing carefully researched insights into Hook's world including Hook's debates with Max Eastman, Hook's role in the brief but important journal, Marxist Quarterly, and his participation in defending exiled Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky against bogus charges by the brutal Stalin regime. Phelps also discusses important insights about his theoretical views. At a time when utterly disorienting and nihilistic postmodernist theories are fashionable in the social sciences, Phelps' work is like a breath of fresh air that captivates his audience to learn more about history from below, by and about the workers and radical intellectuals that have shaped society. Anyone interested in the history of the 1930s American socialist movement should give this book an immediate place on their bookshelf.

I think it's interesting that the above reviewer feels that Burnham has no axe to grind. A quick review of most of Burnham's other works will quickly reveal his personal philosophy. This book is a very good review of several politically-conservative writers (Dante, Machiavelli, Mosca, Sorel, Michels, and Pareto), and yes, several of them are political scientists. Most of the recent writers do attempt to be objective, but there are several prominent liberal political scientists who can back their work with numbers, as well.

This is a good review of the beforementioned writers' works. It can be dry and dull at times, but it is a work of philosophy and occasionally statistical science, so this is to be expected. Where the book begins to break down is in the last section, where Burnham's views begin to be expressed in his own words. He begins a tirade against anyone who doesn't agree with his opinions, and declares the triumph of Machiavellism (one gets the feeling that he considers himself a Machiavellian, and has grouped in with himself any writer whose views he happens to agree with; there is not necessarily much cohesion between the various writers included) much the way a schoolboy would declare himself "king of the mountain". His "science" is rarely backed up, and his "philosophy" is poorly thought out. That said, I happen to agree with the worldview that most of these writers share, and they are vigorous scholars. This book is definitely worth reading if you are interested in conservative political philosophy, or are interested in the writing of one of more of the writers mentioned.

... Georges Sorel would be rather surprised to hear himself called a "conservative," as he was actually a radical left-wing syndicalist who advocated the use of violence to bring down capitalism, a fact to which Burnham alludes. Moreover, far from agreeing with Dante, Burnham makes mincemeat out of him.

The "Machiavellian" writers Burnham discusses span a rather diverse spectrum of views (with Machiavelli and Pareto the only ones who could be called "conservative" in any real sense). What they have in common is an objective, scientific approach to politics that avoids allowing wishful thinking, or ideas about what ought to be, to impede their discernment of what is.

I disagreed with Burnham's tendency to dismiss religious ideas as inherently irrationalist. Also, his clarification in response to Machiavelli's reputation ignores the fact that Machiavelli did, after all, offer some amoral advice, not just non-moral analysis. While some of Burnhams predictions proved correct only in the short run, his method contains within itself the the capacity for self-correction, which is part of the whole point of the book.

This book remains a must-read for all who seek to develop a scientific understanding of politics, regardless of their philosophical persuasion.

It is scandalous that this book should be out of print, for it is without a doubt the best primer on political science ever written. If you are going to read only one book on politics, this should be it. Burnham is no ideologue with an axe to grind. He merely seeks to describe how politics works in the real world of fact. In pursuit of this aim, he discusses five of the most scientifically rigorous of all political thinkers: Machiavelli, Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels, and Georges Sorel. Together, these thinkers represent, according to Burnham, the Machiavellian tradition in political thought. Machiavellians, Burnham tells us, regard politics as a science devoted to describing facts as they really are, not as one may wish them to be.

In a certain sense, I can understand why this book is out of print. Realism in politics is hardly popular. What most people seek for in political theory is not reality but a rationalization for their own wishful thinking.

There is a reward for anyone who makes the effort to find and read this thick, out-of-print memoir by one of the leading leftist thinkers of the 20th Century. Sidney Hook was a sui generis, an entity of its own kind, "out of step" with the rest of his peers of socialists, Marxists, Trotskites, communists and assorted "pinkos". His fascinating and well-told political odyssey began early in the 20th century as a rabid supporter of the Leninist Revolution, then he matured in stages as he was repelled by the terror of Stalin's death purges and the phony Moscow Show Trials of the 1930's. Though he favored Trotsky over Stalin, Hook was not blind to Trotsky's own streak of brutality and bent toward violence. As Hook aged, he grew weary of knee-jerk liberalism and became a rabid anti-communist.

The intellectuals of his time came into and out of Sidney Hook's life and they get mentioned in the pages of his recollections: Lionel and Diana Trilling, John Dewey, Albert Einstein, Bertold Brecht, Bertrand Russell and various prominent personalities from the so-called "New York Intellectuals."

While a professor of philosophy at New York University during those dark days in the late 1960's, Hook was an eye-witness to the disgraceful phenomenon that crippled several American college campuses of that era as frenzied mobs upended the campuses and brought higher education to a halt. Hook was totally "out of step" with his colleagues who, he charged, were ruled by fear and lacked the moral courage to put a stop to the outrages of the mob.

Though he never lost his socialist fervor, Hook's personal war against communism and his firm adherence to intellectual integrity were ultimately acknowledged and honored at a ceremony at the White House when he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Ronald Reagan, Commander in Chief in the battle against the "Evil Empire" of communism.

It was the supreme reward for being "out of step."

As a lover of American law and a 'court-watcher', this title hooked me in immediately. Trying to find the balance between maximum democracy and learned aristocracy has always been a struggle so the main thesis should come as no suprise. Our constitution has rough edges. What is suprising is Hook's diagnosis.

The first thing Hook does is to lambaste those who believe in absolute rights. The first and fifth amendment have clashed. The first amendment can even clash against itself and when these happen, one right must yield to the other. The bill of rights offers us no roadmap in how to decide this so Mr. Hook reaches for the first available solution- that of utilitarianism. I've always been skeptical of 'The greatest good for the greatest number. All others get screwed.' but sometimes it is unavoidable. Hook still seems too eager to use this 'quick-fix' to resolve the issue.

Next, he goes on to textualism in the constitution. Like it or not, there is no text that conveys with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY what it's author meant. Our constitution comes close. 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,' seems pretty clear on the surface but what constitutes a religion, is it a pre-existing establishment congress may not respect or simply their own establishment, and does this imply that congress may offer 'respect' to many religions thereby avoiding the problem by not showing preference to only one? Whew! Difficult stuff. At some point (godels proof), we have to rely on someone's interpretation. Who better than the supreme court? Here, the only skepticism I have is Hook's use of the 'Bork Method' of trying to figure out what the founders- He uses Jefferson and Madison- meant by quoting their personal letters. I know that Hook realizes there was more than two people's intentions, but you'd never think it.
The point of disagreement I have with Mr. Hook is on judicial review. He's right, it's not authorized by the constitution, merely implied. But there are two extremes. One is congress as the final arbiter of which laws are constitutional an which aren't, or the courts could do it. Mr. Hook seems to trust the congress more than the courts. He does not recognize that the danger in democracy is that the people are generally short-sighted and are not likely to read the constitution closely (how many of your friends can name the first ten amendments?). The congress, being, through elections, directly accountable to the people, may not do what is in the best interest of the constitution if it will not help them get re-elected. With the supreme court there is not this difficulty, but another. They are not at all accountable to the people having been appointed for life. The only check on them is that they can only rule on cases brought to them (they must adhere to jurisdiction) but I'd rather the justices (who'se job it is to read the constitution) be safeguarding congress than congress do it themselves. We can either trust Scalia and Ginsburg or Helmes and Daschale. The choice is obvious. The tentative compromise- You'll have to read the book to find out- Hook offers is brilliant so in a round-about way, I agree with him again.

For such an exacting subject, the author must be excused for a little pedantry. This is difficult stuff, but the book is short and if you're into American law and judiciary, you'll not be able to put this one down!!