Andrew Hartman’s Karl Marx in America (2025)

Karl Marx, Big in America!

Was Karl Marx’s thought really in America? Just how important was he to Americans?

When Americans think of Karl Marx, they often imagine him and his ideas as completely foreign and irrelevant to the American experience and its history. Andrew Hartman’s 510-page book, Karl Marx in America (2025), disproves this common mistake by shedding light on Karl Marx’s connections with the U.S., and the extensive impacts of Marxism on Americans.

While some academics have claimed that Hartman overstates Marxism’s importance, I believe Hartman does more justice to Marx’s influence in the U.S. than most academics.[1]

Hartman’s book shows us that Marx’s reception in the U.S. was gigantic, and Marx’s infatuation with the U.S. was extensive. Whether it was primitive accumulation, the frontier, colonialism, the Civil War, enslavement, or the unique character of the American bourgeoisie and proletariat, Karl Marx had a lot to say about America. And Americans had a lot to say about him and his ideas.

The first few chapters of Hartman’s book cover Marx’s extensive network of receptions during his life. In these chapters, the wealth of knowledge and historical curios in Hartman’s book is vast and notable. It would certainly expand the knowledge of any curious reader. The book is worth reading for just these first few chapters alone, and they were some of my favorites. Some may be surprised to learn that Karl Marx almost moved to Texas!

Liberals and Conservatives Against Marx

Later, Hartman’s examination of Marxist’s ideas in America becomes an examination of liberal and conservative attitudes of Marx in America. This intellectual history is an express research interest of Hartman, and his familiarity with the source materials shows.

Analysis of liberal and conservative attitudes regarding Marxism are relevant and interesting. Hartman skillfully considers and traces the anti-communist, Liberal “American Political Tradition” that brow-beat communist sympathizers in the middle of the 20th century.[2] Likewise, the “Lockean” liberal tradition that we assume is in the DNA of America, was, in fact, recently constructed as well.[3]

While some may question the importance of dissecting liberal and conservative attitudes about Marx and Marxism, it’s worth a detour. This book is about Marxism in America, which includes those who disagree with Marx.

Perhaps some of the more compelling detours of this section are Hartman’s discussion of Libertarianism and Marxism. Likewise, Hartman’s discussions with economists like Hayek, Keynes, and Schumpeter reveal familiarity, and are interesting and informative.

These sections are invaluable for understanding the constructed American political sensibilities, and the war the ruling class made against Marx in doing so.

The Early 20th Century: Academics and Trotskyists in America?

Trotskyists take front seat in discussion of the radical Marxist ideas of early and mid-20th century Americans. This is despite, per Hartman, “Almost all the major figures who entered the Trotskyist movement in the 1930s abandoned it by the end of the decade.”[4] Damning, but considering the mass exodus from other traditions that occurred in the mid-20th century, like the CPUSA’s “Marxism-Leninism” of the 50s, this phenomenon is not unique to Trotskyism.

A focus on Trotskyism is situationally warranted. There were many interesting personalities, and schisms within the Trotskyist sphere, and they are part of the reception of Marxism in America which the book concerns itself with. It is interesting, especially to those who are unfamiliar with the extensive Trotskyist genealogies in the U.S., which is likely many of those reading this review. Those who wish to criticize Trotskyism(s) should first really attempt to understand it, its historical emergence, and its evolution if they want to make an accurate and insightful critique. Hartman makes a valuable, albeit cursory, contribution to understanding this sect in the U.S, and many would benefit from his work here.

Trotskyism has had an extensive reception in the U.S., and it is worth exploring why. Though there were a variety of reasons, Hartman gives one answer: it allowed self-professed Marxists the ability to distance themselves from the USSR while nonetheless claiming the ideology of Marxism.[5] Notably, there was extensive debate within Trotskyist circles about whether to support the USSR. Hartman claims that Trotsky publicly maintained continuing support for the “degenerated workers state” while others demurred.[6]

The total history of U.S. Trotskyism is not the focus of the book. However, Hartman executes a sly move; by substituting Trotskyist thinkers as stand-ins for most of the radical left Marxists of the early 20th century, he over-states their importance and completely denies as relevant, interesting, or impactful the “mainstream” Marxist-Leninist movement(s) in the U.S. This is unbecoming, because Hartman himself admits the relative unimportance of Trotskyism to U.S. workers. It is inaccurate because it slyly negates the majority of U.S. Marxist experiences by focusing on the relative minority of Trotskyists sects and personalities, however interesting they may be.

Addressing the major issues of the 20th century in a book about Karl Marx in America would be impossible. It is the unavoidable elephant in the room. No one can bemoan Hartman for doing so. But Hartman nevertheless tips his hand here. The early 20th century to him is Marxist academics, predominantly Trotskyists or Trotskyist derivatives. This is probably due to his personal sensibilities, but also because he is writing a reception and intellectual history, and a lot of intellectuals in academia of the “Marxian” variety were at one point or another sympathetic to Trotskyism(s) or anti-USSR. As such, they had less difficulty finding homes in bourgeois institutions like the academy (to be sure, it was not all smiles).

Obsession with a certain type of “Marxist,” a type of “Marxist” that, for all intents and purposes, places primacy on issues of, say, morality and “independence,” is the classic sign of a Marxist academic. True, Hartman happily dogs on moralism here and there. But “independence” quickly becomes a shibboleth for genuflection to bourgeois ideology (little by little here or there at first), abatement of Marxism’s truly revolutionary implications for reformist attitudes, and finally, nearly always, liberal sophistry. It is only natural that academics would be obsessed with these types of figures, they legitimize their own detachment from the revolutionary struggle in favor of intellectual pursuits and prestige.

Minor, selective attention is paid to Marxist-Leninists of the early 20th century. To some extent this is warranted. For example, Browder’s contributions (while debatably novel) have had minimal staying power except in the worst of ways. Foster's contributions are more complex but are not really dissected. Darcy’s critiques of the CPUSA are never mentioned. W.E.B. Du Bois is favorably extolled numerous times, and his intellectual contributions are given a thorough review. Otherwise, black nationalism and its nationalists are given multiple favorable mentions, indicative of Hartman’s sensibilities but curious when compared to his critiques of later black nationalists in the late 20th century.

However, I must be clear here. Hartman is not above critiquing Trotsky himself, and Trotskyism(s). He directly or indirectly does so on numerous occasions. He’s not a purebred Trotskyist ideologue. Indeed, he joked about some Trotskyists calling his book “petty-bourgeois” on Bluesky.[7] But his selective focus could engender inaccurate or incomplete understandings of Marx’s reception in America. Major revision and addition are necessary to fully understand 20th century U.S. Marxism. Hartman, however, can claim that his book is focused on the totality and not this specific period. That’s true, and the book is already lengthy at 510 pages. Readers, however, should be aware that even this mighty retelling is not sufficient.

The New Left and Beyond

Moving past the early 20th century, an uneasy approach is taken towards the radical left in general, which Hartman is apparently sympathetic towards. While admonishing Soviet Socialism he nevertheless adulates the anti-colonial Marxist-Leninist revolutions of the 20th century. This leaves lingering questions in one’s head. What exactly is Hartman’s game here? Who, or what, is he gunning for? What team is he on?

Of course, nothing is beyond criticism, not the Soviet Union, the Paris Commune, Cuba, Angola, Vietnam, China, or any socialist-communist project. But this sort of selective, synthetic agglomeration of support and admonishment of foreign states and socialist projects is indicative of a PSL, Marcyist, or DSA-type tendency. Given Hartman’s dogging on moralism, rightfully I might add, he might be sympathetic to a certain type of left communism. But at best I can only guess. Unless Hartman expresses his views directly we’ll never know. He hosted a podcast called “Trotsky & the Wild Orchids” from 2018 to 2021, and his Bluesky presence is that of the liberal-progressive social-activist historian type.[8]

Here and before, Hartman begins to boil down all social activists, communists, socialists, black nationalists, and progressives as “levelers.” It’s an interesting way to synthesize this large amalgamation into a transhistorical force. But many of these people fought for radically different things that cannot be reconciled. They had, and utilized, different theories and epistemologies. Reducing them to “levelers” is not useful to people who want to understand Marxism specifically.

Hartman’s analysis on Marxism is eclectic at times; he’ll disagree here or there or agree here or there. He will critique Engels’s contributions to Marxism, but then immediately hedge that critique.[9] At times confusing, it is the timbre expected of a scholar writing a comprehensive, ecumenical reception history of Marx.

And yet, Hartman’s constant corrections to the historical record on Karl Marx, and his spirited defenses from the attacks of liberals, conservatives, postmodernists, identity politics lunatics, black nationalists, and spiritualists on Karl Marx cannot but leave the reader with the impression that Hartman is someone who deeply cares about the intellectual integrity of Karl Marx. Hartman is willing to let Marx’s critics have their time on the page, but not without a justified retort, and in some cases, a kick in the pants.

Postmodernism, and the Other Nothingburgers and Falsifiers of Marxism

One of Hartman’s more interesting interventions is when we arrive at the post-1973, neoliberal moment. It’s a time where conservatives are ascendant, and the New Left, now old, is wanning. It’s a time of recent memory for some, and it can be difficult to cohere a synthetic history of this time.

Here, Hartman is selectively critical of nationalist-focused ideologies, like the whole-cloth black nationalism of Cedric Robinson’s 1983 book, Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition. Here, Robinson engaged with Marxism, finding it flawed, and posited the “black radical tradition” as a substitute for Marxism. Hartman here details the contours of this ideology and selectively critiques its numerous excesses and errors. The “black radical tradition,” a darling of liberal academics, has been successfully used by liberals to debase, dilute, and distort Marxism to the benefit of the bourgeoisie—here I say what Hartman should have openly said.[10]

This makes Hartman’s sparkling presentation of Angela Davis rather intriguing. Angela Davis, often added to this black radical tradition, is a complicated figure who went through many different transformations and political alignments. She was exceedingly intelligent, and her contributions to political theory and feminism are worthy of discussion as Hartman does here. But she was also one of those who jumped ship. At the dissolution of the USSR, at a raucous convention of the CPUSA in 1991, Davis went overboard to the “Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism” (CCDS) as nothing more than a radical liberal and Democrat Party leftist, where she has remained.[11] Of course, the CPUSA at the time was deeply flawed, but conversion to reformism was not a revolutionary choice. One could draw a line from some of her ideological predilections to that moment, but it’s not addressed here in Hartman’s hagiography.

Later, Hartman also renders negative, but nuanced judgements to the conservative, parochial, and sometimes spiritualist “native radical tradition” of Ward Churchill and Russell Means (Means offered “the traditional Lakota way” as a substitute to Marxism).[12] Later, Cornell West’s prophetic, idealistic versions of Marx are also detailed and discussed, somewhat curiously considering West’s insistence that he was not a Marxist (he truly isn’t).[13]

Hartman renders largely negative analyses of the contributions of postmodern, Derridean, and Foucauldian thought. I believe that more time was needed dissecting the incessant coopting of Foucauldian thought as radial or Marxist, despite its positively liberal conclusions and utility.[14] Derrida’s deconstructionist theories, and his flirtations with Marxism and around it is thoughtfully discussed by Hartman.[15] Hartman states that “No matter how much Derrida protested that he, too, was a Marxist, deconstruction was by definition a renunciation of Marx.”[16] I couldn’t agree more.

Karl Marx at the End of History

The Soviet Union is gone, and the socialist states are all capitalist now. Welcome to liberalism plus ultra. Who was engaging with Marx at a time like this?

Perhaps some of those reading this will recognize these names: Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, Moishe Postone, and David Harvey. Here are just some of the figures engaging with Marx at this moment. Hardt and Negri’s attempts to make a Das Kapital for the modern times, Empire (2000), in Hartman’s estimation, floundered almost immediately after publication with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (to say nothing of its naïve conceptions of revolution and resistance to modern day imperialism). As such, Empire is dated and emblematic of that specific historical moment. I would wager most have not read it.

David Harvey’s contributions receive a glowing review in Hartman’s retelling. Harvey’s online public lectures of Marx’s writings have been viewed and listened to by a truly awesome amount of people. One gets the sense that Hartman listened to these lectures, considering his very favorable words for Harvey. Harvey’s more controversial aspects were not covered here. In other news, Harvey has recently published a new book, The Story of Capital.

Hartman then wraps it up covering a smattering of organizations and personalities of our contemporary moment. Hartman renders a cautious analysis of Kohei Saito’s “degrowth Marxism,” which is interesting but theoretically and politically suspicious. Hartman then shares kind words about Jacobin magazine, and especially its anti-sectarianism (which, in fact, leads to a sectarianism of its own!). Despite Jacobin’s goals being Nordic-style social democracy and not really Marxism, which Hartman admits, it is nevertheless lumped in with the contemporary left.

Hartman also discusses the impacts of Bernie Sander’s presidential campaigns, despite his insistence he was not a Marxist of course, and other leftist media like Chapo Trap House. Considering the difficulty of making history with something so recent, Hartman does a good job in this final chapter, and it was enjoyable to see some of the more recent events of Marxism in the U.S., academic and otherwise.

Karl Marx, Now and Forever

Hartman makes an interesting, and valuable, contribution to the history of the reception of Marxist thought in the U.S. In this sense, this work is recommended. But, like any work of history, it is not without flaws or limitations.

It’s 510-page length might be off-putting to some, but there’s a lot of ground to cover. Thankfully, Hartman’s prose is very easy to read and comprehend. Most should not find much difficulty reading it. The simplicity of prose is perhaps one of the more impressive things Hartman has done here.

I enjoyed this book, despite my protestations and differences of opinion with Hartman’s analyses and ideological predilections—Hartman’s ideology is certainly not Marxism-Leninism. My favorite parts were the beginning which discussed the early, often unknown history of Marx in America, and the end, which was sort of more relevant to our own political lives. I recommend this book to those who are interested in learning more about the reception of Karl Marx in the U.S., but I do so with some warnings and reservations, which I have already detailed. Those who read this book should come away from it with a more holistic understanding of Marxism in the U.S., which can only be a good thing. Just don’t drink the “Marxian” academic swill served alongside it.

Reading Andrew Hartman’s acknowledgements at the end of his 510-page tome gives perspective. This is someone who appreciates Karl Marx, who came to Marxism later in his life but nevertheless was able to see the flame of Prometheus. Of course, it’s a certain Karl Marx, steeped and wedded to certain traditions. But so are all the Karl Marxs we know and will know. I believe that is one of the main points of Hartman’s book.

We do not come to Karl Marx innocently. We come to him with the weight of history, ideology, and propaganda of all hitherto existing societies weighing on top of him, and us. We do not get to choose “perfect” conditions to study and learn from Karl Marx. And yet, we learn. We learn and we learn. And we should be so lucky as to do just that! So long as capitalism exists, Karl Marx will still find a way to speak to us. So, yes, Karl Marx was in America, just as he was, and is, inside all the people of the world.

[1] Michael Kazin, “What America Made of Marx,” The New Republic, May 26, 2025, https://newrepublic.com/article/194727/karl-marx-america-history-book-review.

[2] Andrew Hartman, Karl Marx in America (The University of Chicago Press, 2025), 255.

[3] For more information about the recent (false) construction of John Locke as America’s liberal ideological guide against Marxism, see: Claire Rydell Arcenas, America’s Philosopher: John Locke in American Intellectual Life (The University of Chicago Press, 2022).

[4] Hartman, Karl Marx in America, 249.

[5] Hartman, Karl Marx in America, 248.

[6] Hartman, Karl Marx in America, 251.

[7] See: https://bsky.app/profile/andrewhartman.bsky.social/post/3m6z34ihjss2g.

[8] Hartman did a reddit AMA about his book, see: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nr0hz1/im_andrew_hartman_author_of_the_new_book_karl/.

[9] Hartman, Karl Marx in America, 212.

[10] Hartman, Karl Marx in America, 432.

[11] See: Daniel Rosenberg, “From Crisis to Split: The Communist Party USA, 1989–1991,” American Communist History 18 (1–2): 1–55, https://doi-org.utd.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/14743892.2019.1599627.

[12] Hartman, Karl Marx in America, 437-442.

[13] Hartman, Karl Marx in America, 443.

[14] Hartman, Karl Marx in America, 429-430.

[15] Hartman, Karl Marx in America, 446-450.

[16] Hartman, Karl Marx in America, 450.