If you'd rather place an order by talking to one of our cheerful order desk clerks, please call 1-888-232-4444 (USA and Canada only) or 250-383-6864. From Europe, ring our UK order desk clerk at local rate number 0845 230 9601 (UK only) or 44 (0)1865 722 113.

Rethinking Radicalism

by David Anthony

122 pages; quality trade paperback (softcover); catalogue #02-1297; ISBN 1-55395-581-1; US$16.00, C$17.95, EUR13.00, £9.50

A provocative and insightful survey of history, philosophy and religion, forcing the reader to reconsider how major social changes can and should be brought about.

Read more!

about the book      about the author      sample excerpts or Table of Contents      catalogue info

About the Book For much of the 20th Century, most movements to radically transform Western society were fueled by Marxian ideology. But as the influence of Marxian thought declined in the latter decades of the century, and as the West simultaneously experienced a rising tide of conservatism, radicalism lost its momentum. If Marxism is no longer viable, where is the philosophical foundation for those who see Western culture as in need of great change? Rethinking Radicalism takes a hard look at the state of radical thought, analyzing history and philosophy to consider where Western culture is going. Written in a lucid style that will appeal to both the university professor and the average intelligent reader, Rethinking Radicalism is filled with original insight and thoughtful analysis. In this groundbreaking work, David Anthony takes the reader on a journey through history, with particular emphasis on the history of philosophy and religion, leading to provocative conclusions about the direction of Western culture.

---

About the Author Born in 1962 in Concord, Massachusetts, David Anthony is an attorney, writer and educator. He has written articles for numerous publications on a wide range of social and political issues. Married with three children, he resides in Central Massachusetts where he practices law, writes extensively, and teaches history and law. Rethinking Radicalism is his first book.

---

Sample Excerpts

CHAPTER 1 RETHINKING RADICALISM      I RECENTLY had the pleasure of engaging in an interesting discussion with an oldtime Marxist, a gentleman who is a respected author, university professor, and activist. The subject of our discussion was the state of radical thought, but in the midst of this discourse the subject of religion emerged.      "I agree with Marx that religion is an opiate," the esteemed professor said. "When we solve fundamental problems of peace and justice, religion will fade in importance."      This, of course, is the standard Marxian line on religion. Through his theory of dialectical materialism, Marx analyzed history and emphasized the importance of economics. He saw human progress as inevitably leading to higher forms of socioeconomic organization, from feudalism to capitalism to socialism, until finally his ideal social organization of communism is attained. While Marx paid more than mere lip service to the subject of religion, his analysis of history, indeed his entire philosophy, had an economic flavor.      When Marxian thought became a major philosophical force in the 20th Century, its followers, not surprisingly, continued to view the subject of religion as relatively insignificant, certainly secondary to issues of economic and social justice. To 20th Century Marxists, religion was a curious pre-modern institution that temporarily continued to enamor the masses. Most Marxist radicals simply paid little attention to the subject of religion.      Although the historical importance of Marx cannot be denied, as the 20th Century came to a close strict Marxian philosophy was clearly past its heyday. This perhaps is partly because 20th Century communist practice was always somewhat of a perversion of actual Marxian theory. Marx had predicted that proletariat uprisings would occur in industrialized, capitalist countries, but those countries ultimately proved to be largely immune from such revolutionary fury. Instead, Marxian revolutionary doctrine was adopted most effectively in less developed regions, many of which had been previously exploited by the Western powers. Thus, through events that no doubt would have surprised even Marx, agrarian countries such as Russia, China, Cuba, and Nicaragua, became flagships of communism.      Of course, the unanticipated use of Marxism by agrarian revolutionaries does not necessarily reflect any inherent flaw in Marxian theory, for it simply shows that a philosophy can be opportunistically utilized for practical political purposes.      But yet another explanation for the fall of communism in the late 20th Century suggests that the decline cannot be blamed entirely on the philosophy's misapplication. Indeed, the primary reason for its decline is that Marx underestimated the ability of capitalism to appease the masses.      Although Marx predicted large-scale revolution by disgruntled, exploited industrial workers, the highly developed capitalist countries usually managed to provide enough material comfort to the masses to avoid widespread insurrections. Thus, where Marx predicted internal class tensions rising to a breaking point, such tensions have rarely been so extreme or widespread in the West.      Because of this accommodation, this appeasement of the masses in developed capitalist countries, at the dawn of the 21st Century radicalism in the West is somewhat in disarray. Marx, the philosopher upon whom radicalism placed most of its bets during the 20th Century, cannot be viewed as an accurate prognosticator. Whatever his brilliance, however true his general criticisms of 19 th Century capitalism, and however accurate his analysis of history, many of his specific conclusions and predictions have been proven flawed.      Without Marx, radicalism is a ship without a rudder. For so long has radicalism been synonymous with Marxism, is it possible for radical thought to evolve past its dependence on the old master? If one looks at modern society and sees a need for not just change, but great change, where is the philosophical foundation for doing so? Without Marxian doctrine, what's a good radical to do? To answer these questions, one must consider the fundamental notion of radicalism itself.      If a social system is generally acceptable but nevertheless in need of some mild improvements, then radical change is not necessary. One could argue that such is the case in the West today that the dominant political and economic systems may be in need of modest alteration, but not overall reinventing. Certainly there are pockets, even large pockets, of injustice to be found in Western societies. The West has no shortage of social problems. But still, to the extent that these problems can be addressed through mainstream politics and economics, few would argue that revolutionary measures are necessary. Major legislation and ambitious policy changes, rather than a complete upheaval of the system, could be sufficient to address most social problems.      Is it possible, then, that there is no justification for urging radical change in modern Western society?      Hardly.      While in terms of "progress" it is hard to deny the material abundance and technological advances that Western society has produced, an observer would not have to look far to find areas that are ripe for revolutionary change. Although many troubling aspects of Western society - poverty, militarism, nationalism, economic exploitation of undeveloped countries, excessive corporate power - could arguably be addressed through less-than-radical measures, not all problems have such straightforward answers. If we dig below the surface, we realize that there are fundamental problems that cannot be solved through mere legislation or policy changes.      Despite the material abundance that exists throughout most of Western society, despite the adequate homes, the cars, the numerous luxuries that most people now take for granted, a serious sense of uneasiness and emptiness exists. While society itself, particularly the "establishment" aspect of society government and large corporations appears to be relatively healthy and secure, the people within Western society are not doing so well.      In a culture that can provide material comforts for the mass citizenry unlike any society has seen before, basic human needs like mental and physical health, spiritual peace, and a sense of fulfillment often evade the population. Western culture, for all its wealth, is a culture of neuroses and despair, with symptoms like crime, depression, obesity, and anxiety so widespread that they have become the norm. For the masses, comforted into passivity through abundant availability of consumer goods, there is often a sense that something is terribly wrong, that life seems meaningless and unfulfilling, yet simultaneously there is an inability to solve or even fully define the problem. This frequently results in a general sense of cynicism, varying in degree and intensity throughout the population depending on specific circumstances.      If one objectively views the current state of the West, one realizes that the West actually has no fundamental philosophy. Its philosophy can only be defined as a lack of any philosophy. Although one could say that Christianity is the dominant religious institution in the West, a religious institution is not a philosophy. (This is especially true in a pluralistic society where many people practice various religions or no religion at all.) Christianity, or for that matter any Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief system, cannot be taken seriously as a fundamental philosophical foundation for a modern society because the fundamental bases of all Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief systems reject reason and run contrary to the accumulated scientific knowledge of the past 2000 years.      It should not be surprising that modern society has difficulty turning to establishment religions for philosophical truth. Although the ancient institutions are still clung to by many out of respect for tradition, ignorance, or just plain intellectual laziness, they lack the legitimacy expected of a comprehensive philosophy for all of society. Few can take seriously the fundamental dogmas, creeds, myths, and superstitions of these religious institutions. Thus, the institutions linger on without philosophical credibility.      If we define radicalism as a system of thought that seeks to tear down old institutions and reconstruct new ones, then one area within Western society that is clearly ripe for radical ideas is the area of religious belief. In this modern age, society clings to religious institutions that are thousands of years old and hostile to reason.      Replacing these institutions with a reason-based belief system would transform society in a positive way, more than any political or economic policy change ever could. The ancient religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were created by men who were grasping for answers to deep life questions in the pre-modern era. Historically, it is not surprising that such religions arose. Indeed, human progress probably necessitated that such monotheistic belief systems evolve to replace the even more primitive religions that preceded them. Although the beliefs of the major monotheistic religions run contrary to reason, they are more sophisticated than the polytheistic religions that dominated the West in Roman times and earlier.      What is most interesting, however, is that these monotheistic religions can still exert influence over modern societies despite their open hostility to reason. And what should seem obvious to any objective observer is that these now-ancient religions will eventually find their way to the proverbial trash heap of history. Although the actual fall of the established religions may seem unimaginable to many, especially among the masses who have never stopped to ponder the notion, rapid decline (indeed collapse) is not just possible, but probably inevitable. The only question is when. The best answer, at least for anyone concerned with seeing human progress, is soon, hopefully very soon.      The demise of the ancient religions will provide an exhilarating gust of fresh air to modern society, tearing down senseless walls of division and creating new opportunities for common ground. The established religious institutions are bastions of ignorance in a world where knowledge has become the most valuable commodity. These well-entrenched institutions are holding back social progress, dividing people who otherwise have no reason to oppose one another, and fanning the flames of militarism and nationalism. Most of all, however, they are promoting ignorance and falsehoods at the expense of truth. How can society advance under such erroneous belief systems?      When large institutions fall, they usually do so because the masses that supported them suddenly shift their loyalty. When the JudeoChristian religions fall in the West, the general shift will be towards a reasonbased philosophical system. This does not mean that society needs unanimity on religious issues. Certainly, the concept of non-belief can be expected to grow in popularity as society advances, but even those who adhere to belief in a god will do so within the realm of reasonable belief. Few, however, will give credence to ancient prophets, myths and superstitions, apocalyptic visions, virgin births, holy men, chosen people, etc. The common ground joining all in the post-modern world will be a respect for humanity, social justice, and ethics.      Thus, idle radicals looking for a just cause, a movement that could transform society and bring about more human progress and social justice than any political cause, should consider the long-neglected area of religion. Marx may have been right when he said the old religious institutions would just fade away into history, but a little activism could hasten the process.

---

Catalogue Information

---