In his 1988 book, Intellectuals, Paul Johnson analyzes, scrutinizes, and then shreds some of the most pivotal thinkers in modern history. In the opening essay he reveals his overall plan to the reader:
One of the most marked characteristics of the new secular intellectuals was the relish with which they subjected religion and its protagonists to critical scrutiny. How far had they benefited or harmed humanity, these great systems of faith? To what extent had these popes and pastors lived up to their precepts, of purity and truthfulness, of charity and benevolence? The verdicts pronounced on both churches and clergy were harsh. Now, after two centuries during which the influence of religion has continued to decline, and secular intellectuals have played an ever-growing role in shaping our attitudes and institutions, it is time to examine their record, both public and personal. In particular, I want to focus on the moral and judgmental credentials of intellectuals to tell mankind how to conduct itself. How did they run their own lives? With what degree of rectitude did they behave to family, friends and associates? Were they just in their sexual and financial dealings? Did they tell, and write, the truth? And how have their own systems stood up to the test of time and praxis?
In other words, this is one table of contents that you do not want to see your name in. There are 13 chapters covering the likes of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, Henrik Ibsen, Leo Tolstoy, Ernest Hemingway, Bertrand Russell, and Jean-Paul Sartre. Each chapter is an essay about 30 pages long. The chapters cohere under the subject heading, but they also stand on their own as individual academic essays. This makes the book a good one to keep handy, in case you find yourself in need of a good, short read.
Tutoring an economics course to my 9th grade Classical Conversations students, I’ve found myself enamored with the study of Karl Marx. As I introduce the students to the virtues of the Austrian, Monetarist system, I also paint them a contrasting picture of communism: a dark picture where Marxism, in the words of John Dos Passos, “not only failed to promote human freedom, it failed to produce food.” Johnson’s brief study of Marx is, in fact, the reason that I picked up Intellectuals in the first place.
Here’s an example of Johnson’s critique from the chapter, “Karl Marx: Howling Gigantic Curses,”
What Marx could not or would not grasp, because he made no effort to understand how industry worked, was that from the very dawn of the Industrial Revolution, 1760-90, the most efficient manufacturers, who had ample access to capital, habitually favored better conditions for their workforce; they tended to support factory legislation and, what was equally important, its effective enforcement, because it eliminated what they regarded as unfair competition. So conditions improved, the workers failed to rise, as Marx predicted they would. The prophet was thus confounded. What emerges from a reading of Capital is Marx’s fundamental failure to understand capitalism. He failed precisely because he was unscientific: he would not investigate the facts himself, or use objectively the facts investigated by others. From start to finish, not just Capital but all his work reflects a disregard for truth which at times amounts to contempt. This is the primary reason why Marxism, as a system, cannot produce the results claimed for it; and to call it ‘scientific’ is preposterous.
He concludes the chapter by examining the personal aspects of Marx’s character that shaped his ‘poetic vision’: “his taste for violence, his appetite for power, his inability to handle money, and, above all, his tendency to exploit those around him.”
If you find yourself studying, or think you might one day study, any of the men or women listed in the table of contents of Intellectuals, you would do well to add this volume to your library.
You can buy it on Amazon here.
<>
Good post! Just stinks that Paul Johnson himself was a long-term adulterer who wouldn’t meet his own standard.
Yep. That does stink. Stinks for his credibility and even more for his family.