Criticism Of Hobsbawm

[Morag]

Okay, so recently I've been working my way through Hobsbawm's "Age of Extremes," which I was supposed to have read last year for a class, but didn't. Anyways, I always like to know what people think a historian's weaknesses are, so that's what I'm asking:

As a historian (not his personal views unless you think they colour his analysis), what do you think Hobsbawn's weaknesses are? I feel he glosses over a few things that are really important, but I might think that because they bolster socialism (which I think a lot of socialists, ect., want to see expanded on as much as possible), when those details don't in fact change the overall analysis.

And because I plan to read through several Marxist historian's works (like Hill, for example), feel free to speak about any of them.

Any opinion is helpful, so long as it actually has something to do with their analysis of history. Thanks.

[Ian]

I actually thought it was a fantastic book which did cover most of the issues in 'Really existing socialism', it doesn't go into depth about Stalin but he explains that as being already done in other books and he cites demographic figures without comment which indicate the deaths of many.

Very good historian. I think the biggest criticism people have of him was when he once said it would have all been worth it if it resulted in communism, which I agree with.

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 08:21 AM
I think the biggest criticism people have of him was when he once said it would have all been worth it if it resulted in communism, which I agree with.
I think this quote (presuming this is an accurate reflection of Hobsbawm) is part of many people's problem with traditional Marxist thinking. It illustrates an approach which is quite happy to use people as instruments in the name of some greater good, and it is assumes that the approaches that need to be used to force people to do these things (e.g. Stakhanovite working practices and authoritarianism) will a) help reach that goal, b) somehow disappear once that goal is reached.

Anyway, not necessarily saying that is what Hobsbawm believed or that traditional Marxists don't feel this is an unjust characterisation, just that I can see why people might not be too chuffed with that type of statement. I'm not particulary either, tbh...

Back on topic, I think most people's problem with Hobsbawm has been his recent apologias for New Labour and his refusal to disengage with the Soviet Union after 1956 (which his recent autobiography was pretty unconvincing about). On the anarchist side there've been a few problems with his characterisation of anarchists in Spain as largely millenarian - since pretty much disproved by "The Anarchists of Casas Viejas". Beyond that I'm not entirely sure but I quite enjoy reading some of his stuff...

[Invader Zim]

Well, Hobsbawm can be be critisised, like any of the British Marxist historians. Thompson, admitted later in his career that he had underestimated the significance of gender history among other things. All the Marxist historians, are to an extent, guilty of that.

[jaycee]

Hobsbawm is a pretty good historian and is often good to use to argue against 'revisionist' historians, which most seem to be these days.

being a stalinist though means his analysis of the soviet union, especially, is a bit crap.

That pretty much covers it

[blake 3:17]

The main criticism I'd make of Hobsbawn is that he's on the "meta" side. He tends more towards a history from above than other left social historians. But reading Thompson I learnt way more about the price of textiles in Sheffield than I'd ever want to know...

There's a long interview/small book, On the Edge of the New Century that complements The Age of Extremes which I found very lucid, canny, and provocative.

[The Idler]

Don't know if necroposting is allowed but there is a good article here about Hobsbawm (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/feb2009/livi-f14.shtml).