Eric Hobsbawm

[Tommy4ever]

What do you guys think of him?

I just got two of his books, having never read anything by him before, but know he is pretty much the only Marxist mainstream historian.

So, how to you rate him and his works?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

There are those who could answer this better than me but I have read a fair amou nt of Hobsbawm so I'll take a stab at it.

First, the guy's a good writer.His autobiography "Interesting Times, A Twentieth Century Life" is a pretty amazing bittersweet account of his long interesting life.

His history series from 1789 to 1990 whenever is interesting.He is best with the 19th century. His elliptical writing style get irritating-"we can see this happening, therefore this is true, but on the other hand...", its sometimes hard to see where he stands. He does this more and more as he gets into the 20th century.

His politics are less than great. He is very pessimistic about the prospects for socialism. as I understand he was in the Euro-communist wing of the original CPGB.

His recent book "How To Change The World" has not gotten good reviews on leftist sites. His work on pirates and "primitive rebels" is supposed to be very interesting, I haven't read it yet.

Overall he's definitely worth reading but should be taken with more than a few grains of salt.

[x359594]

...Overall he's definitely worth reading but should be taken with more than a few grains of salt.

I've read The Age of Revolution, The Age of Capital and The Age of Empire of the histories, and as Lenina noted he handles the 19th century best. Bandits and Primitive Rebels have good information and references but Hobsbawm's interpretation are questionable.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

So, how to you rate him and his works?

Him: I took a seminar with Hobsbawm a while back. One day we all turn up, the elevator's broken, the classroom's on the fifth floor. So we're all standing around wondering what to do, and Eric (who must have been in his eighties) walks in, and without breaking stride makes for the stairs which he runs up, with a bunch of grad students a third his age straggling behind him.

His works: see above. The guy's a good, solid, hard-working intellectual without much interest in theory, which is why his history handbooks are so popular - and BTW I have no quarrel with the earlier volumes, and that's the era I know best.

My favorite memory is of some Marxist-Leninist-Whatever who's decided to "denounce" him, and Eric's just sitting there, smiling quietly until the kid's done blurting out every piece of stale rhetoric imaginable. What an inspiration!

[Invader Zim]

but know he is pretty much the only Marxist mainstream historian.




Wrong.

[Tommy4ever]

Wrong.

Who else is a well known Marxist historian then?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Christopher Hill, famous for his work on the English Revolution of the 1640s. There's a student of Hill, who's name escapes me at the moment, whose work may on this period may be even better. Chris Harmon, author of "A People's History of The World". EH Carr who wrote oin the history of the Russian Revolution. EP Thompson's "History of the English Working Class" is a classic. Eric Foner's work is on the US Reconstruction period. There are many others.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Old from before he went crazy Eugene Genovese is p. good.

[Red Commissar]

Christopher Hill, famous for his work on the English Revolution of the 1640s. There's a student of Hill, who's name escapes me at the moment, whose work may on this period may be even better. Chris Harmon, author of "A People's History of The World". EH Carr who wrote oin the history of the Russian Revolution. EP Thompson's "History of the English Working Class" is a classic. Eric Foner's work is on the US Reconstruction period. There are many others.

Eric Foner's a Marxist? I haven't read much of his work though my history professor assigned his "Give Me Liberty" textbook as the primary body for the American History class I took three years ago, and I did get the impression from that he was definitely a progressive based on the way he presented the material. Definitely a relief from the "Lost Cause" trash I was exposed to earlier in high school. I've been meaning to pick up the Reconstruction one at the library though.

As for Hobsbawn, I've not been exposed to his works at all. I've only heard of him from other people, ranging from his work on history and his association with Eurocommunist tendencies in the political realm. As Lenina and X stated before, I also got the impression his work was stronger in the 1800s and the Industrial Revolution. He was also an avid reader of Gramsci and was among those that helped to popularize him in the UK among Marxists there.

A long lecture he gave on that topic:

X6Pb0Ttkerw


People like him are helpful though, it's troubling how much reactionary drivel gets into popular history nowadays. It's always good when books by men like him are well received and read as it will help to dispel "popular" conceptions of history.

[Zanthorus]

There's a student of Hill, who's name escapes me at the moment, whose work may on this period may be even better.

Are you perhaps thinking of Brian Manning?

[bailey_187]

Who else is a well known Marxist historian then?

I think Christopher Wickham is a fairly well known and mainstream (for history). Not in the sense of Nial Fergusson or even Hobsbawm, but its common to see his books in history sections of mainstream bookshops, that u wouldnt find usually. I dont know anything about his field of history though (medieval), so i may be wrong.

I think maybe a few of the french historians of the French Revolution are quite well known in France too?

[Rooster]

Out of interest, which two books?

[Tommy4ever]

Out of interest, which two books?

''Revolutionaries'' - a bunch of very interesting essays from the 60s on various topics.

''The Age of Revolutions: 1789-1848'' - not started it yet.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

I think maybe a few of the french historians of the French Revolution are quite well known in France too?

Uh...yeah. Until 30 years ago any serious historian of the French Revolution was Marxist or Marxist-inspired. The dean was Georges Lefebvre, whose books are available in English, but Georges Rudé's worth reading (on crowd theory), as is Michel Vovelle the last of the great Marxist historians of the French Revolution (so far!) Vovelle was viciously smeared along with the right-wing counterattack against Marxist historians of the French Revolution, in the years around the 1989 Bicentenary. The smearer-in-chief was François Furet, a repentant Stalinist, who wrote a hugely influential put-down of Marxist histories of the French Revolution - actually an interesting read. Know thine enemy.

Incidentally, Jaures wrote a "people's history" of the French Revolution. Marx merely planned one.

[x359594]

...Incidentally, Jaures wrote a "people's history" of the French Revolution. Marx merely planned one.

Another "people's history" is The Great French Revolution by Kropotkin.

[Invader Zim]

Who else is a well known Marxist historian then?

Let me google that for you. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=marxist+historiography)

[Tommy4ever]

Let me google that for you. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=marxist+historiography)

I meant living ones ...

But anyway, other people have already proved me wrong. Even if I thought one or two of the people already mentioned were dead its pretty clear that there are other mainstream Marxist historians still knocking about.

[Fivepence]

It is hard to see EH Carr as a Marxist. But we should not forget either Glyn Williams or AL Morton

Both very good writers too