Nimtz uncovers in one that attempts to chart a course between plain opportunism and anarchist rejections of the electoral arena. Instead, electoral campaigns are seen as crucial for developing political education and organisation, and as a key way to measure your forces and communicate with the wider population. As radical left reformist projects, exemplified by Sanders and Corbyn, once again become a political force and the left has to think about what it means to run for office in a capitalist state, it''s a good time to look back at how the left has historically conducted such debates.

“An extraordinary work of political historical analysis that methodically and convincingly argues for the superiority of a Marxist approach for pursuing democracy. Rich in historical detail and thoroughly engrossing in portraying the real-time analyses of and intervention in crucial events by prominent Marxist and liberal theorists and political actors, Marxism versus Liberalism is a truly impressive achievement that will have an enduring appeal.” —John F. Sitton, Professor Emeritus, Political Science, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA

Performing a comparative real-time political analysis, Marxism versus Liberalism presents convincing evidence to sustain two similarly audacious claims: firstly, that Karl Marx and Frederick Engels collectively had better democratic credentials than Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill; and secondly, that Vladimir Lenin had better democratic credentials than Max Weber and Woodrow Wilson. When the two sets of protagonists are compared and contrasted in how they read and responded to big political events in motion, this book contends that these Marxists proved to be better democrats than the history’s most prominent Liberals. Exploring the historical scenarios of The European Spring of 1848, the United States Civil War, the 1905 Russian Revolution, the 1917 Russian Revolution, and the end of World War I, Marxism versus Liberalism carefully tests each claim in order to challenge assumed political wisdom.

Nimtz uncovers in one that attempts to chart a course between plain opportunism and anarchist rejections of the electoral arena. Instead, electoral campaigns are seen as crucial for developing political education and organisation, and as a key way to measure your forces and communicate with the wider population. As radical left reformist projects, exemplified by Sanders and Corbyn, once again become a political force and the left has to think about what it means to run for office in a capitalist state, it''s a good time to look back at how the left has historically conducted such debates.

“An extraordinary work of political historical analysis that methodically and convincingly argues for the superiority of a Marxist approach for pursuing democracy. Rich in historical detail and thoroughly engrossing in portraying the real-time analyses of and intervention in crucial events by prominent Marxist and liberal theorists and political actors, Marxism versus Liberalism is a truly impressive achievement that will have an enduring appeal.” —John F. Sitton, Professor Emeritus, Political Science, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA

Performing a comparative real-time political analysis, Marxism versus Liberalism presents convincing evidence to sustain two similarly audacious claims: firstly, that Karl Marx and Frederick Engels collectively had better democratic credentials than Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill; and secondly, that Vladimir Lenin had better democratic credentials than Max Weber and Woodrow Wilson. When the two sets of protagonists are compared and contrasted in how they read and responded to big political events in motion, this book contends that these Marxists proved to be better democrats than the history’s most prominent Liberals. Exploring the historical scenarios of The European Spring of 1848, the United States Civil War, the 1905 Russian Revolution, the 1917 Russian Revolution, and the end of World War I, Marxism versus Liberalism carefully tests each claim in order to challenge assumed political wisdom.