Marx’s General: The Revolutionary Life of Friedrich Engels by Tristram Hunt

Though Engels was happy to play second fiddle to Marx, historian Tristram Hunt's "deft new biography" shows that Engels deserves more credit for his intellectual achievements.

(Metropolitan, 430 pages, $32)

Friedrich Engels has been un­deservedly “airbrushed from history,” says historian Tristram Hunt. Though his name is ritually invoked in any discussion of Marxism’s origins, the man and his pioneering ideas are easily forgotten. Far from a self-serious revolutionary, this talented son of a German thread manufacturer was a “high-living, heavy-drinking devotee of the good things in life,” and a selfless friend to boot. Two years after he and Karl Marx co-authored The Communist Manifesto, Engels strapped himself once more to the family business—so that his income could sustain Marx’s writing. “Beastly,” he called the work. But he stuck to it for 20 years, quitting only after Marx had finished the first volume of Das Kapital.

The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516.jpg

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

Hunt is “remarkably good at distilling an epoch,” said Rupert Darwall in The Wall Street Journal. He also shows Engels to have been “a more interesting and paradoxical character” than Marx. In fact, Hunt is “so successful” at portraying Engels as “a jovial man of outsize appetites” that his defense of Engels’ intellectual achievements feels comparatively thin, said Dwight Garner in The New York Times. What was it about the writing of Engels and Marx that inspired all the “calumnies” that were later committed in their names? “A more penetrating examination of this question might have made Marx’s General an excellent book instead of merely a good one.”