Historians worth reading?

[allen-uk]

Hello.

Eric Hobsbawm - is he worth reading? I want someone who will give a sympathetic but CRITICAL explanation of the twentieth century, in particular the Stalin era in the Soviet Union and Mao's period in China.

If not Hobsbawm, any other ideas? How about Stephen Ambrose - he always seemed good when I caught bits of his explanations on the TV.

Thanks.

Allen, London.

[Invader Zim]

Hello Allen. Welcome to the board, however I fear that I have some bad news for you on two different points. Firstly do you want a sympathetic history of Stalin, or an accurate well respected one? If the former then no doubt the resident Stalinist's can point you in the direction of some banal propaganda masquerading as a legitimate historical investigation, i.e. Doug Tottle, Ludo Martens, etc.

Secondly, looking for a single text to explain the 20th century is a waste of time, and reading Hobsbawm on the 20th century is even more of a waste of time. Don't get me wrong, Hobsbawm is a quality historian if you read him on the areas he knows. The Age of Extremes is unfortunately looking at a period of history which is not his speciality, and Interesting Times isn't even a history book, more an autobiography. Hobsbawm's earlier works on the industrial revolution are far, far superior.

As for Ambrose, not worth reading for a serious historical investigation, the guy became a self confessed story-teller rather than a historian.

So sorry, i don't think I can point you in the direction of any one text. There are of course hundreds of very good works looking at different elements of the 20th century.

[allen-uk]

Thanks, Zim. That's a start, at least, and has saved me from some dead ends.

What I want is a Marxist history of those periods. Not an apology, a history. Yes, I know all that stuff about all history being biased, of course, hence my leaning towards Hobsbawm, whose heart at least is in the right place.

So, again: can someone please recommend a book, or a historian, who covers the early history of the Soviet Union from both a critical standpoint (i.e. Stalin was NOT perfect, and why), and from a Marxist one (i.e. what happened to the SU in political and economic terms), and from a pro-Soviet one (i.e. recognising the almost incredible achievements made in 2 or 3 decades).

Thanks.

Allen.

[which doctor]

Howard Zinn and Charles Mann are pretty good, but I'm not sure if they're exactly what you're looking for.

[allen-uk]

Thanks Fob.

Are you saying I'm looking for something which doesn't exist? If so, I'll stop banging me head against the wall!

Allen.

[Invader Zim]

Thanks Fob.

Are you saying I'm looking for something which doesn't exist? If so, I'll stop banging me head against the wall!

Allen.

I think you may well be. Sure there are historys of the 20th century, but they aren't very good. There are literally tons and tons worth of books dedicated to various aspects of the 20th century, trying to write a good book which deals with such a vast topic would be impossible. That is why historians, attempting to write a serious monograph, never really bother to attempt it. of course there are plenty of books purporting to explain the history of the 20th century, but they all invariably lack any real depth; Hobsbawm included.

But I guess, upon some more reflection, maybe The Age of Extremes is what you are looking for; just as long as you remember that the work is very basic and not Hobsbawms field.

[trivas7]

From Verso press comes this (http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-World-Stone-Millennium/dp/1844672387/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220897130&sr=8-1) which I confess I've only glanced through at a local brainfeed. I'm assuming its based on Howard Zinn's People's History of the US which I enjoyed immensely. It looked interesting.

I also learned a lot from Paul Johnson's Modern Times (http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Times-Revised-Twenties-Perennial/dp/0060935502/ref=sr_1_1Modern Times[/URL). Keep in mind he is very conservative ("with anarchist tendencies").

[Red Anarchist of Love]

howard Zinns book A peoples history of the U.S. is my favorate view point on history. I read other books was bored by the lack of understanding of the human race as a whole.

[Devrim]

I like Hobsbawn. He writes well, and in the series of which 'Age of Extremes' is the final book, he manages to give the reader a good overall impression of the period he is writing about. He is a good historian.

That said, I don't like his politics, and obviously 'Age of Extremes' is the book from the series where the things I don't like come out the most. Despite that it is still not a bad book.

Devrim

[#FF0000]

Zinn is interesting to read, but I wouldn't call him especially accurate. It seems like every so often, he'll just sort of leave out some facts that don't agree with him.

[allen-uk]

Three things, then.

1) How about a Marxist analysis of the Stalin years in the SU? The 'straight' history I know already.

2) Paul Johnson isn't a conservative with anarchist tendencies. He is a fascist. And no, I don't mean I disagree with him, therefore he is a fascist. Paul Johnson IS a fascist.

3) Thanks for the other ideas. I shall pursue them.


Allen.

[Os Cangaceiros]

David Montgomery (labor historian).

[Winter]

Three things, then.

1) How about a Marxist analysis of the Stalin years in the SU? The 'straight' history I know already.

If you can find it, I suggest The Stalin Era by Anna Louise Strong.

Also, Another View of Stalin by Ludos Marten: http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

[ajs2007]

Three things, then.

1) How about a Marxist analysis of the Stalin years in the SU? The 'straight' history I know already.



I'd recommend Russia: From Revolution to Counter-revolution by Ted Grant.

You can even read it on-line on the In Defence of Marxism website (I can't post the link as the board software won't let me, but PM me if you want it).

It was written in the mid-90s and it's not an academic history I grant you, but it is a Marxist analysis of events in the Soviet Union including the Stalin years which is what you're looking for. Of course there is disagreement on the left about exactly what the Soviet Union was, so there is no one Marxist analysis. Personally I thought Ted got it right.

[Big Red]

as far as strictly Stalin/USSR history if you can find the History channels biography of Stalin called STALIN: MAN OF STEEL I found it pretty engaged,as for the viewpoints your looking for check out www.Marxists.org for a number of good historical accounts of many Marxists events etc.as for historians in general Howard Zinn seems good I flipped through a graphic novel that he narrates about the American Empire which from what i read was good, and revealing as well as ingaging and well drawn

[which doctor]

as far as strictly Stalin/USSR history if you can find the History channels biography of Stalin called STALIN: MAN OF STEEL I found it pretty engaged
I wouldn't trust much on the History Channel. They have a strong tendency to do specials on pseudoscience and pseudohistory. They overexaggerate the factuality of conspiracy theories and even go as far as to popularize them.

[Harrycombs]

Howard Zinn


Thats easily my favorite historian. His book "A People's History of the United States", is what got me interested in politics in the first place.

[JimmyJazz]

David Montgomery (labor historian).


Yeah. Also Philip Foner, one of my fav authors. If you want labor history you might be interested in several of these books (http://www.amazon.com/The-Working-Class/lm/R1XCGT9U8ZNW1N/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_title_full).

Edit: Also Frances Fox Piven, a historical sociologist. You might enjoy Poor People's Movements and Regulating The Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare. They're basically history plus analysis.

[Sendo]

Eric Foner (US). Gao Mobo (GPCR).

PEASANTS, REBELS, WOMEN, AND OUTCASTES: The Underside of Modern Japan, Second Edition. By Mikiso Hane

Michael Parenti

Check out people Chomsky cites, too.

[DancingLarry]

Also Frances Fox Piven, a historical sociologist. You might enjoy Poor People's Movements and Regulating The Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare. They're basically history plus analysis.

Oh ding ding ding. Frances Fox Piven wins my ultimate merit badge for being thinker theorist writer teacher activist organizer journalist and agitator all at once, and did all of them well. I guess she's still alive, but must be quite elderly by now.

[Glenn Beck]

It's hard enough to get an unbiased account of the goddamn Peloponnesian War, much less the USSR :tt2:

I can't suggest much other than Howard Zinn, who I've read and found great but a little shallow, although I haven't read him on the Soviet Union. Naturally I will be watching this thread closely in the hopes of alleviating that deficiency

[Vargha Poralli]

The History of Soviet Russia by E.H Carr is a pretty good book.It covers the history of Russia from February revolution to 1930 providing a good cover of all things from the Civil war to the rise of Stalin and the Bureucracy.


IMO Trotsky provides a good Marxists Criticsm not only of USSR under stalin but of the whole Comintern after 1930's

USSR (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm)

Stalintern (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/index.htm)

[Lenin's Law]

Chris Harmon's a People's History of the World is a decent overview of world history coming from a Marxist perspective. Hobsbawm is a good choice though he does have his flaws.

LOL @ the person who recommended The "History" Channel...more and more full of tabloid-esque conspiracies about UFOs, cults and more recently "Monsterquest" adventures in cryptozoology :lol::laugh: I don't see how anyone, heck even a bourgeois lover of history, can take them seriously anymore.

Of course they also had a hard right-wing bias when it come to examining any serious challenge to capitalism..comparing Lenin to a "Red Czar"

[PRC-UTE]

someone already mentioned him, but I would also add that Parenti is good.

anyway, comrade, you're in luck, cos there was already a very good topic about this subject, goes on for a few pages with some great recommendations.

here's the link: http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxist-history-t38044/index.html

[FreeFocus]

Sidney Lens also, without a doubt.

[Il-Peres]

Some pretty good suggestions you made people but there are countless bibliographies on what you are suggesting! Please be more specific because everybody is shooting in the air even though some of you seem to be avid readers. I strongly suggest Trotsky for a history of the Russian revolution and the years which followed but I won't rely on Carr. Don't get me wrong because Carr is a very capable historian and has excellent works, but the history of the Soviet Union has developed so much since he first wrote his History of the Russian Revolution (which I believe was published in the 40s in 3 or 4 volumes). edit volume numbers

It's impossible that only one book will give you a critical history of the 20th century. You must read countless history books and be able to build criticism from the information you gather. For a critical overview of the 20th century Marcuse's One Dimensional Man and Adorno's and Horkheimer's Dialectics of Enlightenment are ESSENTIAL.If you want a quick overview of the history of the 20th century politics you might as well read Peter Calvocoressi World Politics Sicne 1945 and you will eat up a lot of necessary information.

Somebody of you said that they prefer Hobsbawm's earlier work such as the Industrial Revolution and I agree completely but his work on the 20th century is still a good read.

[Oswy]

E.P. Thompson's book The Making of the English Working Class is considered one of the foremost Marxist histories in the English language and which acted as inspiration for the work of many Marxist or Marxist-orientated historians who came after.

I'm currently reading Stephen Humphries' book Hooligans or Rebels? This is a Marxist study of working-class children and young adults in England from c.1890 to 1939 in which the author reconsiders what middle-class commentators, and historians, have understood as merely 'bad behaviour' but which Humphries argues constituted a form of class-conflict - a response to attempts at imposing and inculcating bourgeois social and political values. He examines such things as 'larking about', school strikes, petty theft, gang membership and activities, and disobedience in school.

Worth a read if your local library has it.

[fabiansocialist]

Three things, then.

1) How about a Marxist analysis of the Stalin years in the SU? The 'straight' history I know already.

2) Paul Johnson isn't a conservative with anarchist tendencies. He is a fascist. And no, I don't mean I disagree with him, therefore he is a fascist. Paul Johnson IS a fascist.

Johnson is a garbage historian. A historian at least has to make a stab at being objective and presenting perspectives and ideas he may not be sympathetic towards.

Start with Hobsbawm. Read through the quartet (or is it quintet?). That way you'll have some sort of overview. And stop looking for the holy grail of history books: it doesn't exist. Also stop looking exclusively at books that present just the perspective you want ("Marxist"); look at other competing perspectives; history doesn't fit neatly into any one theoretical perspective and indeed such a priori perspectives tend to make for bad history.

Incidentally, avoid Zinn. He's not bad for beginners but you're past that stage.

[DesertShark]

Howard Zinn and Charles Mann are pretty good, but I'm not sure if they're exactly what you're looking for.

howard Zinns book A peoples history of the U.S. is my favorate view point on history. I read other books was bored by the lack of understanding of the human race as a whole.

Zinn is interesting to read, but I wouldn't call him especially accurate. It seems like every so often, he'll just sort of leave out some facts that don't agree with him.

I'd recommend if you are going to read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States to read it along side Lies my Teacher Told Me by James Loewen to really cover US History not normally found in text books.

-DesertShark