Wednesday 3 October 2012

Why is everyone rushing to praise the Marxist Eric Hobsbawm, an apologist for mass-murderers?

A "great" supporter of mass murderers
I'll admit to being perplexed by the sycophantic encomiums from all parts of the political spectrum being lavished on the Marxist historian, Eric Hobsbawm (or Frogspawn as I seem to remember he was known at Cambridge). I foolishly thought that right-wingers and conservatives would be united in their disdain for an academic who escaped Nazi oppression only to wind up claiming that, in order for communism to succeed, it would have been worth the death of 10 or 15 million people (as opposed to the minimum of a hundred million who actually died).

In Hobsbawm’s corner, there were the likes of right-wing economic historian Niall Ferguson (a mate of the old blighter, apparently) and conservative commentator Allan Massie - yes he supported the most monstrous tyranny the world has ever known, but he was a great historian. In humanity’s corner, there were historian Michael Burleigh and novelist A.N. Wilson - he may have been a great historian, but he supported the most monstrous tyranny the world has ever known. The Guardian, naturally, decided he was a simply brilliant historian and a truly smashing human being. The excellent Nick Cohen cogently summed up the treacherous, ungrateful, hateful old git’s flaws in a Spectator post, but asked to be excused from having to despise him in the way he would an old Nazi, because of the Cohen family’s leftist credentials. (We'll get back to you on that one, Nick).

All of these pieces had their good points. But the best article of all was by Douglas Murray, again in the Spectator, entitled “A great historian with fascist tendencies has died”, which echoed my own attitude exactly (you can read the whole thing here). In his piece, Murray writes about Hobsbawm as if he had been a keen supporter of Nazism (as opposed to Communism)n in the 1930s, and who, despite never having renounced his beliefs, had gone on to be showered with praise  by western democracies:
In recent years some controversy was caused when he was asked whether the deaths of millions of people in the Holocaust would have been justifiable if it had led to the fascist state he wished to bring about and he replied ‘yes’. Lively, witty and convivial, he remained a central figure in far-right circles and was always able to draw a crowd at the Hay-on-Wye festival and the salons of literary London.  For his many notable achievements he was given numerous awards. In 1998 he was made a Companion of Honour.
I have previously pointed out that I see absolutely no difference between people nowadays describing themselves as Fascists or Marxists (the proof can be found here). It means they are either supremely foolish or almost inconceivably wicked or simply too obstinate and egotistical to admit that they once made a dreadful mistake by supporting a political philosophy which history has conclusively proved produces nothing but brutality, poverty, murder, enslavement and tyranny.

I have no idea whether Hobsbawm was a great historian, but if he was, I'm perplexed. I can see how someone might be a great bricklayer and a Marxist or a great footballer and a Fascist - their political views are entirely irrelevant to their professions. But how can you be a great historian or economist when you're interpreting evidence through the distorted lens of theories which have been proved to be cosmically, disastrously, utterly WRONG! How does that work? You can be, say, a great Whig historian, because, even if you're not a Whig, it's possible to make out a perfectly credible case for Whigism. But it is simply impossible for a rational human being to make a credible case for Marxism in 2012. It's like imagining that someone who believes the world was created 4000 years ago could be a great geologist: they could, I suppose, have some piercing insights, and they might write well, but their fundamental beliefs would mean that, ultimately, they'd be spouting utter balls.

I imagine that, in the case of both geologists and historians, they'd have to end up falsifying or distorting facts in order to make reality conform to their delusional belief system - Hobsbawm was certainly often guilty of peddling the party line in preference to telling the truth (several commentators mention his ludicrous interpretation of the motives behind the Soviet Union's Winter War with Finland in 1939-40).  How can you deliberately lie and be considered a "great historian"? 

The fact that so many members of the great and the good are eager to heap praise on Hobsbawm (in an attempt to demonstrate how fabulously liberal and forgiving they are, I presume) may indeed be a sign of this nation’s wonderful reserves of tolerance, rationality and even-handedness – but it also explains why the Left has been allowed to establish a totalitarian stranglehold on the cultural life of this country.

The reason so many of our best conservative and right-wing academics end up teaching abroad is because Britain’s politico-media-academic elite hasn’t had the moral courage to ostracise those who betray their country by acting as cheerleaders for tyranny, whether of the Communist or Islamist variety. I'm astonished that a great, truth-telling  right-wing historian like Niall Ferguson - who has long since decamped to America - doesn't understand this.


12 comments:

  1. Why are you so surprised? I had conversations with some of the history teachers at school which comvinced me that their personal views were not that dissimilar from the Hobsbonkers slant. Lots of bright 18 year olds left school in the 70s with a Marxist interpretation of 20th century history firmly wired in. Some never shook it off. Others didn't choose history because they knew how their essays would be marked.

    I too am disappointed with the historians' cop-out on Hobswawm but again not surprised. After all, say what you like, but darling Tony Blunt was such an expert on Poussin, Kim was so so clever and witty and just too too hounded, Guy was well...just Guy and Bill Haydon, well, artists have different standards and you can't judge him by yours, Smiley. As Graham Greene put it, sweet man, given a choice he'd rather betray his country than his friends.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And of course, dear, dear Graham was also frightfully fond of the occasional dictator himself, as so many leftists seem to be.

      I was aware our main history teacher was a raving old leftie (I believe he went on to be headmaster of one of those exciting new comprehensive schools which have so successfully done away with the need for private education) - but I can't remember if you were there the day he asked us to reveal our political preferences. Over half the class turned out to be Conservative and he was visibly shocked. Wouldn't happen today, of course.

      Delete
  2. Oh my actual God!! Like, which one to choose between those two sex god looky likey Erics, Heffers and Hobbers, Potato, Patato? I really do rage!!!

    Well, I dunno, girls!! Neither is an Oil Painting, know whaada mean? But they're wild and crazy guys in a Post-Soviet ragey chic kinda style way!! So girls, the dead far left Labour MP for Liverpool Walton with the Marxy Fartsy world view and the grumpy face? Or the Hysterical Historian who denied the Stalinist slaughters of the 30s, supported the invasion of Hungary in 56, invasion of Czecho 68, the Nazi-Soviet Pact and if Stalin had won, wooda cheered hip hip Che-hooray?

    It's a close thing. Answers on a postcard please.

    ReplyDelete
  3. E. Borgnine [deceased]4 October 2012 at 01:56

    I was once married to the Mexican actress Katy Jurado who always referred to me as her "Hoopsban" as in "how many tortillas this morning, my hoopsban?". Is this an alternative spelling? I have never read Hoopsban - any laughs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Listen Ernie, when you married Katy you (to quote e.f. bartlam) definitely outkicked your coverage. As for "hoopsban", Google only gives me sports reports - i.e. "lengthy hoops ban". Anyone else have a clue what Ernest was on about?

      Delete
  4. He were a great lad who liked a laff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I know for a fact, Wayne, that he was a great admirer of your Marxist interpretation of the offside trap.

      Delete
  5. I guess there's some cockeyed way in which one could argue he used Marxist methodology...or used Marxist interpretations to make brilliant points but...

    One, the Marxist mistakes history for what happened in the past (rather than what is written) and worships it as a Cosmic force. The Soviets didn't imprison and execute millions...history did. You find similar sentiments from other murderous types. Sherman's "war is hell" comes to mind. Sherman, Grant, Lincoln and Sheridan, didn't rape, burn and pillage The South...the impersonal, cosmic, force of War did. The same can be said of their exploits with the Indians...Manifest Destiny.

    Two, while you can find strains in history that fit in with a Marxist perspective it is, of course, nonsense to ignore all other factors...that's not history it's dogma. Key Histories are bad history.

    Three...he was a crackpot and his ideas were garbage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m grateful for your illuminating comments on why Marxists appear to be so callous about human suffering – and why acts of mass murder are so routinely dismissed as somehow “necessary”.

      I won’t pretend to have read much about the Marxist approach to history (except for Karl Popper being rude about it) – but I can’t understand why anyone who wasn’t a card-carrying communist wouldn’t simply dismiss Hobsbawm as a pure propagandist rather than a proper academic – after all, the Marxist historian’s job is surely to demonstrate how everything that has happened is part of the inevitable march towards the triumph of the proletariat and the ultimate withering away of the state. But of course we know that’s nonsense, so the history they produce must inevitably be nonsense. I should have thought the only interest in the work of Marxist historians would result from observing how they twist reality into pretzel shapes to fit their own deranged theories. Or am I being naïve?

      Delete
    2. No not naive at all...they are a bunch of ideologically motivated hacks.

      No matter how insane, for any idea to have success there has to be some basis in reality. For instance...I mentioned the War Between the States. One of the driving forces toward war, for the northern industrialists, was to create and protect new markets. Not only had the north industrialized, putting many people out of work, they were being flooded with immigrants...no work, no money, no purchasing power.

      This is where some of the Free WHITE Soil movements have their beginnings. As soon as the Planters were out of the U.S. Congress...policies that these industrialists had been salivating over for years were passed...land grants for railroads to the great lakes for instance.

      The industrial region of the Midwest was literally built with the ashes of Atlanta, Charleston, Meridian, etc.* That's a strain of the story that could be described as Marxist in it's outlook...but tenuously. I don't think anybody would deny that the need for markets, labour, and capital have had no effect on human events.

      *Interesting anecdote...when the Asians and Europeans really started moving manufacturing into The South, the yankee car companies would run ads down here telling us not to buy cars made by our neighbors because, while they may be built in America, they weren't American. HA!

      Delete
  6. .....and, e.f.bartlam, he is a Woody Allen look-a -like. And his current films are total crap.


    I have spent much time reently reading late medieval English history. You have spurred me on to go back to the American Civil War [50 Waterloos in 4 years.] Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell me if it turns out any different this time...I can't get too involved with it. I get too frustrated with it...kind of a problem though, as I am surrounded by it.

      Delete