La era del capital, 1848-1875

Modern History: The Four Ages #2

by Eric J. Hobsbawm, Ángel García Fluixà (Translator), Carlo A. Caranci (Translator)

Hobsbawm nos muestra aquí los años triunfales del ascenso del capitalismo industrial y de la cultura burguesa que van de 1848 a 1875, cuando, apagados los rescoldos de la revolución, se inicia un tiempo de nuevos valores y nuevas perspectivas, de transformaciones sociales, que ve la formación de grandes fortunas y la migración de masas empobrecidas, mientras una Europa sometida al nuevo ritmo de los auges y las crisis extiende sus empresas económicas y su cultura al resto del planeta. Hobsbawm nos habla de los acontecimientos políticos, de la evolución económica y de los hechos culturales en una síntesis vigorosa y original, que hizo exclamar a un crítico: «Este libro extraordinario brilla y chisporrotea en cada página. Por amor del cielo, y para vuestro propio bien, ¡leedlo!».

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, Economics, World History, European History, 19th Century

358 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1975

About the author

Eric 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."

Reviews

[Callum's Column · Rating 4 out of 5]

The failed revolutions of 1848 were the culmination of the dual revolutions—French and Industrial. The liberal bourgeoisie were the victors. European empires controlled much of the world, and where they did not, supplied much of the capital. The subaltern class, which would become the proletariat, was forced to adapt or die, yet many died anyway (famine, war, etc). This age also saw the solidification of nationalism—German unification is an exemplar. It also saw the nascent creation of class-consciousness, scientific advancement, closing of frontiers, and the ascendancy of the "free market," which both liberated labour (e.g., slavery), and subjugated the worker.

The Age of Capital is Eric Hobsbawm's second volume of his trilogy on the long nineteenth century. He uses a Marxian historical lens to view this period. His analysis is piercing and illuminating, covering topics of war, economics, art, and sociology. A Marxian lens is apt for this period, considering Marx was theorising through this time, and industrial capital was the zeitgeist of the age. Marx's politico-economic theories may have been erroneous (feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism -> communism), yet the dialectical materialist view remains compelling. Rationalism is subordinate to materialism, and it is material dialectics that drives historical change.

What is our current age? I posit that we are in the Age of History. The End of History by Francis Fukuyama was published around the same time that Hobsbawm published a fourth book, The Age of Extremes (early 1990s post-Soviet collapse). Fukuyama looked forward, whereas Hobsbawm looked backward. There were inherent contradictions (e.g., mass globalisation, corporatisation, identity politics, etc) in the triumph of liberalism as "the final form of human government." The gap between economic realities and political ideals underpinned political alienation and discontent. Liberalism is consequently in retreat, yet politics—particularly authoritian—will always be interested in you.

[howl of minerva · Rating 5 out of 5]

The chapter on the arts alone is worth several times the price of admission.

Among the many many things I learned: the origins of hipsterism. The phenomenon of bourgeois youth performing a brief, sterile, apolitical, highly stylised rebellion against the materialism of their parents by retreating into some dubiously artistic enclave and imitating the lifestyle of the working class is an invention of the Parisian bohème of the late 19th century. Like all the best insights, should have been obvious really.

[Luís · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is good to read quality books on this subject that the Le Pen will pick up and put in their sauce. This work draws up a thorough history of capitalism without hiding anything. What we discover in these pages is that basic capitalism was not a bad thing. It became so when men and politicians used it to establish their power. Those who rightly condemn this mad machine of capitalism would be very surprised to see that their precursors make this machine angry; a critical book to read to understand the world.

[Sense of History]

Again: without doubt a classic, focusing on the rise of liberalism and the breakthrough of the Industrial Revolution. Very eurocentred, of course, and influenced by the author's marxist ideology (though in hindsight, he kept a remarkable distance, at least for the 19th Century period) . Published in 1975, and thus manifestly outdated by now. I read this when I was 20, and it felt like a gorgeous treat. But too long ago to present a longer review, I'm afraid.

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Volume two of Eric Hobsbawms' four-part history of the modern world, from 1789 up till 1994. This time it is the Age of Capital, the era post 1848 up until 1875, witnessing the failure of the revolutionary wave of 1848 up to the slowdown in growth of the major industrialised economies in the 1870's. The period deals with the 'high-point' of growth for the developed(ing) industrialised nations (mainly European, although there is some mention of the growth of early North America as well as small sections on Japan and China, leave alone some mentions of South America), the inexorable grip the new bourgeoisie, guided by liberal-enlightenment ideology, had over the world - both in terms of the economy as well as the culture of the mid-nineteenth century. As I believe I have mention in prior reviews of both The Age of Revolution and Age of Extremes, Eric Hobsbawm was a Marxist Historian, and if you are expecting a chronological history of these years, or if you are not aware of some of the major characters and events of the mid-nineteenth century, then look elsewhere until you know at least a modicum of knowledge of these years. In other words, Hobsbawm writes critically, analytically, using a Marxist framework to try and understand - not too academically however, but still with a certain depth - how the growth of Capitalism impacted the World in nearly every way (Education, Culture, Economic thought, Architecture, the Arts et al); the effect of the British Industrial and French Political Revolutions of the late eighteenth Century became global, and their effects are still with us to this day.

This era also saw the growth of a rising working-class (proletariat), and along with the growth of big Industrial Cities with major populations exodus' from the land to find work in the developing Industries (coal, iron and steel production), the beginnings of Socialist political organisations (such as the German Social-Democratic-Party, the SDP) and Trade Unions came into being to represent workers better than they had been before. Also, according to Hobsbawm, because the Bourgeoisie had won their revolutions, the fear of a proletariat revolution - as nearly happened in 1848 as well as the Paris Commune of 1871 - now became a threat to their social order and this is the era of the development of Marxism as both a philosophy and a political theory (Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto during the 1848 'springtime of the peoples'), in other words something to be feared, hence many concessions made to the poverty-stricken working class (along with studies into their condition, hence the rise of educational social-science such as Sociology in this period). Many subjects we still study today had their origin during the mid-nineteenth century, a period when Education 'exploded', mainly at first in science for the development of Industry (the railways were a big thing of this period - they revolutionised the transportation of goods and travel more than anything ever had done prior, and nothing of any significance on the ground has done so since), later becoming more widespread, as with the growth of Capitalism came new machinery, more 'revolutionary' work methods etc that needed a marginally educated workforce. And so on. 'Social Transformation' is a good phrase to use to sum up this period.

This book is a good primer into the development of Capitalism - Euro-Centric (which it would have to be), but touching on other important countries too such as America, explaining the Californian gold-rush and the immigration that slowly became an avalanche in the third quarter of the nineteenth Century (Irish, British and Germans were the main immigrants), as well as a brief but interesting few pages on the Civil War of 1861-65. I found that interesting. I also found the growth of, (rather than state-controlled), private detective and law agencies (such as the Pinkertons - who not only hunted law-breakers, but also suppressed striking workers equally as effectively) protecting the rights of the Industrialists before there was really any centralised State law-enforcement. The Robber Barons get a mention too - unscrupulous Capitalists in their purest form. A good study, but I suggest read a primer so you come into this book knowing at least a skeleton idea (dates, events, people) of the mid-nineteenth century.

[Reid tries to read · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Springtime of the Peoples
The 1848 revolutions succeeded and subsequently were overturned in striking rapidity. Within 6 months of the 1848 revolution‘s outbreak across Europe it was already widely seen as defeated; within 18 months every regime that had been overthrown was now restored outside of the French Republic. The main European nations affected by the failed revolutions were France, Germany, the Austrian empire, and Italy. The revolutions which would become known as the Springtime of the Peoples shared some distinct similarities despite taking place in different regions, countries, and places with various degrees of development and class structures. Not only did each revolution occur almost simultaneously, but each one affected the others in some way. Likewise, they all collapsed quite quickly and completely. They were all characterized by hope and confusion, and a common symbol shared by each revolution was the barricade.

In France the first signs of counterrevolution were seen during the voting period over the summer of 1848, where the peasantry elected mostly conservatives to the government. This can primarily be attributed to the ignorance and inexperience of the peasantry, rather than them being a purely reactionary force. Although the republic would not be formally abolished until 1851, the defeat of revolutionary France was exemplified in April of 1848 when a workers uprising in Paris was crushed. In the Austrian Hapsburg Empire, the army regrouped after initial defeats and defeated revolutionaries in Prague with the help of the middle classes. Hapsburg intervention also helped put down revolution in Italy, while Russian intervention helped quash revolution in the Danube region of Germany. By 1849 the revolution was dead, and all the old monarchs have been restored to power with the exception of France, who as we saw already was in the process of distancing itself from the revolutionaries. Almost all institutional changes across the board of the revolution were wiped out and nullified.

Another key to similarity between all the revolutions was that they were the acts of the laboring poor, and the very radical nature of mass lower-class uprisings alienated the middle classes who acted as counter revolutionaries. The revolutionaries were radical, with many being communists and socialists. Moderate liberals who did partake in the revolutions mainly stressed compromise with the ruling order; however, most moderates, bourgeois, and other members of the middle classes were against the revolutions entirely. Across the board, moderate liberals tended to either become conservatives or compromise with conservatives in combating the revolution; in each country it was a coalition of conservatives, moderate liberals, and the old regime which joined together to defeat the revolutionaries. In the period following the defeat of the Springtime of the People, the bourgeoisie ceased to be a revolutionary force. They came to realize that their political and economic aims were much better met under the stability of existing regimes rather than by wading through the chaos of revolution from below.

One of the reasons the laboring poor failed in their revolutions was because they were so young, both ideologically and as a class in general. they did not have solid revolutionary theory to understand everyday life and their role in it, and at the same time they were often still a minority of the population. Their small proportions plus weak ideology resulted in fragmentation and failure. What 1848 did signify above almost all else was that the traditional ruling monarchies, sanctified to rule over their subjects by divine and religion, were no longer ideologically tenable. Subjects had fully become citizens who now believed themselves to be political actors with agency. Even the most conservative reactionaries now realized that such a thing as public opinion existed, and that this needed to be manipulated and cultivated in their interests. The most important development in this area (and one especially crucial to Karl Marx) was the election of Louis Napoleon in France. His election signified that mass suffrage and democracy could still easily be used to maintain the current ruling order and its social stability.

Capitalism engulfs the globe
From 1848-1870 the world’s economy (and it did truly become a singular world economy during this timeframe) was entirely transformed as a sizable chunk of developed countries became industrial economies. 1850 was the start of a great global economic boom without precedent. British cotton (the leading commodity of the day) penetrated economies across the globe as its export doubled from 1850-1860. The export of iron from continental Europe exploded, along with the founding of joint stock companies across the continent. The expansion led to an increase in the employment of wage laborers, and this increased employment coincided with a decrease in their general political activity. This can be seen by two examples: 1. The death of the chartist movement in Britain, which went out with a prolonged whimper rather than a bang; 2. An almost universal drop off in the number of food riots across Europe despite a rise in food prices, suggesting a general increase in real wages.
Even when a depression struck in 1857, it did not generate any sort of mass political movements comparable to the 1848 revolutions. The masses were worn out and disillusioned, much like today.

Much of the expansion of this period was due to the invention and proliferation of the railway, which increased the geographic area that goods could be transported to, the speed at which they were transportex, and total mass of goods that could be transported. This breakthrough was closely followed by the steamer, which sped up transportation over waterways, and finally the telegraph, which did to communication what the railway did to commerce. These inventions allowed for the creation of a single, expanding world market. This phenomenon was the most significant development of this era, and it is comparable to the European discovery and pillage of the New World in the 15th and 16th centuries. Capitalism now had the entire world within its grasp, and the explosion of international trade and investment proved this. From 1800-1840 world trade had almost doubled; from 1850-1870 it grew by over 260%. If something could be sold, it was sold. Even if the buyer resisted, as did China to opium, the sale of profitable commodities could not be stopped.

Some other factors that helped lubricate the growth explosion are worth mentioning: the supply of the world’s gold supply grew rapidly thanks to large deposits found in Australia and California. This helped make the Pound-Sterling, which was backed by gold, into a safe monetary standard for world trade and commerce. Besides bullion growth, the institutional barriers to “free enterprise” were generally lifted across the globe during this period. Guilds were abolished, joint stock companies grew, and law was changed to promote trade and commerce (free trade treaties between industrial nations in the 1860s cut down tariff barriers). Most industrial economies found it helpful to draw upon the resources, technology, and methodology of the British via trade, while Britain likewise found willing purchasers for its exports. Although in each industrial nation there were capitalists and pressure groups who were harmed by free trade, they were politically outweighed by those who benefitted from it.

Before this time period, economic crisis had been the result of poor crop yields and these crises had been mainly contained to certain regions rather than affecting the entire globe. After 1848, the fluctuations of agrarian production lost much of their effect while the business cycle of booms and bust became globalized. Bad harvests still had not oboe effects, but the ability to import foodstuffs greatly diminished how harmful they could be. Agriculture came to depend more on the fluctuations of the market rather than the whims of nature. Although much of the world’s area and population (most of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and parts of Europe) still existed in purely local-exchange economies while being far away from ports, railroads, and telegraphs during this time period (1848-1875), the beginning of global capitalism was undoubtedly underway. It could truly be said that a “single world history” had been realized.

Europe rises while the world bleeds
In general, by the end of the 1860s governments in Europe faced domestic political unrest/agitation by the moderate liberal middle classes and more radical democrats. These agitations were not revolutionary outside of a handful of isolated and contained outliers. Still, the decades of the 1850s-60s were characterized by concessions to political liberalization through reforms. The rulers of the 1860s in Europe found themselves in the midst of sweeping economic and political changes outside of their control. They had to adapt, which meant determine which concessions to make to the middle classes without threatening the overall order stability. Often, this meant bending but not breaking the existing political structures.

Internationally, The great powers of this era were Prussia, Austria, France, England, Russia, and the United States. Europe had internally sought to maintain a steady internal peace after the defeat of Napoleon (1815). The biggest sources of friction between the rival European empires were contestations over the disintegration pieces of the Ottoman Empire, and then between England and Russia over dominance of the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and Britain’s Indian empire. 1848 showed that these powers could weather great storms and still remain intact and relatively cordial with each other.

Outside of Europe, the 1860s were extremely bloody because capitalist penetration and development exacerbating tensions. In the United States, the Industrial North defeated the agrarian slavocracy South (1861-1865), resulting in Southern cotton being wrested out of the informal empire of Britain and closed off behind Northern tariffs. The Taiping rebellion (1850-1864) was brought on by the disruptive chaos caused by Europe force feeding Opium to China following the Opium Wars. In an effort to maintain the Chinese markets, Britain and a coalition of other European powers directly intervened into this civil war and inadvertently exacerbated it to the result of 30 million deaths. Another reason for the destructiveness of the wars of this period was due to the fact that they were the first to begin incorporating the new industrial means of warfare like dynamite and the Gatling machine gun.

Nationalism
One of the big domestic forces that rulers had to deal with over this period was nationalism (known at this time as “the principle of nationality”). Across Europe and much of the world, a process of “nation building” developed from 1848-1875. The American civil war was, if nothing else, an attempt to keep the “American nation” together. The Meiji restoration in Japan was an attempt to build a nation out of the various localized power centers. In the Hapsburg and Ottoman empires, various nationalities raised demands ranging from cultural rights/autonomy all the way up to outright independence and the right to self-govern. This process of “nation making” was so ubiquitous around the world that contemporaries rarely felt the need to investigate the nature of the phenomenon. By and large, the Englishman, Russian, Frenchman, etc seemed to have very little doubt that their nationality was a legitimate collective identity.

Despite the fact that most people at the time took for granted that nations of people undeniably existed and were as old as history, their desire to create “nation states” for themselves was a product of the French Revolution which created the first true nation state (one who had both a “national character” that coincided with certain territorial borders). Often then, the idea of what constituted a coherent “nation” was bound up with the territorial sovereignty of a nation state; nationalities were often post-facto justifications for already existing/established borders/territories. To put another way, what made the Germans, Englishmen, and Russians legitimate nationalities? Because they were part of an already established and definite nation-state. Other commonalities, such as a shared written language or oral vernacular, helped further bind together these nationalisms.

Leaders of nationalist movements were often college educated and/or members of the bourgeoise. Often, the rise in nationalist movements correlated with general economic development. Nationalist movements owned newspapers to spread their propaganda and formed social clubs to organize their movements. Information, therefore, was dispersed from the top-down: one had to be wealthy to fund these clubs and newspapers; one also had to be educated in order to have the pre-requisite literacy necessary to even read nationalist propaganda. The poorest sections of society, therefore, tended to be the last to join nationalist movements.

Democracy
If Nationalism was one historically developing force that states and governments of the time had to deal with, the other force was democracy. Democracy was understood to be the growing role of the common everyday man (and it was definitely believed to be for men, not women) in the affairs of state and government. Since most nationalist movements took on a mass character, and since most radical nationalist leaders equated these movements with movements for more democracy, often nationalism and democracy were seen as one in the same. From the point of view of the ruling classes, what was important was that the beliefs of the masses now had to be taken into account when doing political calculations; for obvious reasons they saw the beliefs of the masses as ignorant and dangerous. Louis Napoleon was one of the first to really set the playbook for how to manipulate these beliefs for the benefit of the ruling class.

As suffrage expanded, some liberals began to need to reach out to large swaths of the population that had previously been political spectators rather than actors in order to win their votes. Liberals formed parties with names like “radical” and “Republican” and made direct overtures and concessions to the poorer classes. Other liberals who greatly feared the masses (especially post-1848) formed conservative parties. Conservative parties also were hubs for members of the church and clergy, as these religious members of the ruling class saw their power being rapidly stripped away as capitalism and subsequent bourgeois political systems grew in strength and scope. The conservatives tended to rally around tradition and were opposed to anything that could be seen as “change” or “new”.

[Justin Evans · Rating 4 out of 5]

As brilliant as this is as a work of synthesis, I wonder if it might help to know something about the era before you start reading? I knew a little, and it helped enormously. Hobsbawm has a habit of referring to historical events which aren't generally well known as if they were as familiar as Beatles lyrics, which can be frustrating even if you know something about the time. Hobsbawm himself recommends some out of print books for this purpose, and unfortunately I don't know any good books to read which are in print! If you've done intro to 19th century history at school or something, you'll be fine; otherwise, it's still worth getting through this one. Just be sure to have wikipedia to hand for the more obscure references.

[Omar Kassem · Rating 4 out of 5]

الكتاب ما بيتعامل مع الزمن كأرقام، بل كقوى عم تتحرك. بتشوف كيف أوروبا، وخاصة إنجلترا، صارت قلب العالم الصناعي، وكيف الرأسمالية صارت مو بس نظام اقتصادي، بل نمط حياة. بتلاقي العالم عم ينتقل من إنتاج صغير، متمركز بالأرياف، لصناعة ضخمة، للمدن الكبرى، للعولمة الأولى إن صح التعبير.

بيحكي لنا كيف صارت البرجوازية "السيّد الجديد"، وكيف الطبقة العاملة بلشت تصرخ وتطالب بحقوقها وسط كل هالتحول. فيك تحس وأنت عم تقرا، كيف الطبقات عم تتحرك، تتشكل، تتواجه. مو بس هيك، هو بيورجيك كيف الناس عاشوا هالفترة: كيف كان اللبس، كيف كانوا يشتغلوا، شو نوع العلاقات اللي صارت تسود بين الناس.

ويمكن من أهم النقاط اللي بيشدك فيها، إنو بيربط بين كل شي: الاقتصاد بالسياسة، بالثقافة، بالفكر. بتقرأ عن توحيد ألمانيا، وبتفهم إنو ورا هالتوحيد مو بس سياسة، بل كمان مصالح صناعية وتجارية. بتقرأ عن الأدب والفن، وبتشوف كيف حتى رومانسيات الشعر تأثرت بالبخار والحديد.

"عصر رأس المال" مو بس كتاب تاريخ. هو مفتاح، مفتاح لحتى تفهم كيف صار في طبقة عاملة، ليش نشأت الماركسية، كيف تأسست الإمبراطوريات، كيف اتبنت المدن الكبرى، وشو اللي خلق فجأة فجوة عالمية بين شمال غني وجنوب فقير.

هوي كتاب بيحكي عن ناس عاديين متلك ومثلي، عن أحلامهم وخيباتهم، عن أرباح الأغنياء ودموع العمال، عن زمن تغير فيه شكل العالم بدون ما يستأذن حدا.

[Colin MacDonald · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a deeply frustrating book. There's a lot of solid historical information and interesting insights here, but it's all buried in horribly convoluted writing. This is coming from someone who's pretty comfortable with 18th century enlightenment writers like Gibbon, Johnson, and Smith. I'm OK with complex sentence structure, but this is something else. It's almost stream-of-consciousness, peppered with digressions, asides, unnecessary details, caveats, exclusions, qualifiers, and elliptical references.

I suspect the problem is that he knows his subject too well, and has trouble adopting the perspective of someone new to the material. I'm sure there's a lot to be learned from a patient and careful reading of this book, but boy, it'd be a slog.

[Steffi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Voice 001
The Age of Capital is the second part of Eric Hobsbawm's trilogy on the long 19th century (French Revolution till First World War) covering the period from 1848 through 1875.

This is the period of the massive advance of the world economy of industrial capitalism and the social order it represented, ideas and beliefs which seemed to ratify it: reason, science, progress and liberalism. This is also - with much relevance for making sense of today's neoliberalism - when the dual revolutions, the French revolution and the Industrial revolution, seemed to have brought about humanity's destinity in the dual triumph of democracy and capitalism, freedom as realized through the market.

It's in the 1860s when 'capitalism' entered the economic and political vocab and of course the age of Capital as in Marx's 1867 book the only thinker who produced a comprehensive theory of social structure and social change and a non-linear understanding of history at a time when linerar progress seemed to be inevitable.

This period is also THE period of the triumphant bourgeois and the chapter on bourgeois arts alone is worth reading the book. It's the emergence of mass consumption of arts and public procurement and subsidizing of art as expressed in the bourgeoisie's collective status symbols of theatre and opera, national museums and libraries which were built all over Europe's capitals during this time (well and outside of Europe, such as the Cairo Opera House where Verdi's Aida premiered in 1871).

While globalization and capitalism are of course much older (Arrighi's Hobsbawm inspired and muchos recommended The Long Twentieth Century  traces the origin of capitalism as a succession of 'long centuries' over a 700-year period), this specific period is critical to understand today's ideological struggles over the relationship between democracy and capitalism (freedom 'versus' equity).

[Sotiris Karaiskos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Συνεχίζοντας με την ίδια ανορθόδοξη μορφή αφήγησης ο Eric Hobsbawm σε αυτό το βιβλίο ξεκινάει από τις επαναστάσεις του 1848 για να προχωρήσει στην επόμενη φάση της εξέλιξης της εποχής του καπιταλισμού. Το ενδιαφέρον στοιχείο είναι ότι ο συγγραφέας εκμεταλλεύεται το σχετικά πιο ειρηνικό της περιόδου που ασχολείται για να ασχοληθεί περισσότερο με τη ζωή των ανθρώπων που την έζησαν και τις αλλαγές με τις οποίες ήρθαν αντιμέτωποι. Ένα ακόμα εξαιρετικά διαφωτιστικό ιστορικό βιβλίο.

[Jack · Rating 5 out of 5]

First book of 2026. More historians should write with a palpable loathing and contempt for the era they're surveying. Hobsbawm was an eclectic Marxist but also a bit of a snob, in the best way. As such he has disdain both for the death of revolutionary fervour, as the restive masses were bought off post-1848, and the hegemony of borgeoisie culture that followed. The chapter on art towards the end is the best of all. Such confidence and sweep! Professional historians shouldn't leave big survey histories to journalists, ex politicians and journeymen. Fewer micro histories, more macro histories!

[Alejo López Ortiz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Listo el segundo tomo de la Historia de la civilización, del profesor Hobsbawm. El período en el que se sitúa el libro, es sin duda la época de expansión del proyecto capitalista por todo el mundo. Por las buenas, o a las malas, casi todo el globo de montó en la locomotora del Capitalismo. El autor realiza un ejercicio intelectual demasiado importante, que no se complace en una serie de historias nacionales, sino, en relatar la perspectiva internacional y continental de los sucesos enmarcados en el período comprendido entre 1848 y el final del tercer cuarto del siglo XIX.

Finalmente, el Profesor Hobsbawm reseña una serie de consecuencias o resultados, como los llama en la división de su libro, en los principales aspectos de la época. Tierra, migración, la ciudad, la industria, la clase obrera, el mundo burgués, la ciencia, el arte, las ideologías y la religión.

Este período verá el gran auge económico, político y militar de UK, un auge que luego se neutralizará al entrar el siglo XX con la expansión de EU y Alemania, que igualarán a UK en su potencialidad económica. Claramente hubo algunos estados que no obedecieron las ordenes de los británicos para mantener el orden mundial, sino que, más bien, optaron por copiar el modelo Británico de economía. Ese, será el viaje que esperamos para la siguiente obra.

[Memduh Er · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bıktım bu çeviri yetersizliğinden!

Ama kitap 10 numara, her 5 senede bir okunsa yeridir.

[Xander · Rating 3 out of 5]

In this second installment of a four part series on nineteenth and twentieth century history, Eric Hobshawm zooms in on the period when capitalism conquered the world and subsequently transformed politics, society, culture, science and mankind's entire worldview.

The first thing to note about The Age of Capital (1977) is that it's much better written and much more interesting in subject matter than Hobshawm's previous The Age of Revolution (1962). In the latter book, Hobshawm places all events between The French Revolution (1789) and the European revolutions of 1848 into the frame of the 'dual revolution' of the French and Industrial Revolutions. This makes the book rather unconformable - it feels like a too small piece of cloth fitted on too big a person. But in The Age of Capital Hobshawm chooses to leave this narrow approach and he 'simply' explains, as a decent historian, how, during 1848 and 1875, capitalism spread across the Earth and changed the future of humanity in a humongous way.

Hobshawm still writes from his radical marxist perspective - he even admits in the preface to not like the subject matter (i.e. bourgeous society) of huge parts of the book - but somehow this is much less irritating compared to the previous book. Perhaps because (for once) his marxist views on history and society are fully justified regarding the historical period of 1848-1875. All his marxist notions are fully vindicated by the period described: the bourgeousie did arise massively during this epoch, liberalism did actually dominate politics up to the late 1870's, and the opression and social exclusion of large masses of workers was a real phenomenon.

It is impossible to summarize the book, since it deals on such a broad and deep scale with the world of mid nineteenth century. In general the world saw the spread of capitalism and industrialisation from the heartland of Great Britain. European countries, which became ever more focused on nationalism and were run by liberal yet reactionary regimes, began to see the entire world as a market. This led to a new version of colonialism, which gradually turned (around the 1880's) into imperialism.

The world saw the rise of three new major powers - a unified Germany (1870), a unified USA (after 1865) and a Japan which started westernization to reap the benefits of modernity - and it saw the resurgence of a former major power - 'Second Empire' France under the rule of Napoleon III. The decline on the geopolitical stage of Russia, the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire and China were primarily due to the industrialization process.

Due to capitalism society changed. In most European countries, nobility was replaced by the middle classes; money became more important than land. Due to industrialization and technological and scientific progress, the world saw huge changes in the perception of space and time. Everywhere rural areas were emptied by the trek to the cities (the peasant became a labourer); old towns and citites were emptied by the building of new, economically more productive one; and masses of poor people leaving Europe for the New World (especially the USA). The world became interconnected by ever-increasing networks of railways and sea routes - e.g. the building of the Suez and Panama canals cut short travel time by huge parts.

The transformation of the world into one integrated world marked - divided between winners (Europe, USA, Japan, etc.) and losers (China, Egypt, Russia, etc.); between developed and developing countries; between producers and markets - made the world also less stable. National economies were easily influenced by what happend in other countries around the world, economic crises could easily erupt and crises could transform into (great) depressions. THe new global system of markets also put pressure on bourgeouis industrialists: due both to international and national competition, capitalists were continuously appearing and disappearing on the market and the accumulation of wealth steadily leading to monopolies, oligopolies and cartels (cf. the American Robber Barons) - Marx' law of capital accumulation of capital put into practice.

The old feudal system was by now fully replaced by a class society: the old nobility, the new bourgeiousie, artisans, shopkeepers, the (new) huge masses of labourers, the remaining peasants. This new system of society led to new politics (liberal political economics triumphed all over Europe); cultural norms (bourgeious culture became the image of the good life); and to new directions within the sphere of knowledge (science trumping philosophy).

A last interesting change - a huge one at that - was the way science developed in the period concerned. Physics was considered as finished, especially after Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the development of thermodynamics - all that remained was to fill in the details. Chemistry was quickly approaching this point - especially with the synthesis of all strands of chemical knowledge by Mendeleev into the (very succesful) periodic table of the elements. Biology saw the discoveries by Pasteur and Darwin - which changed the worldview (for better or worse) of many intellectuals, ideologues and interested lay people.

In short: the period 1848-1875 saw the diffusion of the earlier revolutionary tension, the spread of capitalism and its societal consequences all over the world and the rise and fall of economic and hence political and military superpowers. Even more short: the world was radically transformed in the period concerned - old ways of living destroyed; new ways of living implemented. (Even more more short: mankind's perception of space and time was definitively altered).

As already mentioned, this is a really fascinating book on an even more fascinating historical era. A great piece of work by Hobshawm. The only downside to The Age of Capital is that Hobshawm's style and angle of writing presuppose a lot of background knowledge about the nineteenth century (key figures, events, ideas, etc.); this can make the book a tough pill to swallow for people lacking the necessary background information. In that sense, the more recent 'The Pursuit of Power, 1815-1914' (2017) by Richard J. Evans is a much better introduction in the period, albeit not specifically aimed at the nature, causes and effects of the 'capitalist revolution'.

[Lamia Al-Qahtani · Rating 4 out of 5]

في هذا الجزء يتحدث عن تأثيرات انتصار الليبرالية في أعقاب ثورات ربيع الشعوب عام 1848 وكيف غير الاقتصاد ورأس المال الحياة في أوروبا والدول التي تأثرت بها وكيف استغل الأوروبيون شعوب العالم لزيادة رؤوس أموالهم وأرباحهم التي انتقلت بأوروبا من مجتمع الأرياف إلى مجتمع المدن وأثر هذه التغيرات على السياسة والاقتصاد والعلوم الطبيعية والفلسفة والفنون والثقافة والحياة الاجتماعية والدينية، وكذلك أثرها على دول مثل اليابان والولايات المتحدة ودول أمريكا اللاتينية وأيضا مصر التي كان موردا كبيرا للقطن أحد أكبر الصناعات البريطانية وتأثير ذلك على النسيج الاجتماعي والديني والسياسي في الشرق الأوسط.
بعض الأجزاء المتعلقة بالأرض والإقطاع وقيمة الأرض كانت مملة لأنها إحصائية واقتصادية بحتة. 😴

[Andrew]

After nearly a decade, I'm finally reading the fourth volume of Hobsbawm's seminal exploration of the past 200 or so years from a (more or less) Marxist perspective. Here, we have a focus on the rise of the bourgeoisie as such, and how their influence, both economically and culturally, disseminated throughout the modern world in the mid-19th Century. As with the others, there is perhaps an excessive focus on Europe, but also as with the others, it's a pretty stunning overview of a time.

[هشام العبيلي · Rating 3 out of 5]

ستلتقط من الكتاب أفكاراً متناثرة هنا وهناك، لكنك لن تخرج منه برؤية واضحة تماماً عن الحقبة التي عالجها المؤلف، ربما يعود هذا لسببين: الأول: أن الكتاب ربما كان موجهاً للقارئ الأروربي بالدرجة الأولى . الثاني: لا بد وقبل قراءة هذا الكتاب أن يكون لدى القارئ رؤية واضحة عن التاريخ الأروبي ، يستطيع بعدها أن يتنوّر بتحليلات المؤلف وتفسيراته .

[Dario Andrade · Rating 4 out of 5]

Publicado em 1975, mais de 10 anos depois de “A Era das Revoluções”, esse é um livro muito mais bem-estruturado. Mesmo alguns dos problemas do estilo do Hobsbawm estão menos acentuados. O texto é menos caótico, com muito menos divagações. Mesmo assim, não é um texto para um leitor que conheça pouco do período. Não é, pois, uma obra para um público assim tão geral. É para alguém que tenha pelo menos conhecimentos relativamente avançados da história de meados do século XIX. O estilo ensaístico ainda atrapalha em alguns momentos, ideias brotam do nada e acabam por não ser muito desenvolvidas e o texto pula de um lado para outro com enorme facilidade. Do México de Benito Juarez pula para os maoris da Nova Zelândia e daí para a Índia, por exemplo.
De um lado, a ressalva mais óbvia é que o livro se centra principalmente no mundo europeu – principalmente inglês – e quanto mais distante do centro, menor o rigor da informação. No caso da América Latina, me incomodou, por exemplo, a afirmação (p. 138) “...o Brasil, que havia se separado pacificamente de Portugal...”, o que não é não verdadeiro. Mesmo nos anos 1970, quando o livro foi publicado, isso era só um mito. É um erro factual.
De qualquer, no período abordado neste volume, acho que o Hobsbawn consegue aplicar melhor também a sua visão historiográfica. Melhor, é claro, do que fizera no volume que cobre o período imediatamente anterior. O entendimento economicista que ele tinha do mundo se sai melhor neste período que constitui a consolidação da economia de mercado.
De modo geral, a inovação tecnológica iniciada lá por volta de 1780 se consolida, se expande geograficamente e, principalmente, ganha tração e se torna irreversível. As consequências econômicas, para o Hobsbawn, se fazem sentir e produzem uma alteração no panorama político: decadência de alguns atores e ascensão de outros. Além disso, essas novas forças econômicas e políticas precisaram ser acomodadas. No caso político, na ótica dele, liberalismo e democracia não andam juntas e frequentemente se contrapõem.
Exemplo da visão marxiana, ou seja, economia gerando política, do Hobsbawn está, por exemplo, quando ele explica o atraso da América Latina (p. 139): “A tentativa de transformar a sociedade via modernização institucional imposta através do poder político fracassou, essencialmente porque não tinha o suporte de uma independência econômica”.
A conclusão que ele faz para a América Latina do período me parece terrivelmente reducionista e com qual não concordo. Acho que foi bem complexo, inclusive com enormes variações dentro da própria região. Aliás, dentro do próprio Brasil, as variações internas foram gigantescas: “A América Latina, neste período sob estudo, tomou o caminho da ‘ocidentalização’ na sua forma burguesa-liberal com grande zelo, e ocasionalmente grande brutalidade, de uma forma mais virtual que qualquer outro país no mundo, com a exceção do Japão, mas os resultados foram desapontadores” (. 139).
Os capítulos que mais me interessaram foram “O mundo unificado”, “A construção das nações”, “as forças da democracia”, “perdedores”, “vencedores”, “a cidade, a indústria, a classe trabalhadora” e “o mundo burguês”. O capítulo que versa sobre as artes é dispensável.
A tradução merece uma nota. Incomodou-me em vários momentos – gauleses no lugar de galeses, mixagem no lugar de mestiçagem, inhabited traduzido inabitado, erros de tipografia, não informa o que é a sigla IWMA (Primeira Internacional, na verdade) e assim vai. Como essa era já a 3ª edição, é difícil entender como esses erros permaneceram... não sei, porém, se essas coisas foram corrigidas em edições posteriores. De qualquer modo, a minha avaliação é que o livro precisaria passar por uma boa revisão de tradução.
Por fim, uma nota a respeito da China.
Ao falar da revolta Taiping, me parece que há um excelente insight a respeito da China.
“Provavelmente sozinha entre os grandes impérios tradicionais do mundo, a China possuía uma tradição revolucionária popular, ideológica e prática. ideologicamente seus intelectuais e seu povo tomavam a permanência e centralização de seu império como um dado: existiria sempre, sob um único imperador (salvo por alguns períodos ocasionais de divisão), seria sempre administrada por intelectuais-burocratas que tivessem passado pelos grandes exames nacionais do serviço civil, introduzidos aproximadamente dois mil anos antes - e somente abandonados quando o império estava próximo do desaparecimento definitivo em 1910. Portanto, a história deste país era a de uma sucessão de dinastias, cada qual passando, acreditava-se, por um ciclo de ascensão, crise e transcendência: ganhando e perdendo o "mandato do Céu" que legitimava sua absoluta autoridade. Neste processo de mudança de uma dinastia para outra, a insurreição popular derivada do banditismo social, os levantes camponeses, as atividades das sociedades secretas populares e até a rebelião de grande magnitude eram conhecidas e esperadas para desempenhar seus respectivos papéis. No entanto, as próprias ocorrências destas agitações eram uma clara indicação de que o "mandato do Céu" estava por acabar. A permanência da China, centro da civilização mundial, era conseguida através da repetição contínua do ciclo de mudanças de dinastia, que incluía este elemento revolucionário”. (p. 145)

[Gabe Steller · Rating 4 out of 5]

A little less fun/satisfying than the first volume although the events are objectively less dramatic so I guess that’s to be expected, and quality of writing remains high.
Even so, where the last volume was so revelatory in terms of watching the formation of our modern political and economic systems/ideas, this one was fascinating in terms of seeing the formation our social/cultural ideas.

The Chapter on the bourgeoisie was especially interesting. For instance, their appreciation for temperance and association of alcoholism with the poor, reminded me of modern bourgeois craze of wellness, and Whole Foods, and association of fast food, poor diet etc with the low income people. Then as now there is some truth to both, but not because of inherent bourgeois cultural superiority, but once again economic strain, and unequal distribution of resources (nightmare working conditions then, food deserts etc now)

Chapter on Science was a highlight as well, cuz here we see the origins of the STEM obsession and the bogus race and cultural science that feed the noxious fever dreams of Right wing shit heads. For instance you can see echoes of 19th century criminal anthropology in criticisms of Rap, Black youth Culture.

DIFFERENT CENTURY SAME FUCKIN PROBLEMS

[Hussein Harbi · Rating 5 out of 5]

في الجزء الأول، كنتُ أقرأ الفصل مرة ومرتين لأفهم أكثر، في هذا الجزء أكرر الفصول لأستمتع بموسوعية هذا الرجل وذكاء تحليلاته... في الفترة 1848 إلى 1875 والتي شهت طي مرحلة طويلة من الاضطرابات والفورات السياسية، أصبح التأثير الأكبر لنتاج الثورة الصناعية في بريطانيا وليس الثورة السياسيّة في فرنسا. ولو عدنا إلى هذه الثورة الأخيرة، لتذكرنا أن الفرنسيين خارج باريس لم يعرفوا بها إلا بعد ايّام!،لكن في هذا العصر الذي يدرسه الكتاب، أصبح التأثير المهم لا ينتشر في بلد كاملٍ فحسب وإنّما في العالم كله تقريبا بسبب تطوّر وسائل النقل البخارية وابتداع تقنية التلغراف. إذن هذا هو عصر الصناعة وتأثيرها، مع عدم وجود تأثيرات سياسية كتلك التي حصلت في عهد الصورتين الفرنسية والصناعية.
عصر الرأسمالية (استخدم هذا المصطلح في 60يات القرن ال19)، لكنّه أيضًا عصر الأفكار والأساليب الحياتية التي فرضتها، عصر انتصار البورجوازية.
لعل الفصل الخامس من أهم فصول الكتاب، حيث يتحدّث المؤلف عن تكوّن الدولة/ الأمّة، وهو موضوع مهم بالنسبة لمنطقتنا التي تعاني من تضخّم الشعارات الفارغة.
أيضًا هو عصر الزهو البورجوازي: ملبسًا وعادات وتقاليد، ولا يخلو من افكارٍ شعبوية يلجأ لها الخصوم.
الكاتب وكما هي عادته في سلسلته هذه، يتتوّقف عند العلوم والآيديولوجيات والدين والفنون ويبرز صفات كل عصر.

[John Berner · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is very much a "eating your vegetables" book in that it's so good but can just as often be SO boring. I'm often going through this like, "why am I reading this again?" but then Hobsbawm will come through with a read of the period that's so fascinating and so singular it makes the pages (and pages) on grain production rates all worth it. Hobsbawm also has a unique, elliptical prose style that, in the same vein, can be alternately frustrating and alternately vivid: sentences that dip and dive, that force you to keep an extremely precise idea/angle in your head for lines on lines, that depend on the reader's keen ear for tone. Eat your vegetables!!

[Pablo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quizás un periodo menos atractivo que el correspondiente al primer tomo, pero no por ello menos interesante. El ritmo de este libro, por lo menos los primeros dos tercios, es superior que al anterior tomo, en ese sentido, siento que se debe a que está mejor escrito, y mejor estructurados los capítulos y sus subdivisiones.
Si bien el autor menciona que se puede leer de forma individual, sin antes haber leído La era de la revolución, no lo recomiendo, ya que tiene bastantes referencias al primer tomo.

[Yair Zumaeta Acero · Rating 4 out of 5]

La Era del Capital (1848–1875), del historiados británico Eric Hobsbawm es la segunda entrega de lo que más adelante denominó "La tetralogía sobre el largo siglo XIX", y constituye uno de los más acertados análisis del período comprendido entre las revoluciones europeas de 1848 y la crisis económica de 1870, dos décadas que además fueron testigos de la expansión y consolidación del capitalismo industrial. Con su habitual maestría, Hobsbawm logra a través de este libro entrelazar la historia económica, política, social y cultural con un panorama mucho más amplio que la simple visión cronológica, abarcando además (sin profundizar demasiado) otros lugares distintos a Europa y Norteamérica, como los son China y Latinoamérica.

Y aunque el título indique lo contrario, el libro trasciende la simple descripción de las causas que dieron origen al surgimiento del capitalismo industrial, pues también se encarga de explorar las dinámicas internacionales, el ascenso de la burguesía y su apropiación cultural, el liberalismo, las migraciones y la transformación de las relaciones laborales no como fenómenos aislados, sino como una red de causas y consecuencias internacionales. También resulta revelador el análisis que hace el autor sobre la aparente estabilidad económica y política del período (lo que se conocería más adelante como la "era dorada del capitalismo"), pues pese al crecimiento económico y la relativa paz internacional, en el fondo se gestaban tensiones profundas que desembocarían no sólo en la crisis económica de 1875, sino también - y especialmente - en los acontecimientos que dieron origen a la Primera Guerra Mundial.

La Era del Capital (1848–1875) resulta ser una lectura indispensable para quien pretenda entender esas décadas intermedias del siglo XIX que dieron forma tanto al surgimiento del imperialismo europeo, el nacionalismo y los horrores que vendrían en el siglo XX.

[Jorge · Rating 5 out of 5]

En esta segunda entrega de la Historia de la Modernidad de Hobsbawm, el Británico repite su formato de construcción de la historia. No relata, sino que subdivide toda la información disponible en una serie de capítulos, que dan como resultado dos grandes ejes: Las Causas y sus Consecuencias (Más una breve, pero exquisita contextualización sobre la revolución de 1848).

Al respecto, en este tomo, el autor resume el período posterior a la simultánea revolución Europea de 1848, como el del avance -y la consolidación- de una democracia liberal, pero, en especial -y hace bastante énfasis al respecto-, del comienzo del formato de división del trabajo que caracterizó al mundo hasta la irrupción de las economías asiáticas en el último cuarto del siglo XX.

Aquel avance es lo más fundamental del escrito. El libro responde el como una serie de factores y de odiseas políticas, dieron como resultado un sistema-mundo (aunque el término no sea de este autor) con claros vencedores (Europa, algunas ex-colonias Británicas, y el singular Japón con su estructura social muy similar a la Europea Occidental) y con claros perdedores (Latinoamérica, Africa, y la ultrajada Asia). Y por supuesto, cuales fueron los resultantes en la cotidianidad y en la espectacularidad -el arte- surgidos de estas condiciones sociales.

En referencia a esto, Hobsbawm entrega ciertas luces sobre una serie de debate, mas lo que más impresiona, es la capacidad del libro de expandir su campo de acción geográfico -finalmente, Hobsbawm está escribiendo la historia de la consolidación del Capitalismo, por lo tanto, Europa-, a tal punto, que discute sobre debates latinoamericanos del siglo XIX, hace mención del extremo proceso de liberalización económica que emprendió la élite Colombiana (Pág. 44 de esta edición), frente a un proteccionismo férreo en los Estados Unidos (una tesis que Pacho O'Donnel se encargó de profundizar para el Rio de La Plata). Así de extenso es este tomo -extenso en cuanto a contenidos, ya que su lectura no es pesada, para nada-, y así de transversal su significancia para las sociedades insertas en esta economía-mundo.

Por cierto, en esta entrega la prosa se hace mucho más amena, por eso las 5 estrellas.

[Pat Rolston · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the second in the epic four part historical analysis by Hobsbawm spanning the 19th Century. I don’t have much to add to the first review, ‘The Age of Revolution,’ in that he continues seamlessly to enumerate the statistics supporting his in depth analysis of global demographics, economic systems, and their impact to society. His views are rooted in a Marxist academic focus and this helps the reader to better understand his perspective.

While Eurocentric there is recognition of the Asian and American impact to the world. I appreciate his tireless and sometimes tiring flood of facts supporting his hypothesis as to those factors that shaped our world then and now. This is fabulous work bringing to light the reasons we have evolved from agrarian to industrial and ultimately service based economies. In turn the competing capitalist versus socialist forces and resultant impact to daily lives of the people become evident.

Government’s in all their forms from aristocracy to democracy to dictatorships are subject to Hobsbawm’s incisive analysis. Their story is one that reflects his astonishing grasp of the disparate cultural forces that impact people’s behaviors. He brings together the amazing story of how technological innovation, demographics, economic systems, and cultural traditions combined ultimately shapes the destiny of mankind.

[Sean · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely not as exciting as the first installment of the trilogy, but Hobsbawm still weaves a satisfyingly comprehensive yet surprisingly insightful narrative of the post-48 developments. His note about the effects of growing literacy on smaller villages, where the contexts of one’s nickname and legal name now began to diverge, was a nice little detail to illustrate the larger emergence of a public and private sphere.

He chooses to end this book intentionally at a vague, mid-1870s “watershed” rather than to attach it to any particular event in the 70s. Overall the impression of this history is one of preparing the ground and planting the seeds (of nation-building, expanding markets, agrarian change, migration, the self-assertion of the classical bourgeoisie, etc). Looking forward to seeing these seeds sprout, mature, and be harvested in the next installment.

[Sulaiman Al Amri · Rating 5 out of 5]

الكتاب عميق جداً. يتحدث بإسهاب عن التاريخ الاقتصادي والسياسي والاجتماعي لاوروبا خاصة والعالم في الفترة التي ظهرت بها الرأسمالية بين العامين ١٨٤٨ وحتى ١٨٧٥ ، يحاول الإجابة بتفصيل كبير جداً عن سوال كيف ظهرت الرأسمالية وما تأثيرها في كل مناحي الحياة الأوروبية خصوصاً والعالم بشكل عام ؛ حياة الدول والشعوب والقارات.

[Walter Schutjens · Rating 4 out of 5]

The 19th century has become one of my absolute fascinations, and as is the legacy of Hobsbawm's infamous three-part series this book provides the framework by which its multitude of events can be understood as a logic of their time. Hobsbawm, that radical spirited and all encompassing encyclopediast of the 20th century does it very well. He offers a broad survey of the world that exploded into being by the measured beat of the pump of a quickly accelerating steam train. Indeed, it is in this period that our own world - its proper 'constitution' - comes into recognition; a deeply ingrained synergy between the sovereign and swaggering state and the productive forces of capital, Capital with a big C that is.

With this materialist shift that suddenly lifted large proportions of the population out of (and consequently into - if they moved to the city) poverty, and moved some select few to believe that they were truly living on the Magic Mountain with the gods, came a whirlwind of new intellectual ideas built upon the conditions of dictates of the motivating ideology: liberalism. Part of the pleasure of reading this work was to read it in tandem with Mann's magnum opus: 'Die Zauberberg', a book that takes a very close look at the close amalgamation of characters that spill over from the 19th into the 20th century: the radical Italian humanist, the wealthy Dutch colonialist, the offended Russian aristocrat, the gnostic German communalist, and of course, the confused solitary Bourgeoise. All questions which were thought to have been answered by that seminal lecturer: mother science, suddenly come to the fore as the century stoops into crisis (culminating in the bloodiest of conflicts), questions of death, materialism, spiritualism, politics (proper politics that is), mass culture, conduct and revolution are all on the table. Importantly, with the current division of labour having not yet fully set in, these are discussed by a ragtag of artists, philosophers, capitalists and socialites. As it was in art, the possibility of approaching a topic with pure disinterest and only transcendental aspiration was the norm, and out of this avant-garde cultures were allowed to flourish and anti-humanistic thought given free reign over the sharpest minds of the century.

Hobsbawm manages to catch the excitement, hope, and countervailing plundering and pauperism in this book as if he has caught on to the wings of Minerva and takes us for the ride.

[yelnats hammer · Rating 5 out of 5]

The bourgeoisie come into their own as capitalists, surely, but really “as a body of persons of power and influence, independent of the power and influence of traditional birth and status” (244). So the problem dogging the age of revolution is solved; Hobsbawm finally has a bourgeoisie in his sights and plenty of sources to dissect them. The bourgeoisie convincingly drive this history forward and the chapter analyzing their social life overflows with insight: the bourgeois family as contradictory refuge from bourgeois society, prudishness as budgeting, artistic genius as corollary of individual bourgeois achievement. He even helps us see that Freemasons were the bourgeois international!

Other analyses of note include Bonaparte as “the executive power subordinating society to itself” to win the favor of the powerless peasants (102), the mythology of Civil War and Wild West signaling (anachronistically perhaps) the death of the yeomanry (138), the flowering of Russian revolutionary culture (166), the persistence of peasant production (178), and the origins of middle class travel (203). Migration, the unevenness of nationalism, the nature of working-class leadership, war in China, Bismarck’s brilliance, and Japan’s rise are presented nicely too.

My only real issue is the treatment of religion, which I think should be analyzed as a category produced by history rather than taken for granted.

But this is a historical masterpiece: well-sourced, ambitious, complex, and crisp. Fantastic.