Only thing I can think of would be some sort of takedown of Hannah Arendt. I took a senior level philosophy class a year or two ago as an elective to meet credit hour requirements for my scholarship (I'm a physics major btw), and our professor had us read "The Human Condition" as the first of the three main books the class was about. Overall, the book was decent, but there was this one section where Arendt talks about automation and in it she offers a critique of Marx that I thought was pretty stupid.
Now, I could be misinterpreting her (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), but her issue with Marx and automation basically seemed to be the following: Marx thought that automation was a universally good thing in and of itself, and would solve the exploitation/alienation of the working class. She counters by saying that automation would actually further alienate the working class. The way I interpreted it she was basically offering a Marxist critique of Marx, pointing out that labor is all that workers have in a capitalist society, and that automation under capitalism would completely alienate the workers from every aspect of society, essentially making them unpersons. But this should be obviously stupid, Marx was advocating for a society in which the working class would be in control, and so automation wouldn't alienate workers because they would be in control of the terms of their own automation.
So basically in the book she seemed to have this semi-Marxist view of historical development, but with her critique of Marx, as well as her equating Nazi Germany and the USSR, she's just way too ingrained into her 1950s version of capitalist realism. Also, at the end of the class, we had to write a 10 page essay on any text we had covered in the class, so I basically wrote a 10 page version of this comment where I used Marx and Marxist ideas to solve Arendt's critique of Marx. Not a "colossal and well-researched book" and I don't really know how much more I could write on the topic, but I certainly could've gone into more depth if I wasn't constrained to 10 pages. On top of that, I would've gotten an A minus on the essay if I hadn't turned it in a day late, so it seems like the professor thought I did good, despite me only starting to work on it 2-3 days before it was due.
I think her critique had to deal with automation happening before workers were in control, and that was the point afaik as then the revolution would not be organizable, and that it fundamentally bound workers to labor in a non libratory way but haven't read it in a long time. I think she does misread Marx in that a lot of her criticism seems to be thinking that Marx bounds human beings to labor, but imo Marx still wants people to escape the chains of labor on human freedom so the critique doesn't add up. She also thinks he's determinist which is a bad reading. Marx to me is fundamentally a radicalization of republican freedom, so her searches for how little tidbits of Marx hint at totalitarianism are basically illogically working backwards, in that she's presuming they exist because the USSR so widely misused Marx thus it has to be the kernels are there in his work.
Also note on her totalitarianism, the first draft of the work only was about Nazi Germany, there was no mention of the USSR at all. Why she tacked on the analysis of Stalinism at the end is unclear. Regardless her Totalitarianism is basically an update to the critique of Bonapartism.
Only thing I can think of would be some sort of takedown of Hannah Arendt. I took a senior level philosophy class a year or two ago as an elective to meet credit hour requirements for my scholarship (I'm a physics major btw), and our professor had us read "The Human Condition" as the first of the three main books the class was about. Overall, the book was decent, but there was this one section where Arendt talks about automation and in it she offers a critique of Marx that I thought was pretty stupid.
Now, I could be misinterpreting her (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), but her issue with Marx and automation basically seemed to be the following: Marx thought that automation was a universally good thing in and of itself, and would solve the exploitation/alienation of the working class. She counters by saying that automation would actually further alienate the working class. The way I interpreted it she was basically offering a Marxist critique of Marx, pointing out that labor is all that workers have in a capitalist society, and that automation under capitalism would completely alienate the workers from every aspect of society, essentially making them unpersons. But this should be obviously stupid, Marx was advocating for a society in which the working class would be in control, and so automation wouldn't alienate workers because they would be in control of the terms of their own automation.
So basically in the book she seemed to have this semi-Marxist view of historical development, but with her critique of Marx, as well as her equating Nazi Germany and the USSR, she's just way too ingrained into her 1950s version of capitalist realism. Also, at the end of the class, we had to write a 10 page essay on any text we had covered in the class, so I basically wrote a 10 page version of this comment where I used Marx and Marxist ideas to solve Arendt's critique of Marx. Not a "colossal and well-researched book" and I don't really know how much more I could write on the topic, but I certainly could've gone into more depth if I wasn't constrained to 10 pages. On top of that, I would've gotten an A minus on the essay if I hadn't turned it in a day late, so it seems like the professor thought I did good, despite me only starting to work on it 2-3 days before it was due.
I think her critique had to deal with automation happening before workers were in control, and that was the point afaik as then the revolution would not be organizable, and that it fundamentally bound workers to labor in a non libratory way but haven't read it in a long time. I think she does misread Marx in that a lot of her criticism seems to be thinking that Marx bounds human beings to labor, but imo Marx still wants people to escape the chains of labor on human freedom so the critique doesn't add up. She also thinks he's determinist which is a bad reading. Marx to me is fundamentally a radicalization of republican freedom, so her searches for how little tidbits of Marx hint at totalitarianism are basically illogically working backwards, in that she's presuming they exist because the USSR so widely misused Marx thus it has to be the kernels are there in his work.
Also note on her totalitarianism, the first draft of the work only was about Nazi Germany, there was no mention of the USSR at all. Why she tacked on the analysis of Stalinism at the end is unclear. Regardless her Totalitarianism is basically an update to the critique of Bonapartism.