Introduction

Intellectuals, defined as individuals whose primary occupation involves the production, dissemination, or critique of ideas, have long held a significant influence over political discourse and societal development. Their role as thought leaders, whether through philosophy, literature, or social theory, positions them to shape public opinion and policy. However, this influence has not always translated into sound political judgment. As Thomas Sowell argues in Intellectuals and Society(2010), intellectuals often prioritize abstract theories and ideological visions over empirical realities, leading to repeated political miscalculations with far-reaching consequences. This essay explores the historical tendency of intellectuals to err in political matters, with a particular focus on their naive embrace of communism and Marxist ideologies, while tracing this pattern back to earlier historical periods to demonstrate its persistence. By drawing extensively on Sowell’s work, supplemented by primary and secondary historical sources, this analysis will argue that intellectuals’ detachment from practical realities, coupled with their preference for utopian ideals, has consistently led to flawed political positions.

Sowell’s central thesis is that intellectuals, unbound by the constraints of practical accountability, often advocate for policies that sound appealing in theory but fail in practice. He writes, “The intellectual’s vision of the world… tends to be one in which the anointed few impose their superior wisdom on the benighted masses” (Sowell, 2010, p. 6). This essay will examine how this vision has manifested across centuries, from the Enlightenment to the 20th century’s fascination with Marxism, and how it has contributed to political missteps. Part 1 will cover the conceptual framework, historical precedents from the 17th and 18th centuries, and the early roots of Marxist appeal among intellectuals. Part 2 will delve deeper into 20th-century examples, the consequences of these misjudgments, and a broader reflection on the intellectual’s role in politics.

Defining Intellectuals and Their Political Role

Before proceeding, it is necessary to define “intellectuals” in the context of this essay. Sowell describes intellectuals as “people whose occupations deal primarily with ideas—writers, academics, social critics, and the like” (Sowell, 2010, p. 2). Unlike professionals such as engineers or doctors, whose work is subject to immediate empirical validation, intellectuals operate in a realm where ideas are judged by their coherence or rhetorical appeal rather than their practical outcomes. This lack of accountability, Sowell argues, allows intellectuals to advocate for policies without bearing the consequences of their failures. He notes, “Intellectuals are insulated from the consequences of being wrong in a way that most other people are not” (Sowell, 2010, p. 292).

This insulation is critical to understanding why intellectuals have often been drawn to radical political ideologies, including Marxism. Their work thrives on abstract reasoning, which can lead to an overemphasis on idealized visions of society at the expense of pragmatic considerations. As Sowell observes, “The vision of the anointed is one in which the flaws of human nature and the constraints of the real world are seen as mere obstacles to be overcome by the application of superior knowledge” (Sowell, 2010, p. 112). This tendency becomes particularly evident when examining intellectuals’ historical political engagements, from early utopian schemes to the 20th-century embrace of communism.

Historical Precedents: Intellectuals in Early Modern Europe

To establish that intellectuals’ political misjudgments are not a modern phenomenon, we must first examine their role in early modern Europe, particularly during the 17th and 18th centuries. The Enlightenment, often celebrated as an era of reason, also saw intellectuals championing ideas that, while theoretically appealing, led to unintended political consequences.

The Utopian Visions of the Enlightenment

The Enlightenment marked a turning point in the influence of intellectuals, as figures like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire shaped political thought through their writings. Rousseau’s The Social Contract (1762) posited that a “general will” could guide society toward a just and equitable order, an idea that inspired revolutionary fervor but also laid the groundwork for authoritarian interpretations. Sowell critiques such visions, noting that “theories that sound good in the abstract often ignore the complexities of human nature and the realities of power” (Sowell, 2010, p. 87). Rousseau’s ideas, while influential, were criticized even in his time for their impracticality. For instance, Edmund Burke warned that such abstract theories could lead to “the subversion of all established order” (Burke, 1790, p. 45).

One concrete example is the French Revolution (1789–1799), where intellectuals’ ideas fueled radical change but also chaos. The philosophes, including Diderot and d’Alembert, advocated for sweeping reforms based on reason and equality. However, their abstract principles, such as the universal rights of man, were difficult to implement in a society marked by deep divisions. The Revolution’s descent into the Reign of Terror (1793–1794) demonstrated the dangers of prioritizing ideological purity over practical governance. Sowell reflects on this, stating, “The French Revolution is a classic example of intellectuals’ ideas being taken to their logical extreme, with catastrophic results” (Sowell, 2010, p. 134). The execution of thousands, including moderates like the Girondins, underscored the disconnect between intellectual ideals and political realities.

Early Utopian Schemes

Even before the Enlightenment, intellectuals proposed utopian schemes that foreshadowed later Marxist ideologies. Thomas More’s Utopia (1516) imagined a society without private property, a concept that resonated with later socialist thinkers. While More’s work was satirical, it inspired serious attempts at communal living, such as the Münster Rebellion (1534–1535), where Anabaptist radicals sought to establish a theocratic commune based on shared ownership. The rebellion’s collapse into violence and tyranny highlighted the practical challenges of such visions. Sowell notes, “Intellectuals’ fascination with utopian schemes often overlooks the incentives and behaviors that make such systems unsustainable” (Sowell, 2010, p. 98).

Similarly, the Levellers and Diggers during the English Civil War (1642–1651) advocated for egalitarian reforms, with the Diggers experimenting with communal land ownership. While intellectually compelling, these experiments failed due to resistance from established powers and internal disorganization. Historian Christopher Hill observes, “The Diggers’ ideas were visionary but lacked the mechanisms to sustain them in a world of competing interests” (Hill, 1972, p. 112). These early examples illustrate a recurring pattern: intellectuals’ attraction to radical equality often ignores the complexities of implementation, a theme that would resurface with Marxism.

The Rise of Marxism and Intellectual Appeal

The 19th century marked a significant shift in intellectuals’ political engagements, with the emergence of Karl Marx’s theories providing a new framework for critiquing society. Marx’s Communist Manifesto (1848) and Das Kapital (1867) offered a systematic critique of capitalism, appealing to intellectuals’ desire for comprehensive, transformative solutions. Sowell argues that Marxism’s allure lay in its “vision of a world transformed by the application of intellectual insight,” which flattered intellectuals’ sense of superiority (Sowell, 2010, p. 167).

Why Marxism Attracted Intellectuals

Marxism’s appeal to intellectuals can be attributed to several factors. First, its dialectical materialism provided a seemingly scientific framework for understanding history, aligning with the Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason. Second, it promised a moral high ground by championing the oppressed proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Third, it offered a vision of a classless society, resonating with intellectuals’ utopian impulses. Sowell explains, “The intellectual’s role as a critic of society finds a natural home in ideologies like Marxism, which cast them as the vanguard of revolutionary change” (Sowell, 2010, p. 170).

However, this attraction often blinded intellectuals to Marxism’s practical flaws. Marx’s predictions, such as the inevitable collapse of capitalism due to internal contradictions, relied on abstract economic models that oversimplified human behavior. Sowell critiques this, noting, “Marx’s theories were elegant in their logic but disastrous in their application, as they ignored the incentives that drive human action” (Sowell, 2010, p. 182). The failure of Marxist predictions—such as the proletariat’s growing immiseration, which did not materialize in industrialized nations—did not deter intellectuals, who often dismissed empirical evidence in favor of ideological commitment.

Case Study: The Russian Revolution and Intellectual Support

The Russian Revolution of 1917 serves as a pivotal example of intellectuals’ naive support for Marxist ideas. Western intellectuals, including figures like George Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells, were initially enthusiastic about the Bolshevik experiment. Shaw, for instance, visited the Soviet Union in 1931 and praised its “new civilization,” ignoring reports of famine and repression (Shaw, 1931, p. 23). Sowell highlights this disconnect, stating, “Intellectuals’ willingness to overlook the human costs of revolutionary change stems from their commitment to a vision rather than to reality” (Sowell, 2010, p. 214).

The Bolsheviks’ rise to power, led by Lenin and later Stalin, was celebrated by many intellectuals as the triumph of Marxist theory. However, the subsequent purges, forced collectivization, and mass starvation—particularly during the Holodomor (1932–1933), which killed millions—exposed the gap between Marxist ideals and their outcomes. Historian Robert Conquest estimates that Stalin’s policies led to at least 20 million deaths (Conquest, 1990, p. 306). Yet, many intellectuals, such as Jean-Paul Sartre, continued to defend the Soviet Union, arguing that its flaws were necessary steps toward socialism. Sowell critiques this, noting, “The intellectual’s ability to rationalize atrocities in the name of a higher cause is a recurring danger” (Sowell, 2010, p. 220).

The Fabian Society and Gradualist Marxism

In Britain, the Fabian Society, founded in 1884, represented a more gradualist approach to Marxism but still reflected intellectuals’ attraction to socialist ideals. Figures like Sidney and Beatrice Webb advocated for incremental socialist reforms, believing that intellectual planning could replace market mechanisms. Their book Soviet Communism: A New Civilization? (1935) praised the Soviet system, downplaying its authoritarianism. Sowell argues that the Fabians’ faith in centralized planning ignored the “knowledge problem”—the difficulty of aggregating dispersed information in a complex society (Sowell, 2010, p. 145). The Fabians’ influence on British policy, particularly the post-World War II welfare state, had mixed results, with some reforms improving living standards but others creating bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Intellectuals’ Disconnect from Reality

A common thread in these examples is intellectuals’ detachment from the practical realities of their ideas. Sowell emphasizes this, writing, “The intellectual’s world is one of words and concepts, not of tangible consequences” (Sowell, 2010, p. 89). This detachment is evident in their support for Marxism, which often ignored the human cost of revolutionary change. For instance, the Chinese Communist Revolution (1949), led by Mao Zedong, was initially celebrated by intellectuals like Simone de Beauvoir, who saw it as a triumph of Marxist principles. Yet, Mao’s Great Leap Forward (1958–1962) resulted in an estimated 30–45 million deaths due to famine and forced collectivization (Dikötter, 2010, p. 333). Sowell notes, “The intellectual’s commitment to an idea often outweighs evidence of its failure” (Sowell, 2010, p. 231).

This disconnect is not merely a product of ideological bias but also of intellectuals’ social position. As Sowell argues, intellectuals often operate in environments—universities, literary circles, or media—where their ideas are judged by peers rather than by real-world outcomes. He writes, “The validation of intellectual work comes from other intellectuals, not from the public or from practical results” (Sowell, 2010, p. 293). This insularity allows intellectuals to maintain flawed positions, such as their defense of Marxist regimes, long after evidence of their failures becomes undeniable.

Intellectuals and Political Misjudgments: A Historical Analysis, Part 2

Introduction

Part 1 of this essay established that intellectuals, as defined by Thomas Sowell in Intellectuals and Society (2010), have a historical tendency to err in political matters due to their preference for abstract theories over empirical realities. From the utopian schemes of the Enlightenment to the early embrace of Marxism, intellectuals have often championed ideologies that sound compelling in theory but falter in practice. Part 2 extends this analysis into the 20th century, examining intellectuals’ continued support for Marxist regimes, such as the Cuban Revolution and China’s Cultural Revolution, and their influence on Western policy debates. Drawing heavily on Sowell’s critique, this section will explore how intellectuals’ detachment from practical consequences, coupled with their moral posturing, perpetuated political misjudgments with devastating outcomes. It will also reflect on the broader implications for the role of intellectuals in politics and consider whether their influence can be tempered by greater accountability.

Intellectuals and 20th-Century Marxist Regimes

The 20th century saw Marxism transition from a theoretical framework to a governing ideology in several nations, with intellectuals playing a significant role in legitimizing these regimes. Sowell argues that intellectuals’ support for Marxism stemmed from its appeal as a “vision of cosmic justice,” which flattered their sense of moral and intellectual superiority (Sowell, 2010, p. 167). This section examines two key examples—the Cuban Revolution and China’s Cultural Revolution—to illustrate how intellectuals’ enthusiasm for Marxist ideals ignored the human costs of their implementation.

The Cuban Revolution and Western Intellectuals

The Cuban Revolution (1953–1959), led by Fidel Castro, became a focal point for Western intellectuals seeking an alternative to capitalism. Figures like Jean-Paul Sartre and C. Wright Mills celebrated Castro’s regime as a triumph of anti-imperialist socialism. Sartre, after visiting Cuba in 1960, wrote, “The Cuban Revolution is a genuine revolution, one that promises to liberate man from the chains of capitalist exploitation” (Sartre, 1961, p. 78). Similarly, Mills’ Listen, Yankee (1960) portrayed Castro’s government as a model for Third World liberation, glossing over its authoritarian tendencies.

Sowell critiques such endorsements, noting that intellectuals often “project their own values onto revolutionary movements, ignoring evidence that contradicts their vision” (Sowell, 2010, p. 219). Castro’s regime, while initially popular for its social reforms, quickly descended into repression, with thousands of political prisoners and exiles by the 1960s (Farber, 2006, p. 145). The execution of dissidents and the suppression of free speech were downplayed by intellectuals who saw Cuba as a symbol of resistance to Western hegemony. For instance, Susan Sontag argued that Cuba’s flaws were “excusable in the context of its struggle against imperialism” (Sontag, 1969, p. 23). Sowell counters this rationalization, stating, “The intellectual’s willingness to excuse tyranny in the name of a higher cause is a hallmark of their political naivety” (Sowell, 2010, p. 220).

The economic failures of Castro’s policies, such as the nationalization of industries and the reliance on Soviet subsidies, further exposed the gap between Marxist theory and reality. By the 1980s, Cuba’s economy was stagnant, with widespread shortages of basic goods (Pérez, 1995, p. 312). Yet, many intellectuals continued to defend the regime, focusing on its healthcare and education achievements while ignoring its broader failures. Sowell observes, “Intellectuals’ selective focus on positive outcomes allows them to maintain their ideological commitments despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary” (Sowell, 2010, p. 231).

China’s Cultural Revolution and Intellectual Apologists

China’s Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), initiated by Mao Zedong, represents another stark example of intellectuals’ misjudgments. Mao’s campaign to purge “capitalist roaders” and reinvigorate revolutionary zeal was initially praised by Western intellectuals as a bold experiment in social equality. Figures like Simone de Beauvoir and members of the French Tel Quel group, including Julia Kristeva, saw the Cultural Revolution as a rejection of bureaucratic socialism in favor of grassroots radicalism. Kristeva wrote, “The Cultural Revolution demonstrates the power of the masses to reshape society according to Marxist principles” (Kristeva, 1974, p. 102).

In reality, the Cultural Revolution was a humanitarian disaster, with millions persecuted, killed, or displaced. Historian Frank Dikötter estimates that at least 1.5 million people died, and tens of millions were subjected to violence or forced labor (Dikötter, 2016, p. 297). The Red Guards, Mao’s youthful enforcers, targeted intellectuals themselves, destroying cultural heritage and disrupting education. Sowell notes, “The irony of intellectuals supporting a movement that turned against them underscores their detachment from the consequences of their ideas” (Sowell, 2010, p. 226).

Despite mounting evidence of atrocities, some intellectuals persisted in their support. For example, the Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars, a group of American academics, published sympathetic accounts of the Cultural Revolution, arguing that its excesses were necessary for social transformation (Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars, 1971, p. 45). Sowell attributes this to intellectuals’ “vision of the anointed,” where they see themselves as arbiters of moral progress, unaccountable to practical outcomes (Sowell, 2010, p. 112). Only in the late 1970s, as China’s leadership under Deng Xiaoping acknowledged the Cultural Revolution’s failures, did some intellectuals begin to retract their support, though many, like Sartre, remained unapologetic.

Intellectuals’ Influence on Western Policy Debates

Beyond their support for Marxist regimes, intellectuals have shaped Western political debates, often advocating policies rooted in idealistic assumptions rather than empirical evidence. Sowell argues that intellectuals’ influence stems from their ability to frame issues in ways that resonate with public sentiment, even when their solutions are impractical (Sowell, 2010, p. 89). This section examines two areas where intellectuals’ political misjudgments have had significant impact: the welfare state and the anti-war movement.

The Welfare State and Centralized Planning

In the mid-20th century, intellectuals in Western democracies, particularly in Britain and the United States, championed the expansion of the welfare state, drawing on socialist principles inspired by Marxism. In Britain, the Beveridge Report (1942), authored by economist William Beveridge, laid the foundation for the post-war welfare state, including the National Health Service. Intellectuals like John Maynard Keynes and Harold Laski supported these reforms, arguing that centralized planning could eliminate poverty and inequality. Laski wrote, “The state must take responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, as the market has proven incapable of ensuring justice” (Laski, 1936, p. 204).

While the welfare state achieved some successes, such as improved access to healthcare, it also led to unintended consequences, including bureaucratic inefficiencies and dependency. Sowell critiques this, stating, “Intellectuals’ faith in centralized solutions ignores the knowledge problem—planners cannot possibly account for the dispersed information held by individuals” (Sowell, 2010, p. 145). For example, Britain’s nationalized industries, such as coal and steel, faced chronic inefficiencies, contributing to economic stagnation by the 1970s (Tomlinson, 1997, p. 89). In the United States, the War on Poverty, launched in the 1960s, was similarly driven by intellectuals’ belief in government intervention. However, studies later showed that programs like Aid to Families with Dependent Children increased dependency without significantly reducing poverty rates (Murray, 1984, p. 123).

Sowell argues that intellectuals’ advocacy for these policies often disregarded trade-offs. He writes, “The intellectual’s vision assumes that good intentions lead to good outcomes, ignoring the complexity of human behavior” (Sowell, 2010, p. 134). This assumption led to policies that, while well-meaning, often exacerbated the problems they aimed to solve.

The Anti-War Movement and Vietnam

The Vietnam War (1955–1975) provides another example of intellectuals’ political misjudgments. Many Western intellectuals, including Noam Chomsky and Susan Sontag, opposed U.S. involvement, framing it as imperialist aggression. Chomsky’s American Power and the New Mandarins (1969) criticized U.S. policy as a betrayal of democratic values, arguing that intellectuals should resist the “technocratic elite” (Chomsky, 1969, p. 34). While their critique of U.S. intervention had merit, many intellectuals romanticized the North Vietnamese regime, ignoring its authoritarianism and human rights abuses.

Sowell notes that intellectuals’ selective outrage often distorts their political judgments. He writes, “Intellectuals are quick to condemn the flaws of their own societies while excusing or ignoring those of regimes they admire” (Sowell, 2010, p. 214). For instance, the North Vietnamese government’s persecution of dissidents and forced collectivization were rarely addressed by anti-war intellectuals. After the fall of Saigon in 1975, the re-education camps and mass exodus of “boat people” revealed the costs of communist victory, yet few intellectuals acknowledged their earlier misjudgments (Nguyen, 2017, p. 211).

Consequences of Intellectuals’ Misjudgments

The political misjudgments of intellectuals have had profound consequences, both in Marxist regimes and in Western policy. Sowell emphasizes that the human cost of these errors is often borne by ordinary people, not the intellectuals who advocate them. He writes, “The intellectual’s ideas, when wrong, impose costs on others, while the intellectual himself remains insulated from the consequences” (Sowell, 2010, p. 292).

Human Costs of Marxist Regimes

The human toll of Marxist regimes supported by intellectuals is staggering. In the Soviet Union, Stalin’s purges and forced collectivization killed millions, yet intellectuals like Sidney and Beatrice Webb dismissed these as necessary for progress (Webb & Webb, 1935, p. 567). In China, the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution led to tens of millions of deaths, with intellectuals’ endorsements lending legitimacy to these policies. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge (1975–1979), influenced by Marxist ideology and praised by some Western intellectuals like François Ponchaud before he later recanted, resulted in the deaths of approximately 1.7 million people (Kiernan, 2002, p. 458). Sowell observes, “The intellectual’s role in legitimizing such regimes cannot be overstated, as their rhetoric provides a veneer of moral justification” (Sowell, 2010, p. 226).

Policy Failures in the West

In Western democracies, intellectuals’ advocacy for centralized planning and social engineering has led to policy failures with lasting impacts. For example, urban renewal programs in the United States, inspired by intellectuals like Lewis Mumford, demolished vibrant communities in the name of progress, often displacing minorities and exacerbating poverty (Jacobs, 1961, p. 312). Similarly, the push for decriminalization of certain behaviors, influenced by intellectuals like Michel Foucault, led to unintended increases in crime rates in some cities during the 1970s (Wilson, 1983, p. 145). Sowell argues that these outcomes reflect intellectuals’ failure to anticipate trade-offs, stating, “The intellectual’s vision assumes that problems can be solved without creating new ones, a delusion that repeatedly proves costly” (Sowell, 2010, p. 134).

Reflections on the Role of Intellectuals in Politics

The persistent pattern of intellectuals’ political misjudgments raises questions about their proper role in public life. Sowell argues that intellectuals’ influence should be tempered by greater accountability to empirical evidence and practical outcomes. He writes, “The intellectual’s proper role is to critique and inform, not to dictate solutions from a position of unearned authority” (Sowell, 2010, p. 293). This section considers how intellectuals’ influence can be balanced and whether their errors are inevitable.

The Need for Accountability

One solution is to subject intellectuals’ ideas to the same scrutiny as other professions. Unlike doctors or engineers, whose errors have immediate consequences, intellectuals face little accountability for their political advocacy. Sowell suggests that “intellectuals should be held to account by the public, not just by their peers” (Sowell, 2010, p. 295). This could involve greater transparency in public discourse, such as requiring intellectuals to disclose their assumptions and engage with opposing views. For example, the debate over welfare reform in the 1990s, where intellectuals like Charles Murray faced rigorous public scrutiny, led to more balanced policies (Murray, 1984, p. 156).

The Role of Dissenting Intellectuals

Not all intellectuals have fallen prey to political naivety. Figures like George Orwell and Raymond Aron, who criticized Marxist regimes from a position of intellectual rigor, demonstrate that skepticism can temper ideological excesses. Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945) and 1984 (1949) exposed the dangers of totalitarianism, drawing on his firsthand observations of Soviet propaganda. Aron, in The Opium of the Intellectuals (1955), critiqued the allure of Marxism, arguing that it seduced intellectuals with its promise of moral certainty (Aron, 1955, p. 212). Sowell praises such figures, noting, “Intellectuals who challenge the prevailing vision perform a vital service, as they force a reckoning with reality” (Sowell, 2010, p. 287).

Are Misjudgments Inevitable?

The question remains whether intellectuals’ political errors are an inevitable consequence of their role. Sowell argues that their detachment from practical constraints makes misjudgments likely but not inevitable. He writes, “Intellectuals can avoid error by grounding their ideas in evidence and respecting the limits of human knowledge” (Sowell, 2010, p. 296). However, the incentives of the intellectual class—peer validation, moral posturing, and insulation from consequences—encourage ideological overreach. Addressing this requires a cultural shift toward valuing humility and empirical rigor over rhetorical flair.

Conclusion

This essay has argued that intellectuals have consistently erred in political matters due to their preference for abstract theories over empirical realities, as illustrated by their support for Marxism and other utopian ideologies. Part 1 traced this pattern from the Enlightenment to the early 20th century, while Part 2 examined intellectuals’ endorsements of the Cuban Revolution and China’s Cultural Revolution, their influence on Western policy, and the consequences of their misjudgments. Drawing on Thomas Sowell’s Intellectuals and Society, we have seen how intellectuals’ insulation from accountability and their commitment to visionary ideals have led to repeated political failures, often with devastating human costs.

The role of intellectuals in politics remains a double-edged sword. While they can illuminate complex issues, their tendency to prioritize theory over practice makes their influence fraught with risk. To mitigate this, intellectuals must embrace greater accountability, engage with dissenting voices, and ground their ideas in evidence. As Sowell concludes, “The intellectual’s greatest contribution is to clarify, not to dictate; to question, not to command” (Sowell, 2010, p. 297). By heeding this advice, intellectuals may yet fulfill their potential as critics and informants without repeating the costly errors of the past.

References

References

• Aron, R. (1955). The Opium of the Intellectuals. Paris: Calmann-Lévy.
• Burke, E. (1790). Reflections on the Revolution in France. London: J. Dodsley.
• Chomsky, N. (1969). American Power and the New Mandarins. New York: Pantheon Books.
• Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars. (1971). China! Inside the People’s Republic. New York: Bantam Books.
• Conquest, R. (1990). The Great Terror: A Reassessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Dikötter, F. (2010). Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe. New York: Walker & Co.
• Dikötter, F. (2016). The Cultural Revolution: A People’s History, 1962–1976. New York: Bloomsbury.
• Farber, S. (2006). The Origins of the Cuban Revolution Reconsidered. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
• Hill, C. (1972). The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution. London: Penguin.
• Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
• Kiernan, B. (2002). The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power, and Genocide in Cambodia. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Kristeva, J. (1974). About Chinese Women. Paris: Éditions des Femmes.
• Laski, H. (1936). The Rise of European Liberalism. London: Allen & Unwin.
• Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). The Communist Manifesto. London: Workers’ Educational Association.
• Mills, C. W. (1960). Listen, Yankee: The Revolution in Cuba. New York: Ballantine Books.
• Murray, C. (1984). Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950–1980. New York: Basic Books.
• Nguyen, V. T. (2017). Nothing Ever Dies: Vietnam and the Memory of War. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Orwell, G. (1945). Animal Farm. London: Secker & Warburg.
• Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. London: Secker & Warburg.
• Pérez, L. A. (1995). Cuba: Between Reform and Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Rousseau, J.-J. (1762). The Social Contract. Amsterdam: Marc-Michel Rey.
• Sartre, J.-P. (1961). Sartre on Cuba. New York: Ballantine Books.
• Shaw, G. B. (1931). The Rationalization of Russia. London: Contact Editions.
• Sontag, S. (1969). Styles of Radical Will. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Sowell, T. (2010). Intellectuals and Society. New York: Basic Books.
• Tomlinson, J. (1997). The Politics of Decline: Understanding Post-War Britain. London: Routledge.
• Webb, S., & Webb, B. (1935). Soviet Communism: A New Civilization?. London: Longmans, Green & Co.
• Wilson, J. Q. (1983). Thinking About Crime. New York: Basic Books.