What do you think?
Rate this book
Como Mudar o Mundo
Como demonstram os prefácios, artigos, conferências e ensaios reunidos em Como mudar o mundo, a militância política de Eric Hobsbawm tem convivido de modo fecundo com sua consagrada produção intelectual. Numa coletânea que abrange décadas de intensa proximidade com a obra de Karl Marx (1818-83) e a tradição marxista, o historiador britânico reafirma a atualidade das reflexões sobre o capitalismo realizadas pelo filósofo, sociólogo e jornalista alemão - e seu colaborador, Friedrich Engels (1820-95) - a partir da década de 1840.
O livro consiste numa espécie de tributo à influência de Marx sobre Hobsbawm, algo visível ao longo de toda sua trajetória acadêmica e política. Firmemente estabelecidas desde 1931, quando ingressou ainda adolescente numa liga de jovens comunistas em Berlim, as simpatias ideológicas do historiador não comprometem, contudo, a lucidez da sua interpretação dos trágicos erros cometidos ao longo do século XX em nome das ideias do autor de O Capital.
A primeira parte de Como mudar o mundo é dedicada ao estudo das condições de produção e recepção dos textos fundadores do marxismo, como o Manifesto do partido comunista, os Grundrisse e A situação da classe trabalhadora na Inglaterra. Hobsbawm aponta os antecedentes históricos do pensamento marxiano em diversos autores, destacando, contudo, sua originalidade na interpretação global da sociedade capitalista e de suas contradições atuais.
Na segunda parte, o autor analisa a história do marxismo a partir da década de 1890 (depois da morte de Engels), destacando sua trajetória inicial entre os sindicatos operários, o crescimento dos partidos social-democratas europeus, a luta antifascista entre a Primeira e a Segunda Guerra Mundial, e a influência do marxismo na obra de intelectuais do pós-guerra e nos regimes comunistas da Europa e da Ásia. O pensador italiano Antonio Gramsci e sua intervenção no debate marxista são objeto de dois capítulos.
451 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2011
181 people are currently reading
4385 people want to read
About the author
Eric J. Hobsbawm
215 books1,711 followersEric John Ernest Hobsbawm was a British historian of the rise of industrial capitalism, socialism and nationalism. His best-known works include his tetralogy about what he called the "long 19th century" (The Age of Revolution: Europe 1789–1848, The Age of Capital: 1848–1875 and The Age of Empire: 1875–1914) and the "short 20th century" (The Age of Extremes), and an edited volume that introduced the influential idea of "invented traditions". A life-long Marxist, his socio-political convictions influenced the character of his work.
Hobsbawm was born in Alexandria, Egypt, and spent his childhood mainly in Vienna and Berlin. Following the death of his parents and the rise to power of Adolf Hitler, Hobsbawm moved to London with his adoptive family. After serving in the Second World War, he obtained his PhD in history at the University of Cambridge. In 1998, he was appointed to the Order of the Companions of Honour. He was president of Birkbeck, University of London, from 2002 until his death. In 2003, he received the Balzan Prize for European History since 1900, "for his brilliant analysis of the troubled history of 20th century Europe and for his ability to combine in-depth historical research with great literary talent."
Hobsbawm was born in Alexandria, Egypt, and spent his childhood mainly in Vienna and Berlin. Following the death of his parents and the rise to power of Adolf Hitler, Hobsbawm moved to London with his adoptive family. After serving in the Second World War, he obtained his PhD in history at the University of Cambridge. In 1998, he was appointed to the Order of the Companions of Honour. He was president of Birkbeck, University of London, from 2002 until his death. In 2003, he received the Balzan Prize for European History since 1900, "for his brilliant analysis of the troubled history of 20th century Europe and for his ability to combine in-depth historical research with great literary talent."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 61 reviews
November 28, 2016
Right now is obviously a great time to arm oneself intellectually.
Given what a staid, intellectual figure Hobsbawm was, the title of this book and its cover illustration may seem like an absurd gimmick by the publisher. No,this most definitely is not a peppy manual for activists. At the same time it's also true that Hobsbawm once served as Che Guevara's interpreter. His immense scholarly and intellectual achievements were always wedded to a deep concern for emancipatory politics. Those of us on the left with the leisure and inclination to read immoderately should take him as a model. The last essay in this collection, 'Marx and Labour,' is especially pertinent to present struggles.
*
Hobsbawm was a historian, not a philosopher or critic. Moreover, he was radicalized not in the student rebellions of the '60's but the anti-fascist struggles of the '30's. These two factors combine to make this book very different from new left accounts of intellectual history. The old left has been out of fashion for a long time now. No doubt this obsolescence is partly deserved. Yet as cultural leftism has long since reached a point of diminishing returns and socialism feels like a live option again, we shouldn't be so arrogant to think we have nothing to learn from a fuddy-duddy like Hobsbawm.
(And it might be added, if intellectual Marxism is to have continued relevance to real struggles, it must be the kind practiced by Hobsbawm rather than, say, Frederic Jameson or Adorno. Historical materialism, not the endless critique of cultural objects. Time for the left to move away from its fixation on discourse and semiotics.)
*
How to periodize the present?
Reading this it is hard to avoid the bitter reflection that Obama failed very badly at what could have been a transformational moment. He could possibly have been an FDR-type figure, but instead he baled out the banks and put forward more of the same discredited neo-liberal policies. At best he offered a series of purely symbolic, cultural victories.
It's probably still a little hysterical to speak of the end of the world. What's impossible to deny now is the end of an era, breakdown of consensus reality, etc. By no means is this necessarily a good thing. The death rattle of neo-liberalism may well bring something far more terrible in its wake.
Had Eric Hobsbawm lived to see the catastrophe of November 8, 2016, his voice would be one of the valuable in the world right now. Mortality being what it is, we'll have to make do without him.
Given what a staid, intellectual figure Hobsbawm was, the title of this book and its cover illustration may seem like an absurd gimmick by the publisher. No,this most definitely is not a peppy manual for activists. At the same time it's also true that Hobsbawm once served as Che Guevara's interpreter. His immense scholarly and intellectual achievements were always wedded to a deep concern for emancipatory politics. Those of us on the left with the leisure and inclination to read immoderately should take him as a model. The last essay in this collection, 'Marx and Labour,' is especially pertinent to present struggles.
*
Hobsbawm was a historian, not a philosopher or critic. Moreover, he was radicalized not in the student rebellions of the '60's but the anti-fascist struggles of the '30's. These two factors combine to make this book very different from new left accounts of intellectual history. The old left has been out of fashion for a long time now. No doubt this obsolescence is partly deserved. Yet as cultural leftism has long since reached a point of diminishing returns and socialism feels like a live option again, we shouldn't be so arrogant to think we have nothing to learn from a fuddy-duddy like Hobsbawm.
We cannot foresee the solutions of the problems facing the world in the twenty-first century, but if they are to have a chance of success they must ask Marx's questions, even if they do not wish to accept his various disciples' answers.
(And it might be added, if intellectual Marxism is to have continued relevance to real struggles, it must be the kind practiced by Hobsbawm rather than, say, Frederic Jameson or Adorno. Historical materialism, not the endless critique of cultural objects. Time for the left to move away from its fixation on discourse and semiotics.)
A generation of intellectuals came to Marxism in and mainly through the slump and the struggle against fascism, in times of falling darkness. Those who survived have oftend been disappointed. They have delved into their past to discover whether they were mistaken, what their errors might have been or what went wrong with their high hopes. Many have ceased to be Marxists. But it is safe to say that very few, if any of them, reject their participation in the fight against and defeat of fascism.
*
How to periodize the present?
Then, after the 1970s, everything changed : both Lenin and Bernstein lost their hopes {ie, both revolution and reform}. Everyone knows that the Soviet system collapsed, while the non-state communist parties faded. What is less familiar is that Bernsteinian social democracy was also swept away.
The Iranian revolution of 1979 was the first major revolution since Cromwell's time that was not inspired by a secular ideology but appealed to the masses in the language of religion
The state and other public authorities remain the only institutions capable of distributing the social product among its people, in human terms, and to meet human needs that cannot be satisfied by the market. Politics therefore has remained and remains a necessary struggle for social improvement. Indeed, the great economic crisis that began in 2008 as a sort of right-wing equivalent to the fall of the Berlin Wall brought an immediate realisation that the state was essential to an economy in trouble, as it had been essential to the triumph of neo-liberalism when governments had laid its foundations by systematic privatisation and deregulation.
Reading this it is hard to avoid the bitter reflection that Obama failed very badly at what could have been a transformational moment. He could possibly have been an FDR-type figure, but instead he baled out the banks and put forward more of the same discredited neo-liberal policies. At best he offered a series of purely symbolic, cultural victories.
It's probably still a little hysterical to speak of the end of the world. What's impossible to deny now is the end of an era, breakdown of consensus reality, etc. By no means is this necessarily a good thing. The death rattle of neo-liberalism may well bring something far more terrible in its wake.
Had Eric Hobsbawm lived to see the catastrophe of November 8, 2016, his voice would be one of the valuable in the world right now. Mortality being what it is, we'll have to make do without him.
May 14, 2012
Instructions for reading this somewhat heavy going tome for the Marxian beginner:
1. Accept that you are unlikely to understand everything in this book, or indeed be interested by everything in this book. Tell yourself that if you catch a glimpse of light flashing from one or three of its many facets you will be doing well, but comprehension of the entire shape is the preserve of the expert.
2. Conjour up a mental image of Hobsbawm (Google images for inspiration, or simply imagine your grandad's older brother). The Hobsbawm I summoned up was ensconced in a battered brown wing chair in a room lined with books. A clock ticked respectfully on the mantlepiece and a dim mid-afternoon light filtered in through the window.
3. If possible, get yourself a cup of tea.
4. Pin back your ears and listen to the old man talk, he knows a thing or two.
1. Accept that you are unlikely to understand everything in this book, or indeed be interested by everything in this book. Tell yourself that if you catch a glimpse of light flashing from one or three of its many facets you will be doing well, but comprehension of the entire shape is the preserve of the expert.
2. Conjour up a mental image of Hobsbawm (Google images for inspiration, or simply imagine your grandad's older brother). The Hobsbawm I summoned up was ensconced in a battered brown wing chair in a room lined with books. A clock ticked respectfully on the mantlepiece and a dim mid-afternoon light filtered in through the window.
3. If possible, get yourself a cup of tea.
4. Pin back your ears and listen to the old man talk, he knows a thing or two.
August 17, 2012
Brilliant book, but really, Hobsbawm's publishers have badly let him down with that title which completely misrepresents what this book is about. Perhaps it says more about me that I don't see the need for a lame attempt to sex this book up with a title like that. But it has to be said that this is no book of vacuous polemic: Hobsbawm is clearly deeply committed to the insights of Marx and Marxism but this book is first and foremost a history of those ideas, from the contexts and earliest reception of Marx and Engels' writings, through to their adoption (and inevitably distortion) by later readers and activists like Lenin, Gramsci and Althusser, to the waning of its influence after the fall of the USSR and prospects of revival after the 2008 financial crisis. Hobsbawm himself has clearly been profoundly shaped by these ideas and the book shines when he lets that passionate commitment show. And yet, he's by no means an uncritical historian of the spread of Marxist ideas and it's especially interesting to see his bemusement at Marxism's post-68 annexation by "theory" and move away from committed political action. I can't think of a better place to start though for anyone wanting to learn about how Marx's ideas have helped shape the last century.
June 9, 2022
Marx is back. Even finance capitalists like George Soros are re-reading him with attention, and — more tentatively, after the terrible experience of Stalinism — leftists are rediscovering him. Hobsbawm notes two main reasons: 1st, the collapse of the Soviet Union "liberated Marx from public identification with Leninism in theory and with Leninist regimes in practice," and 2d, "the globalised capitalist world that emerged in the 1990s was in crucial ways uncannily like the world anticipated by Marx in the Communist Manifesto." Hobsbawm himself has been liberated from identification with Leninist regimes (though long active in the British Communist Party, he became increasingly critical of Soviet practices beginning in the 1960s).
In this collection of essays, one written as long ago as 1957 and others published here for the first time, he stresses the "enormous force" of Marx's thought "as an economic thinker, as a historical thinker and analyst, and as the recognised founding father (with Durkheim and Max Weber) of modern thinking about society." But he also points out that Marx never completed his magnum opus, Capital — volumes 2 and 3 were put together by Engels from Marx's notes after Marx's death in 1883 — and left many important issues unresolved. No theory of literature or other arts, though he and Engels were obviously interested and commented on these in their correspondence. Engels' anthropological theorizing, based mainly on the flawed research of Lewis Morgan, doesn't hold up today, though we can still learn something from the questions Engels posed if not his answers.
But the lack most seriously felt by later Marxists has been a theory of politics, despite what Hobsbawm calls (correctly, I think) many "brilliant" political insights in Marx's journalistic writings, especially "The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon" and the pieces gathered by Engels under the title "Civil War in France". How exactly were revolutionaries supposed to make the revolution? And how would the new socialist or communist society be organized? Marx and Engels chose not to say. Lenin, a great pragmatist more than a theoretician, made up theoretical positions on the fly as he tried to solve one problem after another. But according to Hobsbawm it was Antonio Gramsci who "pioneered a Marxist theory of politics." Gramsci was not only the founder of the Italian Communist Party but also a rare intellectual who knew both the rural (Sardinia) and urban industrial (Turin) proletariat. Hobsbawm's two essays on Gramsci will not only remind you of his brilliance and originality, they will no doubt make you want to reread the Prison Notebooks.
Now as then (in the 1880s or 1930s or 1960s) if we are looking for answers for our current economic crisis, we're going to have to make them up ourselves — but Marx and Engels, Gramsci and others can help us formulate the questions we should be asking. And this book by Hobsbawm should help us understand those thinkers.
In this collection of essays, one written as long ago as 1957 and others published here for the first time, he stresses the "enormous force" of Marx's thought "as an economic thinker, as a historical thinker and analyst, and as the recognised founding father (with Durkheim and Max Weber) of modern thinking about society." But he also points out that Marx never completed his magnum opus, Capital — volumes 2 and 3 were put together by Engels from Marx's notes after Marx's death in 1883 — and left many important issues unresolved. No theory of literature or other arts, though he and Engels were obviously interested and commented on these in their correspondence. Engels' anthropological theorizing, based mainly on the flawed research of Lewis Morgan, doesn't hold up today, though we can still learn something from the questions Engels posed if not his answers.
But the lack most seriously felt by later Marxists has been a theory of politics, despite what Hobsbawm calls (correctly, I think) many "brilliant" political insights in Marx's journalistic writings, especially "The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon" and the pieces gathered by Engels under the title "Civil War in France". How exactly were revolutionaries supposed to make the revolution? And how would the new socialist or communist society be organized? Marx and Engels chose not to say. Lenin, a great pragmatist more than a theoretician, made up theoretical positions on the fly as he tried to solve one problem after another. But according to Hobsbawm it was Antonio Gramsci who "pioneered a Marxist theory of politics." Gramsci was not only the founder of the Italian Communist Party but also a rare intellectual who knew both the rural (Sardinia) and urban industrial (Turin) proletariat. Hobsbawm's two essays on Gramsci will not only remind you of his brilliance and originality, they will no doubt make you want to reread the Prison Notebooks.
Now as then (in the 1880s or 1930s or 1960s) if we are looking for answers for our current economic crisis, we're going to have to make them up ourselves — but Marx and Engels, Gramsci and others can help us formulate the questions we should be asking. And this book by Hobsbawm should help us understand those thinkers.
November 29, 2016
I felt some slight trepidation approaching this book, as I haven't studied history since I was 17 and know relatively little about Marxism. I did try and read 'Capital' last summer, but ignominiously failed at the third preface. I've read the Communist Manifesto, though, years ago. In any event, I learned a great deal from this book and, as with all the best non-fiction, it made me realise how much else I don't know.
'How to Change the World' is a collection of Hobsbawm's writing on Marx and Marxism, across various themes and from various points in his career. Personally, I found the in-depth discussion of how particular works came to be published and disseminated less interesting than the broader chapters, especially those that traced the influence of Marx's work through academia in the twentieth century. Thus, I found the latter two thirds of the book much more involving than the first. I was also delighted to be introduced to Gramsci, of whom I had previously known nothing, and whose work Hobsbawm paints an intriguing picture of. I'll definitely look into reading some of his political theory. I also finished this book feeling in need of a biography of Marx, as the essays dealt very much with what Marx wrote and how it was interpreted, as opposed to who Marx (and indeed Engels) was.
Hobsbawm's writing style is almost uniformly fluent and accessible. There were a surprisingly number of typographical errors in the text, though. I'm always surprised to find any whatsoever in published books, but there were quite a few scattered in here. This is only ever likely to bother a tediously pedantic type like me, though. Overall this book provides a fascinatingly broad picture of the influence of Marxist and Marxisant (Marx-ish?) thought, asking such questions as, 'Why wasn't there a Marxist art movement?'
'How to Change the World' is a collection of Hobsbawm's writing on Marx and Marxism, across various themes and from various points in his career. Personally, I found the in-depth discussion of how particular works came to be published and disseminated less interesting than the broader chapters, especially those that traced the influence of Marx's work through academia in the twentieth century. Thus, I found the latter two thirds of the book much more involving than the first. I was also delighted to be introduced to Gramsci, of whom I had previously known nothing, and whose work Hobsbawm paints an intriguing picture of. I'll definitely look into reading some of his political theory. I also finished this book feeling in need of a biography of Marx, as the essays dealt very much with what Marx wrote and how it was interpreted, as opposed to who Marx (and indeed Engels) was.
Hobsbawm's writing style is almost uniformly fluent and accessible. There were a surprisingly number of typographical errors in the text, though. I'm always surprised to find any whatsoever in published books, but there were quite a few scattered in here. This is only ever likely to bother a tediously pedantic type like me, though. Overall this book provides a fascinatingly broad picture of the influence of Marxist and Marxisant (Marx-ish?) thought, asking such questions as, 'Why wasn't there a Marxist art movement?'
September 12, 2015
Eric Hobsbawm was a self-proclaimed "unabashed Communist" to the end; in response to a question asking why he had not left the party--when other leftist intellectuals, his friend EP Thompson included, left -- he answered that the dream of the October Revolution still burned bright in his heart. He was also, in my estimation, the most brilliant historian working in the second half of the 20th century. In this brilliant work he turns his sharp analytic eye to the thinker and theory that he held so dear. The result is a wonderfully erudite history of Marxism beginning with the pre-Marxist socialists, a thorough examination of major Marxist works, a discussion of Gramsci and ending with Hobsbawm's argument on why Marx still matters to the world (especially after 2007-8).
August 13, 2019
Simply, a must-read for everyone interested in the history of marxism/marxist thought. Well written, encyclopedic and solid. Hobsbawm as we knew him.
December 13, 2019
Reading this felt as ponderous as writing the last two Game of Thrones books must have felt for George R.R. Martin. Which is not to say it was bad. It’s just that written in the author’s 94th year, and addressing his life’s principal passion, the writings and legacy of Mr. K.M. himself.
So in the first part, he lays out the 70 odd years of thoughts he’s had as to what Marx actually wrote and what it actually meant, and what’s been overlooked by scholars from the lesser known or untranslated works. The latter half of the book tackles the innately ethereal subject of Marx’s influence during Hobsbawm’s lifetime. It comes about as close to a history of recent times as I’ve seen, since I’m quite persuaded with his final argument that Marx’s diagnosis of what capitalism would amount to in the 1840s is even more accurate today. Still, it comes off as bittersweet that this eminent master of Anglo-communist theory concludes what must be one of his last books with a plea for relevance.
It also reminded me greatly of Inverting The Pyramid, the soccer-tactics history written by Guardian scribe Jonathan Wilson. In its own way, Wilson fighting against the “kick-and-rush” traditionalism of English football is rather like Hobsbawm advocating against the “rational markets” theory of liberal economics. And both writers are so intimidatingly smart they can’t help but expose you to the full brunt of their accumulated thinkings.
My 50 books goal looks to be in jeopardy, however. I should pick something more slight next time.
So in the first part, he lays out the 70 odd years of thoughts he’s had as to what Marx actually wrote and what it actually meant, and what’s been overlooked by scholars from the lesser known or untranslated works. The latter half of the book tackles the innately ethereal subject of Marx’s influence during Hobsbawm’s lifetime. It comes about as close to a history of recent times as I’ve seen, since I’m quite persuaded with his final argument that Marx’s diagnosis of what capitalism would amount to in the 1840s is even more accurate today. Still, it comes off as bittersweet that this eminent master of Anglo-communist theory concludes what must be one of his last books with a plea for relevance.
It also reminded me greatly of Inverting The Pyramid, the soccer-tactics history written by Guardian scribe Jonathan Wilson. In its own way, Wilson fighting against the “kick-and-rush” traditionalism of English football is rather like Hobsbawm advocating against the “rational markets” theory of liberal economics. And both writers are so intimidatingly smart they can’t help but expose you to the full brunt of their accumulated thinkings.
My 50 books goal looks to be in jeopardy, however. I should pick something more slight next time.
August 16, 2011
It's one of the most readable and informative books on Marx and Marxism *if* you don't expect to learn how to change the world or read about Che Guevara. I guess a common discrepancy between the content and the publisher's marketing department is the reason for the title and cover. The actual book is a combination of at times heavy exegesis of Marx and Engels' original work and the reception history of Marx and later thinkers. Although the book is actually a collection of earlier articles, they read well together and Hobsbawm writes with an eminent and sympathetic tone that is a pleasure to read. Don't let the page count discourage you, you'll read this in a couple of days even without previous knowledge of Marx or Marxism.
September 25, 2012
Not enough about Marxism and too much history and "who's-who-ing". Its not that I don't like history or these specific time periods and I have a massive fascination with with communist/socialist view, but I just got sick of all the 'he published this that and the other' and the collating people together bit.
October 5, 2018
عمل ضخم آخر المؤرخ التاريخي الضخم، ينصح به لأي شخص يريد انه يعرف المزيد عن آلية الماركسية في العالم و أثرها على الاقتصاد الاجتماعي في القرون الاخيرة، شخصيا استفدت من فصول *غرامشي*
September 8, 2013
In a sense it is fitting the Hobsbawm’s penultimate book should be a collection that explores both the founders and legacies of Marxism; he was, after all, the last of the generation of scholars who shook up the world of British history with their Marx-inspired scholarship during the 1950s and 1960s (and I think the last surviving member of the Communist Party Historians’ Group). It was this group of historians – along with Hobsbawm, Rodney Hilton, E P Thompson, Dorothy Thompson, Christopher Hill, Maurice Dobb and others – that had a profound impact on how we now do social history, ‘history from below’, and large scale global histories; this collection is a fine testament to the outlook that shaped this revolution in doing history.
Most of the pieces in the collection have been published previously, but for many this is the first appearance in English. Most of those that have been previously published in English are long out of print, and few make their first appearance here. Between them they amount to impressive survey of the work and influence of Marx & Engels (the first 8 essays) and the impact of Marxist thought (the latter 8 essays). It is telling, and may reflect Hobsbawm’s continuing links with the Communist Party well after many of the others in the Historians’ Group had severed their ties, that the only subsequent analyst to merit their own chapters is Gramsci, and this, because Hobsbawm argues (convincingly), he gave us a Marxist theory of politics.
It is probably important to consider the two parts as quite distinct; aside from the opening and closing chapters of the Marx & Engels section, these are discussions of, in most cases, specific texts – the Manifesto, The Condition of the Working Class in England, the Grundrisse, and that collection of work exploring pre-capitalist economic formations. These are, to a considerable extent, fairly specialist texts and essays although The Condition of the Working Class and the Manifesto essays were designed for and originally published in editions aimed at a broad market. These two essays then explore the significance of these two pieces of work, their place in the Marxist oeuvre and their legacy. The other two text specific essays grapple with more difficult piece of Marx’s writing; one as series of notebooks designed to work through difficult issues and the other a fairly diverse set of work exploring in a fairly spasmodic way the economic forms that existed before capitalism, the focus of Marx’s analyses. This piece exploring pre-capitalist economic formations is the stand out essay for me, but then my concern with imperial and colonial relations often means that I confront the clash between capitalist and pre-capitalist forms.
This first section of the book, however, also includes several significant criticisms of Marxist orthodoxy – the essay on Marx & Engels relations with pre-Marxian socialism challenges received interpretations of Engels’ political polemics (such as Socialism: Utopian and Scientific) as well as the interpretation of those works seen in most Leninist models as read and promulgated by Stalin, Trotsky & Mao. Similarly, the essay exploring the fortunes of their works shows just how fraught and difficult the interpretation by orthodox communist parties was, how limited was the access to their work in most of the world, how the intellectual limitations imposed by both Stalinist and Trotskyist (although Hobsbawm quite properly sees Trotskyist parties as marginal for most of the period he deals with) interpretations as well as the closure of records and archives during Europe’s fascist era meant that very little of Marx and Engels’ work was available at the highest points of Marxist influence.
The second half of the book is more likely to be more useful and accessible to non-specialist readers, mainly because it is here that Hobsbawm moves beyond readings of Marx & Engels texts to explore their influences and legacies. A large portion of this section is made up to three essays (first published in Italian) looking at the influence of Marxism in 1880-1914, 1929-1945 and 1945-1983 along with a new essay dealing with the period 1983-2000. For non-specialists, these essays might be the best place to start partly because they will help with a sense of legacy, partly because Hobsbawm (unlike many other commentators) is interested less in the impact of Marxism in the formal politics of the Left but in wider intellectual, political and cultural tendencies and partly because this will help with an understanding of where we’ve got to, and therefore help make sense of where we’ve come from. These are then supplemented by two essays looking at the, no doubt for some, surprisingly sympathetic responses to Marx by British-based late 19th century writers and analysts and by a closer look at Marxist influences in the 20th century labour movement.
Amid these essays there are then two exploring Gramsci, the first looking at and exploring the reasons for his work and the second considering the reception of his work in Marxist politics and other intellectual work. This latter essay is a little disappointing, although given that initially it was an introduction to a monograph about Gramsci its brevity is understandable (although it is hard to go past David Harris’ From Class Struggle to the Politics of Pleasure for a discussion of the impact on Gramsci on current scholarly and intellectual work).
All in all, this is a useful and significant addition to Marx studies and should help with the on-going current re-evaluation of the field. There are some problems, though. The essays should, perhaps, have been a little more rigorously edited; in places, for instance, there are cross-references to page numbers in the initial editions, while the initial publication data for the Grundrisse and pre-capitalist economic formations essays seems to have been transposed. The more significant critique however, and this reflects the time most of these essays were written, is that they are powerfully Eurocentric and do not take of developments in Marxian thinking in, for instance, India (with the Subaltern Studies School, although they are referenced) or elsewhere in the Third World (to my mind, work by scholars such as Anouar Abdel-Malek is a significant omission). So, use this as a starting point to explore the influence of Marxism, as a secondary place to visit for discussions of some essential but often overlooked Marxist texts, and to be reminded exactly why Marxism is the defining force of the 20th century and why is remains a powerful mode of making sense of the world.
Most of the pieces in the collection have been published previously, but for many this is the first appearance in English. Most of those that have been previously published in English are long out of print, and few make their first appearance here. Between them they amount to impressive survey of the work and influence of Marx & Engels (the first 8 essays) and the impact of Marxist thought (the latter 8 essays). It is telling, and may reflect Hobsbawm’s continuing links with the Communist Party well after many of the others in the Historians’ Group had severed their ties, that the only subsequent analyst to merit their own chapters is Gramsci, and this, because Hobsbawm argues (convincingly), he gave us a Marxist theory of politics.
It is probably important to consider the two parts as quite distinct; aside from the opening and closing chapters of the Marx & Engels section, these are discussions of, in most cases, specific texts – the Manifesto, The Condition of the Working Class in England, the Grundrisse, and that collection of work exploring pre-capitalist economic formations. These are, to a considerable extent, fairly specialist texts and essays although The Condition of the Working Class and the Manifesto essays were designed for and originally published in editions aimed at a broad market. These two essays then explore the significance of these two pieces of work, their place in the Marxist oeuvre and their legacy. The other two text specific essays grapple with more difficult piece of Marx’s writing; one as series of notebooks designed to work through difficult issues and the other a fairly diverse set of work exploring in a fairly spasmodic way the economic forms that existed before capitalism, the focus of Marx’s analyses. This piece exploring pre-capitalist economic formations is the stand out essay for me, but then my concern with imperial and colonial relations often means that I confront the clash between capitalist and pre-capitalist forms.
This first section of the book, however, also includes several significant criticisms of Marxist orthodoxy – the essay on Marx & Engels relations with pre-Marxian socialism challenges received interpretations of Engels’ political polemics (such as Socialism: Utopian and Scientific) as well as the interpretation of those works seen in most Leninist models as read and promulgated by Stalin, Trotsky & Mao. Similarly, the essay exploring the fortunes of their works shows just how fraught and difficult the interpretation by orthodox communist parties was, how limited was the access to their work in most of the world, how the intellectual limitations imposed by both Stalinist and Trotskyist (although Hobsbawm quite properly sees Trotskyist parties as marginal for most of the period he deals with) interpretations as well as the closure of records and archives during Europe’s fascist era meant that very little of Marx and Engels’ work was available at the highest points of Marxist influence.
The second half of the book is more likely to be more useful and accessible to non-specialist readers, mainly because it is here that Hobsbawm moves beyond readings of Marx & Engels texts to explore their influences and legacies. A large portion of this section is made up to three essays (first published in Italian) looking at the influence of Marxism in 1880-1914, 1929-1945 and 1945-1983 along with a new essay dealing with the period 1983-2000. For non-specialists, these essays might be the best place to start partly because they will help with a sense of legacy, partly because Hobsbawm (unlike many other commentators) is interested less in the impact of Marxism in the formal politics of the Left but in wider intellectual, political and cultural tendencies and partly because this will help with an understanding of where we’ve got to, and therefore help make sense of where we’ve come from. These are then supplemented by two essays looking at the, no doubt for some, surprisingly sympathetic responses to Marx by British-based late 19th century writers and analysts and by a closer look at Marxist influences in the 20th century labour movement.
Amid these essays there are then two exploring Gramsci, the first looking at and exploring the reasons for his work and the second considering the reception of his work in Marxist politics and other intellectual work. This latter essay is a little disappointing, although given that initially it was an introduction to a monograph about Gramsci its brevity is understandable (although it is hard to go past David Harris’ From Class Struggle to the Politics of Pleasure for a discussion of the impact on Gramsci on current scholarly and intellectual work).
All in all, this is a useful and significant addition to Marx studies and should help with the on-going current re-evaluation of the field. There are some problems, though. The essays should, perhaps, have been a little more rigorously edited; in places, for instance, there are cross-references to page numbers in the initial editions, while the initial publication data for the Grundrisse and pre-capitalist economic formations essays seems to have been transposed. The more significant critique however, and this reflects the time most of these essays were written, is that they are powerfully Eurocentric and do not take of developments in Marxian thinking in, for instance, India (with the Subaltern Studies School, although they are referenced) or elsewhere in the Third World (to my mind, work by scholars such as Anouar Abdel-Malek is a significant omission). So, use this as a starting point to explore the influence of Marxism, as a secondary place to visit for discussions of some essential but often overlooked Marxist texts, and to be reminded exactly why Marxism is the defining force of the 20th century and why is remains a powerful mode of making sense of the world.
September 21, 2019
I was drawn towards Eric Hobsbawm after hearing his name mentioned in several lectures that touched on nationalism and Marxism. When I saw a brand new translation of this one in library, I decided to pick this up. I was expecting to read something dry and hard to understand but I have to admit that I was completely surprised. Hobsbawm's writing is very easy to understand and he explains some more complex philosophical ideas in simple way that doesn't make you frustrated when you can't understand them. I hardly ever read nonfiction books that I am looking forward to read instead of thinking them as task but this one I wanted to pick up always when I had time to read. That is always a sign of a good nonfiction book. The first part of the book is used to explain Karl Marx's and Friedrich Engel's body of work and the second part delves into Marxism and its' influence in the political world mainly in 20th century. So in short, I was definitely surprised how understandable and easy to approach this book is and I would recommend this to anyone who wants to understand communism and Marxism more.
May 22, 2013
It is really a collection of essays written over a number of years. Some of them are more interesting than others but there is plenty of food for thought in the book as a whole.
June 2, 2015
If you thought it was a book on "how to change the world" and on "tales of Marx and Marxism", then you are in for a huge disappointment. The book was basically a historical sketch of Marxism, without any debate on the actual content of Marxism as an idea or an ideology.
Might be a great book for those who fully comprehended Marxism and looking to supplement their knowledge of it by how it developed historically till this modern day. Though if you are still to grapple with the whole concept... The book might not be very helpful!
Misleading title!
Might be a great book for those who fully comprehended Marxism and looking to supplement their knowledge of it by how it developed historically till this modern day. Though if you are still to grapple with the whole concept... The book might not be very helpful!
Misleading title!
March 3, 2016
Some parts of this were interesting and heaps of parts were relevant to my History project, however it was SO dull!!! The guy expects you to know so many big terms and there was so much analysis my brain hurt. The good thing was that it all flowed even though sometimes he went off on a tangent.
June 14, 2018
Loved it. This book is extremely comically "in the weeds" of the history of Marxism, to the point where I can't imagine any audience for it outside of "PhD students doing their dissertations on the history of Marxism", but for such people (*toots horn*) it's seriously a treasure trove
October 2, 2018
جمع المؤرخ الماركسي مادة هذا الكتاب في أوج الأزمة الاقتصادية التي ضربت الرأسمالية المعولمة وجرت معها العالم كله عام 2008 وهو من هذه الناحية يكتسب أهمية خاصة؛ ليس لأنه يقدم حلولاً للمشكلات التي ما فتئت تفتك بالرأسمالية في نسختها الأكثر تطرفًا، بل لأنه وكما يقول السير جون هكس الذي يورد الكاتب كلماته في الكتاب: «نحن عاجزون عن التنبؤ بحلول المسائل التي تواجه العالم في القرن الواحد والعشرين، لكن إذا قدر لنا النجاح، فلا بد لها من طرح الأسئلة التي طرحها ماركس حتى لو لم نكن راغبين بقبول أجوبة تلاميذه المختلفة».
ويعيد هوبزباوم انحدار الماركسية في العقدين الأخيرين من القرن العشرين كان في جزء منه بسبب أفول عصر الأيديولوجيات الكبرى والأفكار الإصلاحية بشكل عام وبزوغ عصر ما بعد الحداثة والسيولة الذي جرف بقايا البنى والمؤسسات والهياكل التي قامت على هذه الأيديولوجيات الكبرى.
يعد السؤال الأساسي لهذا الكتاب هو كيف يجب أن نفكر بالماركسية في عصر ما بعد الشيوعية؟
يؤكد هوبزباوم من جهة أولى على ضرورة تحرير فكر ماركس من جبة المفسّرين الأرثوذوكس، وإعادته إلى الساحة العلمية كمفكر وفيلسوف جنباً إلى جنب مع شخصيات من قبيل: نيتشه وفرويد. ومن جهة ثانية يؤكد على ضرورة تحرير الفكر الماركسي من التأويلات والتعدديات المذهبية التي لحقته، وبالخصوص بعد انهيار تجربة الاتحاد السوفياتي سنة 1991، والتي حررت ماركس من التطابق المشاع بينه وبينها نظرياً. وهو أمر تنبه إليه المؤرخ المغربي عبد الله العروي الذي اعتبر أنّ الاشتراكية ليست دائماً ماركسية، ورغم ذلك ما تزال تختلط في أذهان الناس الاشتراكية التي هي مجموعة أهداف سياسية واجتماعية وأخلاقية، والماركسية التي هي طريقة لتحليل الظواهر الاجتماعية والاقتصادية والتاريخية
وبالفعل يحاول هوبزباوم أن يفصل مفهومي الاشتراكية والماركسية، والقراءة الأرثوذكسية اللينينة لماركس، وأخيرًا الخلط بين تاريخ الماركسية والحركة العمالية.
يرى هوبزباوم أن ماركس وإنجلز كانا وافدين متأخرين إلى الشيوعية. أعلن إنجلز نفسه شيوعيًا في أواخر عام 1842 بينما تبعه ماركس بعدها بعام؛ أي في أواخر 1843 وذلك بعد ما يسميها الكاتب عملية تصفية حساب طويلة ومعقدة مع الليبرالية وفلسفة هيغل. لم تكن الماركسية إذن الوعد الأول بالمجتمع الشيوعي بل سبقها إرث اشتراكي طويل تمتد جذوره عميقًا في التقاليد الفلسفية والدينية القديمة التي اكتسبت أبعادًا نقدية جديدة مع تكشف الرأسمالية الحديثة.
حملت الفلسفة الكلاسيكية معها من الماضي إرثًا قويًا من الكوميونالية؛ أي الاعتقاد بأن المجتمع دون ملكية خاصة أسبق وأكثر طبيعية من المجتمع الذي تسود فيه الملكية الخاصة. لم تكشف هذه الجذور الاشتراكية عن نفسها على شكل نقد للمجتمع الحديث فحسب، بل وأيضًا في التصورات العديدة التي وضعتها للمجتمع الصالح أو اليوتوبيا ابتداء من أفلاطون وليس انتهاء بتوماس مور وكامبانيلا وكتابه مدينة الشمس.
هذا النمط من الاشتراكية الذي الذي ساد لدى مثقفي المدن وعبر عنه مفكر القرن الثامن عشر إتيان كابيه عانى من صعوبات رئيسية من الناحية النظرية تمثلت في أن العمليات الواقعية (الاقتصادية والسياسية والاجتماعية) لا سابق لها ولا يمكن تعقلها. لذا اقتصرت مهمة هذا الشيوعية الخيالية أو اشتراكية المدينة الفاضلة في نقد ما هو خاطئ في المجتمع البرجوازي.
تفرقت هذه الاشتراكية إذن إلى حركات نخبوية وشعبية مختلفة المشارب والرؤى من الفوضويين من أتباع بوردون والثوريين من أتباع بابوف والسانت سيمونين وغيرها من الحركات الاشتراكية التي ساهمت بدرجات مختلفة في الحركة السياسية والفكرية في أوروبا عصر الثورة.
من هنا جاء الإسهام الأبرز لماركس وإنجلز اللذين كشفا عبر عقلية شمولية ومنظمة معتمدين على إرث حقبة التنوير وعصر الثورة؛ ليكشفا عبر منهج تاريخي واقتصادي وفلسفي شمولي عن العمليات المنظمة التي تعيد بها الرأسمالية إنتاج نفسها، وعن موقع المجتمع البرجوازي من سيرورة التقدم البشري، والتأصيل لوضع الطبقة البروليتارية في المجتمع الرأسمالي ودورها في تجاوز الرأسمالية وافتتاح الحقبة الشيوعية.
في حين عنت الاشتراكية دائمًا وعدًا بمجتمع أفضل وأكثر عدلاً، فإن التحليل الماركسي أو ما يسميه هوبزباوم الاشتراكية العلمية هي بمثابة علبة الأدوات التي لا غنى عنها في الكشف عن العمليات الاقتصادية والاجتماعية والبحث عن سبيل التقدم وتحقيق هذا المجتمع الأفضل.
عبر تسليط الضوء على هذا الإسهام الأبرز للماركسية يقدم هوبزباوم علبة الأدوات الذي ابتدعها ماركس وإنجلز والتي تمثلت الاقتصاد السياسي ونظرية القيمة والمادية التاريخية والإسهام الفلسفي والانخراط في الواقع السياسي لا بعيدًا عنه في التصورات الخيالية لفاعلي القرن الواحد والعشرين لتحقيق مجتمع أكثر عدلاً. هذه الإسهامات لا تعبر عن أجوبة بقدر ما تطرح أسئلة وهي الأسئلة التي لا مناص من إعادة طرحها وتقديم أجوبة لها.
يرى هوبزباوم أنه ليس هناك ماركسية صحيحة وماركسية خاطئة؛ لأن الفكر بطبيعته عمل لا متناه ومستمر، لذا يرى أن ما فعله الروس كان مشروعًا «حيث حسبوا نظريته طريقًا لانتقال بلادهم من التخلف إلى الحداثة، لكن الانتقال المباشر إلى الاشتراكية لا يمكن أن يحصل على أساس العامة في القرية الروسية». لم تكن الدولة اللينينية إذن سوى تجربة ماركسية سعت لتجاوز وجهة النظر القائلة بأن مهمة الماركسيين الرئيسية في روسيا هي تطوير رأسمالية صناعية مزدهرة.
لكن هوبزباوم يعود فيؤكد أن فكر ماركس لم يقبل التحول إلى عقيدة جامدة باستثناء الأرثوذكسية المدعمة بالمؤسسات والتي كانت لتصدم مارك نفسه بلا ريب. فبحسب ماركس فإن العلاقات القانونية وكذلك أشكال الدولة لا يمكن فهمها من ذاتهما لكنهما متجذران في الشروط المادية للحياة، أو كما يقول أنجلز: «إن أكثر ما يعمي البشر قبل أي شيء هو الوهم بوجود تاريخ مستقل لمؤسسات الدولة والأنظمة القانونية وأشكال التمييز الأيديولوجي في جميع الميادين الخاصة».
من هذا المنظور فإن الدولة ومؤسساتها وأبعادها القومية لا تكتسب قيمتها إلا من خلال رؤيتها التي تقضي بأنها؛ أي الدولة،ـ لا تمثل المصلحة العامة للمجتمع بل مصلحة الطبقات الحاكمة. وهي لن تنتهي مباشرة خلال الفترة الانتقالية بعد ثورة البروليتاريا لكنها ستأخذ شكل البروليتاريا المنظمة كطبقة حاكمة قبل أن تذبل تدريجيًا وتفقد معناها.
وفي هذا السياق يرى هوبزباوم أن ماركس لم يستعمل مصطلح «ديكتاتورية» لوصف شكل حكم مؤسسي خاص، وإنما استعمله لوصف محتوى مجموعة من الحكم الطبقي فحسب، لذا قد توجد «ديكتاتورية البرجوازية» بوجود انتخابات أو من دونها. ولا أدل على ذلك من وصفه كوميون باريس بأنه دكتاتورية البروليتاريا في حين أن صفاته السياسية كانت مضادة للحكم الاستبدادي.
لا تكتمل هذه القراءة الماركسية عن مفهوم السياسة إلا بما قدمه غرامشي عن حرب المواقع وممارسة الهيمنة وكذلك الإرث الطويل للاشتراكية الاجتماعية في دول غرب أوروبا وفي ألمانيا وإيطاليا تحديدًا. وهو ما يفتح الباب أمام قراءة جديدة لماركس في القرن الواحد والعشرين لا تؤدي بالضرورة لشكل من أشكال الاستبداد السياسي. فالغرض الرئيسي من تسليط الضوء على الفكر السياسي لماركس وإنجلز هو بيان قدرته التحليلية المرتبطة بالواقع المادي وليس الاكتفاء بالوصف القانوني والوظيفي للمؤسسات السياسية وأشكال الحكم.
ماركس إذن لم يمت، والمقصود بالطبع أفكاره ونظرياته بشأن نقد الرأسمالية؛ فالشواغل المركزية للماركسية التي وضع أسسها هذا الفيلسوف الألماني مازالت آنيّة، ولذلك فالماركسية بهذا الشكل لم تنته وآن الأوان لاستعادتها مرة أخرى. إذ كارل ماركس كان محقاً في عدد من تحاليله المتعلقة بطبيعة النظام الرأسمالي، ففكرته التي كانت عرضة للانتقادات بسبب تكهنات سابقة لأوانها عن نهاية المجتمع البرجوازي، والتي كانت تنتعش عند كل منعطف أو أزمة اقتصادية لم تتهاوَ كليّاً، ذلك أنّ الرأسمالية، في رأي هوبزباوم، غير محصنة من الانهيار، وأنّ الانهيار المالي الذي عرفه العالم منذ 2008 قد يكون بالفعل بداية نهاية الرأسمالية.
ويعيد هوبزباوم انحدار الماركسية في العقدين الأخيرين من القرن العشرين كان في جزء منه بسبب أفول عصر الأيديولوجيات الكبرى والأفكار الإصلاحية بشكل عام وبزوغ عصر ما بعد الحداثة والسيولة الذي جرف بقايا البنى والمؤسسات والهياكل التي قامت على هذه الأيديولوجيات الكبرى.
يعد السؤال الأساسي لهذا الكتاب هو كيف يجب أن نفكر بالماركسية في عصر ما بعد الشيوعية؟
يؤكد هوبزباوم من جهة أولى على ضرورة تحرير فكر ماركس من جبة المفسّرين الأرثوذوكس، وإعادته إلى الساحة العلمية كمفكر وفيلسوف جنباً إلى جنب مع شخصيات من قبيل: نيتشه وفرويد. ومن جهة ثانية يؤكد على ضرورة تحرير الفكر الماركسي من التأويلات والتعدديات المذهبية التي لحقته، وبالخصوص بعد انهيار تجربة الاتحاد السوفياتي سنة 1991، والتي حررت ماركس من التطابق المشاع بينه وبينها نظرياً. وهو أمر تنبه إليه المؤرخ المغربي عبد الله العروي الذي اعتبر أنّ الاشتراكية ليست دائماً ماركسية، ورغم ذلك ما تزال تختلط في أذهان الناس الاشتراكية التي هي مجموعة أهداف سياسية واجتماعية وأخلاقية، والماركسية التي هي طريقة لتحليل الظواهر الاجتماعية والاقتصادية والتاريخية
وبالفعل يحاول هوبزباوم أن يفصل مفهومي الاشتراكية والماركسية، والقراءة الأرثوذكسية اللينينة لماركس، وأخيرًا الخلط بين تاريخ الماركسية والحركة العمالية.
يرى هوبزباوم أن ماركس وإنجلز كانا وافدين متأخرين إلى الشيوعية. أعلن إنجلز نفسه شيوعيًا في أواخر عام 1842 بينما تبعه ماركس بعدها بعام؛ أي في أواخر 1843 وذلك بعد ما يسميها الكاتب عملية تصفية حساب طويلة ومعقدة مع الليبرالية وفلسفة هيغل. لم تكن الماركسية إذن الوعد الأول بالمجتمع الشيوعي بل سبقها إرث اشتراكي طويل تمتد جذوره عميقًا في التقاليد الفلسفية والدينية القديمة التي اكتسبت أبعادًا نقدية جديدة مع تكشف الرأسمالية الحديثة.
حملت الفلسفة الكلاسيكية معها من الماضي إرثًا قويًا من الكوميونالية؛ أي الاعتقاد بأن المجتمع دون ملكية خاصة أسبق وأكثر طبيعية من المجتمع الذي تسود فيه الملكية الخاصة. لم تكشف هذه الجذور الاشتراكية عن نفسها على شكل نقد للمجتمع الحديث فحسب، بل وأيضًا في التصورات العديدة التي وضعتها للمجتمع الصالح أو اليوتوبيا ابتداء من أفلاطون وليس انتهاء بتوماس مور وكامبانيلا وكتابه مدينة الشمس.
هذا النمط من الاشتراكية الذي الذي ساد لدى مثقفي المدن وعبر عنه مفكر القرن الثامن عشر إتيان كابيه عانى من صعوبات رئيسية من الناحية النظرية تمثلت في أن العمليات الواقعية (الاقتصادية والسياسية والاجتماعية) لا سابق لها ولا يمكن تعقلها. لذا اقتصرت مهمة هذا الشيوعية الخيالية أو اشتراكية المدينة الفاضلة في نقد ما هو خاطئ في المجتمع البرجوازي.
تفرقت هذه الاشتراكية إذن إلى حركات نخبوية وشعبية مختلفة المشارب والرؤى من الفوضويين من أتباع بوردون والثوريين من أتباع بابوف والسانت سيمونين وغيرها من الحركات الاشتراكية التي ساهمت بدرجات مختلفة في الحركة السياسية والفكرية في أوروبا عصر الثورة.
من هنا جاء الإسهام الأبرز لماركس وإنجلز اللذين كشفا عبر عقلية شمولية ومنظمة معتمدين على إرث حقبة التنوير وعصر الثورة؛ ليكشفا عبر منهج تاريخي واقتصادي وفلسفي شمولي عن العمليات المنظمة التي تعيد بها الرأسمالية إنتاج نفسها، وعن موقع المجتمع البرجوازي من سيرورة التقدم البشري، والتأصيل لوضع الطبقة البروليتارية في المجتمع الرأسمالي ودورها في تجاوز الرأسمالية وافتتاح الحقبة الشيوعية.
في حين عنت الاشتراكية دائمًا وعدًا بمجتمع أفضل وأكثر عدلاً، فإن التحليل الماركسي أو ما يسميه هوبزباوم الاشتراكية العلمية هي بمثابة علبة الأدوات التي لا غنى عنها في الكشف عن العمليات الاقتصادية والاجتماعية والبحث عن سبيل التقدم وتحقيق هذا المجتمع الأفضل.
عبر تسليط الضوء على هذا الإسهام الأبرز للماركسية يقدم هوبزباوم علبة الأدوات الذي ابتدعها ماركس وإنجلز والتي تمثلت الاقتصاد السياسي ونظرية القيمة والمادية التاريخية والإسهام الفلسفي والانخراط في الواقع السياسي لا بعيدًا عنه في التصورات الخيالية لفاعلي القرن الواحد والعشرين لتحقيق مجتمع أكثر عدلاً. هذه الإسهامات لا تعبر عن أجوبة بقدر ما تطرح أسئلة وهي الأسئلة التي لا مناص من إعادة طرحها وتقديم أجوبة لها.
يرى هوبزباوم أنه ليس هناك ماركسية صحيحة وماركسية خاطئة؛ لأن الفكر بطبيعته عمل لا متناه ومستمر، لذا يرى أن ما فعله الروس كان مشروعًا «حيث حسبوا نظريته طريقًا لانتقال بلادهم من التخلف إلى الحداثة، لكن الانتقال المباشر إلى الاشتراكية لا يمكن أن يحصل على أساس العامة في القرية الروسية». لم تكن الدولة اللينينية إذن سوى تجربة ماركسية سعت لتجاوز وجهة النظر القائلة بأن مهمة الماركسيين الرئيسية في روسيا هي تطوير رأسمالية صناعية مزدهرة.
لكن هوبزباوم يعود فيؤكد أن فكر ماركس لم يقبل التحول إلى عقيدة جامدة باستثناء الأرثوذكسية المدعمة بالمؤسسات والتي كانت لتصدم مارك نفسه بلا ريب. فبحسب ماركس فإن العلاقات القانونية وكذلك أشكال الدولة لا يمكن فهمها من ذاتهما لكنهما متجذران في الشروط المادية للحياة، أو كما يقول أنجلز: «إن أكثر ما يعمي البشر قبل أي شيء هو الوهم بوجود تاريخ مستقل لمؤسسات الدولة والأنظمة القانونية وأشكال التمييز الأيديولوجي في جميع الميادين الخاصة».
من هذا المنظور فإن الدولة ومؤسساتها وأبعادها القومية لا تكتسب قيمتها إلا من خلال رؤيتها التي تقضي بأنها؛ أي الدولة،ـ لا تمثل المصلحة العامة للمجتمع بل مصلحة الطبقات الحاكمة. وهي لن تنتهي مباشرة خلال الفترة الانتقالية بعد ثورة البروليتاريا لكنها ستأخذ شكل البروليتاريا المنظمة كطبقة حاكمة قبل أن تذبل تدريجيًا وتفقد معناها.
وفي هذا السياق يرى هوبزباوم أن ماركس لم يستعمل مصطلح «ديكتاتورية» لوصف شكل حكم مؤسسي خاص، وإنما استعمله لوصف محتوى مجموعة من الحكم الطبقي فحسب، لذا قد توجد «ديكتاتورية البرجوازية» بوجود انتخابات أو من دونها. ولا أدل على ذلك من وصفه كوميون باريس بأنه دكتاتورية البروليتاريا في حين أن صفاته السياسية كانت مضادة للحكم الاستبدادي.
لا تكتمل هذه القراءة الماركسية عن مفهوم السياسة إلا بما قدمه غرامشي عن حرب المواقع وممارسة الهيمنة وكذلك الإرث الطويل للاشتراكية الاجتماعية في دول غرب أوروبا وفي ألمانيا وإيطاليا تحديدًا. وهو ما يفتح الباب أمام قراءة جديدة لماركس في القرن الواحد والعشرين لا تؤدي بالضرورة لشكل من أشكال الاستبداد السياسي. فالغرض الرئيسي من تسليط الضوء على الفكر السياسي لماركس وإنجلز هو بيان قدرته التحليلية المرتبطة بالواقع المادي وليس الاكتفاء بالوصف القانوني والوظيفي للمؤسسات السياسية وأشكال الحكم.
ماركس إذن لم يمت، والمقصود بالطبع أفكاره ونظرياته بشأن نقد الرأسمالية؛ فالشواغل المركزية للماركسية التي وضع أسسها هذا الفيلسوف الألماني مازالت آنيّة، ولذلك فالماركسية بهذا الشكل لم تنته وآن الأوان لاستعادتها مرة أخرى. إذ كارل ماركس كان محقاً في عدد من تحاليله المتعلقة بطبيعة النظام الرأسمالي، ففكرته التي كانت عرضة للانتقادات بسبب تكهنات سابقة لأوانها عن نهاية المجتمع البرجوازي، والتي كانت تنتعش عند كل منعطف أو أزمة اقتصادية لم تتهاوَ كليّاً، ذلك أنّ الرأسمالية، في رأي هوبزباوم، غير محصنة من الانهيار، وأنّ الانهيار المالي الذي عرفه العالم منذ 2008 قد يكون بالفعل بداية نهاية الرأسمالية.
July 15, 2017
When this book appeared on my Goodreads page, perhaps from the Recommendations, I logged in to my amazon account and ordered it online. By the end of March, it’s on the shelf of my bookcase, where it remained untouched for about two months. I often gave it a glimpse when loitering near the bookcase; I acknowledge that it’s not without some struggle for me to finally pick it up.
I was born one year before the ending of the Cultural Revolution; in the year 1989 I was in a secondary school in north China about 350 km away from Beijing.
I was one of the Young Pioneers of China in primary school, then a member of the Youth League, a path basically no Chinese school child could escape, if any of them or their parents ever would so fancy. When it’s time for me to apply a membership of CPC, that’s when I was having my university education, I got a problem.
I don’t know exactly how it works today, back then, to be a member of CPC, you need to submit a weekly or biweekly report about your progress in your adherence to the party line, it’s called “report about thinking and ideas”. Thanks to the many years of school training on ideology, I knew what I was supposed to write about, and I was not a bad writer. Yet I couldn’t do that, to confess my ideas and allege loyalty. Maybe I’m the kind preferring a life outside a strict organization, or any kind of organization. After struggling for a few months, meanwhile I even passed an exam at a training course of the CPC, I gave up.
When Google left China years ago, I had my first encounter with the censorship mechanism. I translated a news report from perhaps BBC and posted it on my web log (now I understand there might be a copyright issue for doing that, my fault). The blog was promptly removed for violating some regulations.
I’m not someone enthusiastic about politics or ideology. Though little by little I came to realize that there is no way to avoid or ignore the impacts politics might have on one’s life. Maybe that’s also what the politicians are well aware of. We have been denied access to lots of information, even those I do not see in the immediate vicinity of politics.
I read from abroad the news about Professor Liu Xiaobo’s illness, then days later the news of his demise. I recall several years ago when he was sentenced, there were diatribes attacking him, though curiously—or you may say understandably—there’s never any response or defending words from the one under attack, never a single word.
Why I’m so off topic? Or am I?
Communism is the big thing that shapes my life, whether I like it or not. Yet as it is impossible to really discuss about it, about where it came from, how, what’s the up and down all the decades, are there anything to be changed, and is it the absolute truth that must be imposed everywhere no matter what it costs?
The question could be simplified as: what Marx did say and what he didn’t?
It’s a luxury that scholars in the free world can discuss ideas in depth. This book of Eric Hobsbawm surely gave me a more complete perspective about Marx and communism. It’s vital to learn to distinguish between propaganda and theoretical analysis/speculation. It’s vital to learn to think and check the ideas one may have long taken for granted without ever trying to challenge.
I was born one year before the ending of the Cultural Revolution; in the year 1989 I was in a secondary school in north China about 350 km away from Beijing.
I was one of the Young Pioneers of China in primary school, then a member of the Youth League, a path basically no Chinese school child could escape, if any of them or their parents ever would so fancy. When it’s time for me to apply a membership of CPC, that’s when I was having my university education, I got a problem.
I don’t know exactly how it works today, back then, to be a member of CPC, you need to submit a weekly or biweekly report about your progress in your adherence to the party line, it’s called “report about thinking and ideas”. Thanks to the many years of school training on ideology, I knew what I was supposed to write about, and I was not a bad writer. Yet I couldn’t do that, to confess my ideas and allege loyalty. Maybe I’m the kind preferring a life outside a strict organization, or any kind of organization. After struggling for a few months, meanwhile I even passed an exam at a training course of the CPC, I gave up.
When Google left China years ago, I had my first encounter with the censorship mechanism. I translated a news report from perhaps BBC and posted it on my web log (now I understand there might be a copyright issue for doing that, my fault). The blog was promptly removed for violating some regulations.
I’m not someone enthusiastic about politics or ideology. Though little by little I came to realize that there is no way to avoid or ignore the impacts politics might have on one’s life. Maybe that’s also what the politicians are well aware of. We have been denied access to lots of information, even those I do not see in the immediate vicinity of politics.
I read from abroad the news about Professor Liu Xiaobo’s illness, then days later the news of his demise. I recall several years ago when he was sentenced, there were diatribes attacking him, though curiously—or you may say understandably—there’s never any response or defending words from the one under attack, never a single word.
Why I’m so off topic? Or am I?
Communism is the big thing that shapes my life, whether I like it or not. Yet as it is impossible to really discuss about it, about where it came from, how, what’s the up and down all the decades, are there anything to be changed, and is it the absolute truth that must be imposed everywhere no matter what it costs?
The question could be simplified as: what Marx did say and what he didn’t?
It’s a luxury that scholars in the free world can discuss ideas in depth. This book of Eric Hobsbawm surely gave me a more complete perspective about Marx and communism. It’s vital to learn to distinguish between propaganda and theoretical analysis/speculation. It’s vital to learn to think and check the ideas one may have long taken for granted without ever trying to challenge.
February 25, 2012
I've rated this book '3' - nice and snug in the middle, and that's exactly how I felt about it.
On the one hand, Hobsbawm really does know what he's writing about, and even though it's a potpourri of earlier essays and articles it's an excellent introduction into the wonderful world of Karl Marx. Rather, it's like an old, well-read uncle telling you about how much of a great thinker Karl Marx really was. And you believe him, because Marxism is indeed a wonderful analytical tool to understand the world around you.
Yet, on the other hand - he's still your uncle that has dedicated his entire life to Marx, and seeks to justify himself. You can easily and maliciously summarize the book as 'See, we were right all along, and all that went wrong with Marxism really isn't Marx' fault'. Well, honestly, that's rather disappointing. I was a bit angry that Hobsbawm so easily dismisses the relation between Marxism and the attempts to realize his ideals. His answer that Marx didn't say anything about that, and that, quite probably, the communists who ruled all those countries between 1917 and the present were only trying to do so, often ill-informed (well, that is if they were Marxists after all, which is often questionable according to uncle Eric) is unsatisfying. And the dismissive answer that the RAF and their peers weren't really Marxists is unsatisfying too. I feel Hobsbawm does not have an answer to that question, or that he refuses to take up the challenge. Really lame, Eric.
But, would I recommend this book? Yes. After all, I like my uncle.
On the one hand, Hobsbawm really does know what he's writing about, and even though it's a potpourri of earlier essays and articles it's an excellent introduction into the wonderful world of Karl Marx. Rather, it's like an old, well-read uncle telling you about how much of a great thinker Karl Marx really was. And you believe him, because Marxism is indeed a wonderful analytical tool to understand the world around you.
Yet, on the other hand - he's still your uncle that has dedicated his entire life to Marx, and seeks to justify himself. You can easily and maliciously summarize the book as 'See, we were right all along, and all that went wrong with Marxism really isn't Marx' fault'. Well, honestly, that's rather disappointing. I was a bit angry that Hobsbawm so easily dismisses the relation between Marxism and the attempts to realize his ideals. His answer that Marx didn't say anything about that, and that, quite probably, the communists who ruled all those countries between 1917 and the present were only trying to do so, often ill-informed (well, that is if they were Marxists after all, which is often questionable according to uncle Eric) is unsatisfying. And the dismissive answer that the RAF and their peers weren't really Marxists is unsatisfying too. I feel Hobsbawm does not have an answer to that question, or that he refuses to take up the challenge. Really lame, Eric.
But, would I recommend this book? Yes. After all, I like my uncle.
December 25, 2012
This is what is purports to be: A history of Marxist hermeneutics and reception. There is much to gain from reading Hobsbawm's historical analysis--although he could have gone further--particularly, if he knows so much, why does he not offer an idea of his own about where to go with Marx in the 21st century? The last paragraphs are apt, but also leave too much left unsaid.
"Once again it is manifest that the economic system's operations must be analysed both historically...and realistically, ie: not in terms of an ideal market equilibrium, but of a built in mechanism that generates potentially system-changing periodic crises. The present one may be one of these. Once again it is evident that even between major crisesm 'the market' has no answer to the major problem confronting the 21st century: that unlimited and increasingly high-tech economic growth in the pursuit of unsustainable profit produces global wealth, but at the cost of an increasingly dispensable factor of production, human labour, and, the globe's natural resources. Economic and political liberalism, singly or in combination, cannot provide the solution to the problems of the 21st century."
Sure, we need regulation (vs economic liberalism of laissez-faire) and liberal social politics alone also doesn't cut it--that too is clear, as H. (re)iterates. Perhaps I just want practical answers--but Hobsbawm doesn't provide them--just frames why we should continue to look to Marx, and not just theoretically.
"Once again it is manifest that the economic system's operations must be analysed both historically...and realistically, ie: not in terms of an ideal market equilibrium, but of a built in mechanism that generates potentially system-changing periodic crises. The present one may be one of these. Once again it is evident that even between major crisesm 'the market' has no answer to the major problem confronting the 21st century: that unlimited and increasingly high-tech economic growth in the pursuit of unsustainable profit produces global wealth, but at the cost of an increasingly dispensable factor of production, human labour, and, the globe's natural resources. Economic and political liberalism, singly or in combination, cannot provide the solution to the problems of the 21st century."
Sure, we need regulation (vs economic liberalism of laissez-faire) and liberal social politics alone also doesn't cut it--that too is clear, as H. (re)iterates. Perhaps I just want practical answers--but Hobsbawm doesn't provide them--just frames why we should continue to look to Marx, and not just theoretically.
November 6, 2014
One of the most insightful and revealing critiques of Marx and Marxism of the past few years. Britain's pre-eminent Marxist historian, Eric Hobsbawm, traces the work of Marx and Engels right back to the earliest influences on socialism, through to the publication of 'The Communist Manifesto', the October Revolution, the decline of Marxism in the 1970's, right up to the Great Crash of 2008. The chapters on Antonio Gramsci, and Marxism in the 20th Century, particularly the noble role played by Marxists in the struggle against fascism, are examples of history as it should be written and read. Controversial, combative and hyper-educated, Hobsbawm leaves the reader in no doubt: Marx and Marxism are here to stay, and we should all be thankful for that.
March 24, 2011
I was a bit disappointed that this book at times reads like the collection of essays and book introductions it largely is, and the whole appeared to be a bit less than the sum of its parts. At several points the recent economic crisis was mentioned as a reason to look back to Marx's thoughts and writings, but the next bit discussing what Marx can tell us about this, or where the left can go next wasn't greatly explored. A fascinating review of various interpretations and thoughts on Marxism over the past century, and how it has CHANGED the world, but less on how to change it now than I was hoping for.
May 6, 2017
Insider baseball about who Marx's intellectual heirs were and vice versa, with relatively little exploration of Marx's actual thought. I skimmed the majority of it during a flight and left it behind at the airport terminal.
Read
August 5, 2012Heavy going so far, unfortunately. Zzzzz.
July 15, 2019
Best to pick and choose, rather than trying to read every essay. But the highs are very high.
March 20, 2025
Can socialism be divorced from a market society? Is Marx's vision of capitalism as a fundamentally temporary command structure society historically necessary? In 2025, over a century since Marx's death, it appears that the capitalist analogue for the unceasing revolution of the communist world-order has become an unending creative destruction that in our current age remakes society into something like toy fixture to be manipulated by much less than the 10,000 gilded aristocrats, nay, only 1,000 of the 1% are those that control our final destiny, I mean those technocrats assembled at the inauguration of Trump's second Presidential term, where the parties assembled with $5,000,000 donated price of admission to vie for his attention.
In contrast to Marx's prophecy of the state withering away, what's going on now is a direct result of overweening corporatism. Nevertheless, Marxist theorists persist in believing that the state's withering away could result from its coming to represent the whole picture of society in terms of its full productive capacities and so could be dissolved in accordance with its no longer being classifiable as a state but could be converted into social property. Mutualism and co-operative planning are much more appealing terms than the awkward bandy-word "socialism," whose negative aspects derive from a World War 2 historical picture framed according to a cinema-style aesthetic conception. Nevertheless, the world must be ruled by responsible, elected state officials rather than be stood upon by anonymous faceless agents of corporatism, I'm willing to shout it out, prove Marxism is superior to Trumpism, as the NY Times opinion page disallows with their liberal-biased face-saving methodology.
What is wrong with advocating Marxism at present? Hobsbawm mentions that while Christian ideology inculcates the view that some aspects of a society without private property was necessarily a priori to our contemporary world, nevertheless it was a fact as natural as Jesus Christ preaching the sermon on the mount that it was understood by later Christian adherents of socialists who found this reflection useful in their work. He traces this movement back to the time when the revolutionary propaganda of Russia was brought over to found the structure and ideology of Palestian in the first Aliyah that would eventually make for the founding of Zionism in what would later become Israel and diverged from the rival appeal of nationalist ideologies, who were the unique beneficiaries of the educational system that was first primarily organized by and for the Jews.
As Hobsbawm says, and I find that this speaks for me in my personal history, too, that Nietzsche's rhetoric was well suited for a non-political middle-class cultural dissidence, and it was true for not only for me but my peers as well, that society was dominated by an aspect of cultural radicalism that cut me off from worker's movements. Furthermore, I would further like to reiterate my thoughts after reading Vladimir Lenin's work on the state and revolution: I recall that I said that, after reading this work, I had the sudden awareness that all the various forms of American media and the social world it projects is organized for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to make us feel the impossibility of taking up political power in accordance with our own volition. The flashy display of power contorting itself libidinally, as I saw it at a Rolling Stones concert at Yankee Stadium in 1989, has the effect of confining us in our inaccessibility to power, which mitigates and exteriorizes our ability to channel power in any but the most vulgar kind of hypostatization, to finally take refuge in empiricism through the canalization of eclectic individualism. These thoughts essentially concern the non-relational aspects of the application of power in middle-class social dynamism as I found them while growing up in post-Watergate America of the 1980s.
If not only myself but my contemporaries were cut off from assuming definitive power-relations by the very cultural radicalism of new avant-garde developments which assumed the breakage between worker's movements and social and cultural applications made of conform to traditional tastes in the evolution of rock music to eventually incorporate a punk aesthetic, as in its final stage of the music distribution industry following the compact disc was the playlist. Myself and my peer group were sufficiently realistic to know that we could not become true socialists as long as capitalism existed, and so it was here that the flight was made into the ultra-individualism which was, in short, a way-station beyond the scope and outer reaches of the political. I for one would like to see a society where the hegemony of working people's interests was not subordinated too strenuously to the requirements of peaceful coexistence, but perhaps I would be willing to do so if in fact it would lead to advancement of the overall social trend of cooperation and the advancement of the human condition. However, in my opinion, the dark age of humanity's spiritual suffering will be overcome through this new technology of artificial intelligence and that, indeed, a path will be opened for us to reach our full potential, both personally and socially, for I believe artificial intelligence is the ultimate teleological goal of civilization.
In contrast to Marx's prophecy of the state withering away, what's going on now is a direct result of overweening corporatism. Nevertheless, Marxist theorists persist in believing that the state's withering away could result from its coming to represent the whole picture of society in terms of its full productive capacities and so could be dissolved in accordance with its no longer being classifiable as a state but could be converted into social property. Mutualism and co-operative planning are much more appealing terms than the awkward bandy-word "socialism," whose negative aspects derive from a World War 2 historical picture framed according to a cinema-style aesthetic conception. Nevertheless, the world must be ruled by responsible, elected state officials rather than be stood upon by anonymous faceless agents of corporatism, I'm willing to shout it out, prove Marxism is superior to Trumpism, as the NY Times opinion page disallows with their liberal-biased face-saving methodology.
What is wrong with advocating Marxism at present? Hobsbawm mentions that while Christian ideology inculcates the view that some aspects of a society without private property was necessarily a priori to our contemporary world, nevertheless it was a fact as natural as Jesus Christ preaching the sermon on the mount that it was understood by later Christian adherents of socialists who found this reflection useful in their work. He traces this movement back to the time when the revolutionary propaganda of Russia was brought over to found the structure and ideology of Palestian in the first Aliyah that would eventually make for the founding of Zionism in what would later become Israel and diverged from the rival appeal of nationalist ideologies, who were the unique beneficiaries of the educational system that was first primarily organized by and for the Jews.
As Hobsbawm says, and I find that this speaks for me in my personal history, too, that Nietzsche's rhetoric was well suited for a non-political middle-class cultural dissidence, and it was true for not only for me but my peers as well, that society was dominated by an aspect of cultural radicalism that cut me off from worker's movements. Furthermore, I would further like to reiterate my thoughts after reading Vladimir Lenin's work on the state and revolution: I recall that I said that, after reading this work, I had the sudden awareness that all the various forms of American media and the social world it projects is organized for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to make us feel the impossibility of taking up political power in accordance with our own volition. The flashy display of power contorting itself libidinally, as I saw it at a Rolling Stones concert at Yankee Stadium in 1989, has the effect of confining us in our inaccessibility to power, which mitigates and exteriorizes our ability to channel power in any but the most vulgar kind of hypostatization, to finally take refuge in empiricism through the canalization of eclectic individualism. These thoughts essentially concern the non-relational aspects of the application of power in middle-class social dynamism as I found them while growing up in post-Watergate America of the 1980s.
If not only myself but my contemporaries were cut off from assuming definitive power-relations by the very cultural radicalism of new avant-garde developments which assumed the breakage between worker's movements and social and cultural applications made of conform to traditional tastes in the evolution of rock music to eventually incorporate a punk aesthetic, as in its final stage of the music distribution industry following the compact disc was the playlist. Myself and my peer group were sufficiently realistic to know that we could not become true socialists as long as capitalism existed, and so it was here that the flight was made into the ultra-individualism which was, in short, a way-station beyond the scope and outer reaches of the political. I for one would like to see a society where the hegemony of working people's interests was not subordinated too strenuously to the requirements of peaceful coexistence, but perhaps I would be willing to do so if in fact it would lead to advancement of the overall social trend of cooperation and the advancement of the human condition. However, in my opinion, the dark age of humanity's spiritual suffering will be overcome through this new technology of artificial intelligence and that, indeed, a path will be opened for us to reach our full potential, both personally and socially, for I believe artificial intelligence is the ultimate teleological goal of civilization.
Read
April 29, 2020Eric Hobsbawmin esseekokoelma Marxista ja marxilaisuudesta avaa lukuisia näkökulmia Marxin ja Engelsin ajatusten syntyyn, niiden vastaanottoon ja muotoutumiseen länsimaista tiedettä, kulttuuria ja politiikkaa radikaalisti muuttaneiksi ideoiksi ja käytännöiksi. Kirjan kaikki esseet ovat sinänsä tasokkaita ja ne muodostavat selkeän, kronologisesti etenevän kokonaisuuden. Esseiden välillä kuitenkin on isojakin eroja vaihdellen esipuheista joihinkin keskeisiin teoksiin aina äärimmäisen tekniseen tekstiin Marxin käsityksistä kapitalismia edeltävistä yhteiskuntamuodoista Grundrissessä. Tätä selittänee, että kirja on lopulta kokoelma pääosin aikaisemmin julkaistuja tekstejä.
Kirja on jaettu kahteen osaan, joista ensimmäinen käsittelee aatehistoriallisesti Marxin ja Engelsin ajattelua. Tämä osa tuntui hyvin puuduttavalta ja oli kokonaisuutena melko hajanainen. Vaikka Hobsbawm avaakin tärkeitä ja valaisevia näkökulmia Marxin ja Engelsin ajattelun historialliseen kontekstiin, olisin itse kaivannut vielä teoreettisempaa ja johdonmukaisempaa näkökulmaa. Nyt kiinnostavimmat näkökulmat jäivät vähän tietyn akateemisen historiantutkimuksen nichen rajoittamiksi.
Kirjan toinen osa osoittautui huomattavasti lähestyttävämmäksi ja kiinnostavammaksi nykypäivän kysymyksenasettelujen kannalta. Toisessa osassa käsitellään marxilaisuuden vaikutusta 1880-luvulta aina 2008 finanssikriisin jälkeiseen maailmaan sekä erityisenä nostona Antonio Gramscin ajattelua ainoana kirjassa Marxin ja Engelsin lisäksi yksilöitynä ajattelijana. Tältä osin kirjan rakenne on huomattavasti johdonmukaisempi pitkälti, koska se rakentuu neljän tarkkaan aikakausittain rajatun esseen ympärille.
Moniin suuntiin rönsyilevää kirjaa on vaikea tiivistää sisällöllisesti. Kirjaa onkin ehkä luontevinta lähestyä kysymällä, mitä se pyrkii tekemään. Tätä voisi kuvata pyrkimyksenä arvioida kriittisesti Marxin ja marxilaisuuden kiistattoman rikasta, eikä aina niin mairittelevaa, perintöä sen kannalta, mistä lähtökohdista 2000-luvun ihmiset lähtevät omaa Marxiaan lukemaan. Hobsbawmin kirja päättyy toiveikkaiseen, muttei täytin riidattomaan loppusointuun: Vaikka 80-luvun jälkeen Marxin ajatukset ovat viimeistään reaalisosialismin kaatumisen myötä ajautuneet myös vasemmistolaisissa puolueissa selvään marginaaliin, ovat 2000-luvun tapahtumat osoittaneet, että ehkä historia ei sittenkään loppunut lopullisesti ja että Marxin ajatuksille on edelleen käyttöä maailman ymmärtämiseen – ja muuttamiseen.
Kirja on jaettu kahteen osaan, joista ensimmäinen käsittelee aatehistoriallisesti Marxin ja Engelsin ajattelua. Tämä osa tuntui hyvin puuduttavalta ja oli kokonaisuutena melko hajanainen. Vaikka Hobsbawm avaakin tärkeitä ja valaisevia näkökulmia Marxin ja Engelsin ajattelun historialliseen kontekstiin, olisin itse kaivannut vielä teoreettisempaa ja johdonmukaisempaa näkökulmaa. Nyt kiinnostavimmat näkökulmat jäivät vähän tietyn akateemisen historiantutkimuksen nichen rajoittamiksi.
Kirjan toinen osa osoittautui huomattavasti lähestyttävämmäksi ja kiinnostavammaksi nykypäivän kysymyksenasettelujen kannalta. Toisessa osassa käsitellään marxilaisuuden vaikutusta 1880-luvulta aina 2008 finanssikriisin jälkeiseen maailmaan sekä erityisenä nostona Antonio Gramscin ajattelua ainoana kirjassa Marxin ja Engelsin lisäksi yksilöitynä ajattelijana. Tältä osin kirjan rakenne on huomattavasti johdonmukaisempi pitkälti, koska se rakentuu neljän tarkkaan aikakausittain rajatun esseen ympärille.
Moniin suuntiin rönsyilevää kirjaa on vaikea tiivistää sisällöllisesti. Kirjaa onkin ehkä luontevinta lähestyä kysymällä, mitä se pyrkii tekemään. Tätä voisi kuvata pyrkimyksenä arvioida kriittisesti Marxin ja marxilaisuuden kiistattoman rikasta, eikä aina niin mairittelevaa, perintöä sen kannalta, mistä lähtökohdista 2000-luvun ihmiset lähtevät omaa Marxiaan lukemaan. Hobsbawmin kirja päättyy toiveikkaiseen, muttei täytin riidattomaan loppusointuun: Vaikka 80-luvun jälkeen Marxin ajatukset ovat viimeistään reaalisosialismin kaatumisen myötä ajautuneet myös vasemmistolaisissa puolueissa selvään marginaaliin, ovat 2000-luvun tapahtumat osoittaneet, että ehkä historia ei sittenkään loppunut lopullisesti ja että Marxin ajatuksille on edelleen käyttöä maailman ymmärtämiseen – ja muuttamiseen.
January 1, 2020
Once again, I mistakenly picked the wrong Hobsbawm title to read. I wanted an exposition of the work of Karl Marx but Hobsbawm has here written the history of Marxism while not ignoring the significant contribution of Friedrich Engels. The territory covered begins with the years of the Marx-Engels collaboration, mostly in England, the written fruits of their collaboration as well as works attributed to each individually, & the printings, distributions, translations & receptions of these works by various audiences. Certain factors of "Marxism in practice" ie the Soviet Union are covered. One thing that caught my attention was the frequent posing of questions related to Marxism along with the follow-up that this is not the appropriate work or place or time to address such questions. It made me think that the book I had hoped to be reading was the one that addressed those questions. Certain "fellow-travelers" of Marx-Engels are mentioned as well as certain neo-Marxists whose careers post-dated those of Marx & Engels, of these, the Italian of the first half of the 20th century, Gramsci would seem to be the most interesting.
January 25, 2021
Più che un libro è una raccolta di saggi sul marxismo in generale: è presentata una netta distinzione tra il pensiero di Marx e quello di Engels ed, infine, quello dei sostenitori/allievi di Marx. Ho molto apprezzato la parte relativa all'italia e alla diffusione del comunismo nei paesi del terzo mondo; ma molti capitoli risultavano ridondanti e ripetitivi e questo rendeva la lettura non molto scorrevole
Displaying 1 - 30 of 61 reviews