Tony Greenstein | 18 October 2012 | Post Views:


Eric Hobsbawm was someone who stayed with the Communist Party till the end.  Whereas many intellectuals deserted the CP at the time of Hungary, Hobsbawm stayed the course.  He was, of course, criticised for his attitude toward Stalinism but whatever faults he had he was a great historian and equally importantly, he didn’t abandon class politics in the way that the Blairites under Nina Temple and Marxism Today did. 

Below is an Obituary on one of the greatest historians of the present age and also a reference to a contrary view of Hobsbawm.
Tony Greenstein

Remember us with forbearance: the unrepentant Eric Hobsbawm, an obituary

In his study

Donald Sassoon [1] , 5 October 2012

A fellow historian celebrates the life of one of the greatest British exponents of one strand of the tradition of European Marxism: a pessimism of the intelligence barely tempered by an optimism of the will.

Eric Hobsbawm outlived his short twentieth century [8] (1917-1991) by more than twenty years. And right to the end he was still the object of scandal for having been far too long a communist. ‘You see’, he might have said, (‘you see’ was one of his habitual linguistic tics) ‘there have been many communists among major historians, but they left. Some stayed on the left (E.P. Thompson), some moved right (Annie Kriegel, François Furet). I stayed until the end, the bitter end.’

Since even the popular media agree that Hobsbawm was a remarkable historian, a great historian, and some even say that he was the greatest living historian (something which he found rather unconvincing and a little embarrassing), it begs the question: how can an impenitent communist be a great historian? Indeed, whenever Hobsbawm was interviewed, especially in Britain or the United States, sooner or later, the utterly predictable questions would pop up. And why did you support the USSR? And why did you stay so long in the communist party? (the sub-text here being ‘the producer insisted I should ask you this because it would look odd if I didn’t’). The interviewer would offer a challenge: Here is the opportunity to denounce your past, to repent, to say sorry. Take the chance. Admit it: you were wrong!

Although he has consistently refused to abjure, he freely admitted mistakes, erroneous interpretations, his belated realization of the gravity of Stalin’s crimes (Khrushchev’s speech was to him a revelation). However, on the substance: ‘are you sorry to have been a communist?’ he always remained unrepentant.

Peter De Francia, *Eric Hobsbawm* (c.1955) James Hyman Fine Art, currently on public display in Room One of the stunning curation of art and archives connected to John Berger, ‘Art and property now’ [9] at the Inigo Rooms, Somerset House East Wing, King’s College London, the Strand, WC2R till November 10, 2012. Monday-Saturday 13:00 – !9:00

What kind of communist was he? He belonged, he explained in his autobiography, Interesting Times [10], to the generation for whom the hope of a world revolution was so strong that to abandon the communist party was like giving in to despair. But he must have been tempted. After the Soviet invasion of Hungary a letter was sent to the Daily Worker, then the party daily. It was signed by Hobsbawm as well as other party intellectuals such as Christopher Hill, E.P Thompson, Ronald Meek, Rodney Hilton, Doris Lessing, and the remarkable Scottish poet [11] Hugh MacDiarmid (who, in a somewhat eccentric way, is supposed to have rejoined the party over Hungary on the grounds that one does not desert friends in need). The letter declared that, ‘We feel that the uncritical support given by the Executive Committee of the Communist Party to the Soviet action in Hungary is the undesirable culmination of years of distortion of fact, and failure of the British communists to think our political problems for themselves…The exposure of grave crimes and abuses in the USSR and the recent revolt of workers and intellectuals against the pseudo-Communist bureaucracies and police systems of Poland and Hungary, have shown that for the past twelve years we have based our political analyses on the false presentation of the facts….’. Of course the party refused to publish it, so it appeared instead in the New Statesman. Other statements made at the time suggests that Hobsbawm, unlike perhaps the majority of his co-signatories, thought the intervention was a regrettable necessity, a kind of humanitarian intervention ante litteram (we know the formula: if the USSR had not intervened, fascism would have prevailed).

By then Hobsbawm had already lost any admiration he might have had for Russian society. In Interesting Times he explains that his first trip to the ‘socialist camp’ in 1954-55 had proved disappointing. He found the USSR and the system depressing and though he continued to defend the party line his scepticism grew as supporters were increasingly asked to believe the unbelievable. Communists of his generation regarded themselves, as he says, ‘as combatant in an omnipresent war’. Like their counter-parts on the anti-communist side they were prepared to disregard human rights in order to stop what they regarded as a greater evil. But then, how else can one tolerate evil if not by believing that something worse would have happened? This does not justify anything, but it explains much. And it explains Hobsbawm’s fondness for Brecht’s famous poem written in the 1930s An die Nachgeborenen (To Those Born After Us):

Ach, wir/ Die wir den Boden bereiten wollten für Freundlichkeit/ Konnten selber nicht freundlich sein./    Ihr aber, wenn es soweit sein wird/ Dass der Mensch dem Menschen ein Helfer ist/ Gedenkt unsrer/ Mit Nachsicht.

Alas, we
Who wanted to prepare the ground for kindness
Could not ourselves be kind.

But you, when the time comes
Where man can help his fellow man
Remember us
With forbearance.

Be that as it may, the question of why he decided to remain in the CP is, ultimately, a question of personal psychology. It was perhaps a desire not to give in, an affirmation that he preferred to remain loyal to the choice of his younger days when the international fight against fascism was the main motivation. After all he could have easily joined the establishment. In a way he did: he was made Companion of Honour in 1997 joining national treasures such as David Attenborough, Alec Guinness, and David Hockney and less treasurable treasures such as Tebbitt and Heseltine.

In the autobiography he alludes to the ‘pride’ of having gone so far without conceding an inch almost as if to say ‘If I can “make it” as an old commie, imagine what I could have achieved as an ex-commie?’ There was, after all, not the slightest personal advantage in remaining in the CPGB, a tiny party irrelevant in almost all areas of British life, unlike France or Italy where a large communist party offered some form of collective protection to a besieged community.

Though not really involved in the everyday politics of the CPGB (except as a student at Cambridge) he was always more than willing to give talks, write in the party press (such as Marxism Today) and be generally available provided no-one told him what to say.

Britain in the 1950s was overwhelmingly anti-communist. Even being a Marxist constituted a problem. To give the younger readers an idea of what was at stake I should perhaps mention that when I was at University College London in the 1960s, I took a course in British economic history. The lecturer in charge (whose name I have forgotten, so undistinguished he has remained) distributed a lengthy bibliography at the beginning of the academic year. He invited us to turn to a particular page and warned us: ‘Note on p. xxx: E.J. Hobsbawm, Industry and Empire. Now Hobsbawm is a perfectly good historian, but be careful: he is a Marxist. Turn now to page yyy: E.P Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class. Thompson too is a good historian, but be on your guards: he too is a Marxist.’ He mentioned no-one else. At school I had not heard of either of them. Of course, when the lecture was finished many of us trooped to the bookshop Dillons across the road to acquire Hobsbawm and Thompson with the excitement of teen-agers buying dirty books.

From the 1970s onward Hobsbawm’s closest allegiance was with the Italian communist party, probably the only party in which he could have been entirely comfortable, a party of which, as he explained, he had become a ‘spiritual member’. He could have joined the Labour Party in the 1980s, during the heydays of Thatcherism and when Neil Kinnock had made it clear that he would have liked to use a prestigious personal guru like Hobsbawm (everybody on the left, and not just on the left, had been reading his 1978 Marx Memorial Lecture ‘The Forward March of Labour Halted?’). But Eric kept his independence.

Hobsbawm did not really join the CPGB except in the technical sense. The CPGB was the local branch of an international movement which, when Eric joined, in the 1930s, was at its most centralized, but it was also the time when the threat of fascism was at its most vivid and when communists had gone beyond their more sectarian phase and espoused the policy of the Popular Front. Once he told me, that’s the kind of communist I am: a popular front communist.

As events unfolded after 1945 the movement began to disintegrate with increasing speed as soon as it extended itself. First there was Tito’s great refusal (1948), then the uprisings in East Germany (1953), in Poland (1956), and in Hungary (1956), then the break with Albania and the Great Schism with China (1960), then the Prague Spring (1968), then Romania’s nationalist declaration of independence from the USSR (1968), and finally eurocommunism (1976). Far from being a monolithic movement, world communism was less and less international once Moscow ceased to be ‘home’. Someone like Hobsbawm could stay in the movement, and take any position he liked without having to leave.
Past and Present and haute vulgarization

His works, which I started reading at university, were certainly not ‘communist’ whatever that may mean. Industry and Empire [12] was not the call to arms I had hoped. Hobsbawm’s contribution to the then raging debate on whether the standard of living of the working classes declined or improved during the industrial revolution – conducted in the 1950s and 1960s in journals such as the Economic History Review – was unimpeachably academic. The only slightly ironic tone Hobsbawm used was in his persistence in calling those who held the view that the conditions of life of the working class improved throughout the period of industrialization, ‘the cheerful ones’. This was a highly specialist querelle. It was somewhat outside what was then the dominant trend in British historiography whose chief concern was with political and diplomatic history rather than social and economic, with the short-term rather than the long-term, with the conjuncture rather than with structures.

This is why communist and Marxist historians made a common front with others who were close to the French Annales school. The outcome was the creation of the journal Past and Present [13]. Like Annales the group around Past and Present were committed to a study of structures, analysis and synthesis. They liked comparisons. They liked the long term, the longue durée [14]. Originally non-Marxist historians were reluctant to join the journal or to publish in it, but eventually they did. Distinguished scholars such as Moses Finley, Lawrence Stone, and John Elliott joined Marxists such as Christopher Hill, Rodney Hilton, E.P. Thompson and others. Hobsbawm supported the journal indefatigably [15] even managing to attend a meeting of the board in Oxford at a time when his mobility was seriously impaired.

Hobsbawm, at least in his scholarly production, remained was quite distant from the preoccupation of so many ‘organic’ communist intellectuals. In his historical work he wrote nothing about the USSR (until the Age of Extremes [16]) and little about communist history. When he did he was fiercely independent. I remember a scathing review he wrote in New Left Review (March-April 1969) of the first volume of the ‘official’ history of the CPGB by James Klugmann (History of the Communist Party of Great Britain: Formation and early years. 1919-24) accusing him of being ‘paralysed by the impossibility of being both a good historian and a loyal functionary’ and contrasting it unfavourably with Paolo Spriano’s history of the PCI ‘a debatable, but serious and scholarly work’.

Unwilling to defend communism – at least, not when the integrity of historical research was at stake – he did defend Marx and Marxism. Such defence, however, was seldom intransigent and he acquired his earliest renown and a distinctive voice as a historian on a subject with which traditional Marxist historiography (or, indeed, any historiography) had not dealt. I am thinking of his works of the late 1950s and 1960s on social banditry and pre-capitalist rebellions: Primitive Rebels [17] (1959) and Bandits [18] (1969) as well as Captain Swing [19] (with George Rudé) in 1968. Since then the scholarship on these themes has increased enormously yet it is difficult to encounter a book or an article on pre-capitalist social unrest or social banditry or millenarian movements without some reference to Hobsbawm. These references were initially deferential, then, with the passing of time, less so – yet his work could not be ignored, something he recollected with some satisfaction in the interview, one of the last, he gave to Simon Schama for the Archive on 4 [20] on the BBC.

Given the success obtained with bandits, primitive rebels, anarchists and other adorable creatures, other, lesser historians would have continued to plough that particular furrow, producing further articles and books on a theme of such wide interest. Hobsbawm was more intent in scattering ideas on a far broader canvas. And he did. His four volumes on the history of capitalism from 1789 to 1991 will remain a monument of haute vulgarization (a term occasionally used as a pejorative, but Eric gloried in it: it meant that he was not writing just for the academy). His Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality [21] (1990) echoed his profound dislike of nationalism and of identity politics. His Echoes of the Marseillaise [22] (1990) was levelled against Alfred Cobban whose revisionist The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution (1964) had preceded the better known work of François Furet (Penser la Révolution Française 1978) which had become all the rage as France prepared to celebrate the Revolution.

Blessed with an uncommon facility of expression, a lively style and an ability to synthesize complex events, these works made him known in wide circles of non-specialists.

Alongside these works he produced a myriad articles ranging on a variety of topics in journals ranging from Marxism Today to New Left Review, the New York Review of Books, the Times Literary Supplement, the New Statesman, the London Review of Books (to mention only the English-language journals). In all of these we see one of the strands of the tradition of European Marxism: a pessimism of the intelligence barely tempered by an optimism of the will. As he said, as the hopes of a socialist future waned, and as he got older, all one had left was pessimism of the intelligence.

The last book published while he was still alive (he was preparing a volume of his writings on cultural matters), How to Change the World: Tales of Marx and Marxism [23], collects many articles and essays published elsewhere and many that had been published in Italian but not in English. Some were new. All were centred on Marx (and Engels) except for two on Gramsci.

Hobsbawm’s last Marx is not the theoretician of the world revolution and of the leading role of the proletariat. This Marx is the theorist of globalization and of crises, a Marx finally emancipated from the USSR. It is a Marx for a world in which few parties of significance are anti-capitalist, in which the hopes generated by the events of 1968 (events which had left Hobsbawm fairly sceptical) have not materialized, a world in which many advocate a retreat from the Enlightenment, a world in which the last great social revolution was led by an Islamic fundamentalist, the Ayatollah Khomeini. The triumph of neo-liberal economic policies, particularly in the west, had also constituted a defeat for traditional social democracy since this required, for the accomplishment of its ‘minimum’ programme a strong state. As Hobsbawm puts it: neo-liberalism attempted to destroy not communism (whose stagnation had become clear) but the kind of gradualist reformism advocated by Eduard Bernstein and the Fabians.
Cultural crisis

Hobsbawm located the crisis of Marxism in the crucial decades after 1980. The crisis was not purely political and economic but cultural as well. Increasingly, the possibility of understanding the structures of human society was being challenged by post-modern attitudes; there was a return to mere narrative history, a disdain for generalizations and for the study of reality, a new relativism. He saw the retreat from Marxism as part of a wider change in the social sciences where intellectuals were giving up rationalist attempts to produce a global picture of our times. Here Hobsbawm attributes great importance to the revolt of the intellectuals of the 1960s of which he was quite critical. He disliked their anti-centralism, their love of spontaneity and localism, their third worldism.

This could be seen as the complaints of an old Marxist generationally separated from the generation of the 1968. But this generation is now old and perhaps it should begin to come to terms with itself. During one of our last conversations he noted that it was rather strange that that generation (mine) with such a commitment towards intellectual pursuit and culture should have produced so little historical analysis of its own itinerary. While he probably over-estimated the importance of post-modern irrationality in the cultural crisis of the last thirty years, I think it is true that totalizing explanations have been put in the attic, along with Marx, but mainly among the intelligentsia. If we look elsewhere, totalizing explanations rule OK. The enemies of the west are seen either in terms of irrationality (Islamic fundamentalism, fanaticism, terrorists dreaming of restoring the Caliphate) or in terms of a defence of vested interests (states and institutions) against the individualism of the market. Market fundamentalism is just as over-comprehensive as the statism of the old left. It declares, along with Hayek, that the decisions of millions of consumers are more ‘rational’ than those taken by planners and elites.

Where Hobsbawm is right is when he points out that what has disappeared (for now) was a belief, shared by all the protagonists of the great revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth century (the French, the American and the industrial) that it was possible to change the existing social order and to substitute for it one which is better.

We may have lost, he wrote, but the supporters of ‘let the market rip’, so hegemonic in the years 1973-2008 have lost too. Was there an element of consolation in his belief that the stage is set for a return to Marx, the theoretician of capitalism? Possibly. But one should take seriously Eric Hobsbawm’s injunction to take Marx seriously and, let me add, take history seriously, and rescue it from those who simply use history as if it were a supermarket where one gathers some useful facts, piles them on the trolley and uses them to justify whatever policies one likes.
Creative Commons License [25]
This article is published under a Creative Commons licence. If you have any queries about republishing please contact us [26]. Please check individual images for licensing details.
Source URL:

[6] us with forbearance: the unrepentant Eric Hobsbawm, an obituary
[7] us with forbearance: the unrepentant Eric Hobsbawm, an obituary

Obituary: Unrepentance of Eric Hobsbawm

Harley Filben casts an eye over Hobsbawm’s legacy

Neil Kinnock’s ‘favourite Marxist’

The death of Eric Hobsbawm was greeted, for the most
part, with highly respectful eulogies. Across the bourgeois political spectrum,
many a good word was found for the man who, until October 1, was the officially
designated ‘greatest living Marxist historian’.

It was
perhaps not a surprise to find tributes on the pages of The Guardian
and the lips of Ed Miliband – who, after all, is something of a ‘red diaper
baby’ himself. Others were slightly more surprising – such as the fond farewell
to a “good friend” that came from Niall Ferguson, the perpetual Tory boy
charlatan. “He and I shared the belief that it was economic change, above all,
that shaped the modern era,” Ferguson wrote. “The fact that he sided with the
workers and peasants, while I side with the bourgeoisie, was no obstacle to

Others of
Ferguson’s general stripe were less amiable. The irrepressible Michael Burleigh
castigated Hobsbawm for being a “believer in the red utopia to the very end” in
the Torygraph,2 while AN Wilson
rather juicily suggested in the Daily Mail that Hobsbawm may have
recruited agents for the Soviet Union at Cambridge University – a charge, alas,
unsullied by anything resembling evidence.3


The bourgeois commentariat is united on one point – Hobsbawm was, to his
death, an unrepentant Marxist. His commitment to the communist cause is a
rather more complicated beast than that, but it is certainly true that his
subjective commitment to the movement that, in Britain at least, predeceased
him by over two decades, was tenacious.

This was in
the main a consequence of the circumstances that brought him into that
movement. Born to Jewish parents, he was a schoolboy in Berlin when Hitler came
to power; his family immediately decamped to England. The young Hobsbawm
witnessed Hitler’s rise first hand, and saw from a relatively safe distance the
shadow of fascism spreading over Europe. At the head of those struggling
against that barbarism, for better or worse, were the communist parties.

returned from military service in World War II to the political freeze of the
cold war; he was one of many communist intellectuals to promptly bury himself
away in academia, ducking the intensifying anti-communist mood more or less
successfully (although, unsurprisingly, the secret services kept a substantial
file on him). It was in this capacity – as a lecturer and professor at Birkbeck
College in London and a fellow of King’s College, Cambridge – that he made his most
lasting mark on British intellectual life.

rapidly came into the Communist Party Historians Group, whose influence both
within and without the left is well known; the group launched his career, and
those of comrades such as Christopher Hill, EP Thompson and John Saville. The
watchword for the group was ‘history from below’; history was no longer to be
thought of as the playground of Great Men or an abstract sequence of events
that culminates in bourgeois society as the apogee, but rather as a field in
which the toiling masses are key agents.

central contribution to this project was the three-volume history of what he
called the “long 19th century”, joining up two decisive events in modern
European history – the French Revolution of 1789 and the great war of 1914 –
through a complex intervening narrative. He hewed closer to
economic-technological explanations for historical change than, say, Thompson –
but always in the context of popular life and struggles.

All of
Hobsbawm’s major writings postdate the major crisis-point in the Historians
Group – the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. That year is well known as
having plunged the ‘official’ communist movement internationally into a serious
internal crisis, as activists and intellectuals struggled both with
Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin and with the crushing of the Hungarian
uprising. Hobsbawm, almost uniquely among his colleagues, stuck with the CPGB,
approving “with a heavy heart” and not without criticisms of the Soviet

He would
later look back on the 1950s cold war atmosphere in academia as oppressive, but
not intolerable: “You didn’t get promotion for 10 years, but nobody threw you
out.” Something similar was on offer to intellectuals of a Stalinist persuasion
in the communist parties. Hobsbawm’s interventions in the CPGB were
characterised throughout by a certain academic distance from the cut and thrust
of factional struggle. He was able to praise presumptively the French student
revolts of 1968 – provided he kept from criticising the French party when it
abdicated its responsibility.


But 1968 was not a turning point to
the left, as it may first have appeared, in ‘official’ communism. Discontent
with another Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia sped up the crystallisation
of so-called Eurocommunism – in the western parties; by the late 1970s, the
Euros were a well-established and influential faction in the CPGB.

Hobsbawm’s sympathy for this trend was plain for all to see. In 1977, he
published a volume of interviews with Giorgio Napolitano (then leader of the
Communist Party of Italy; now the country’s president), which had, the previous
decade, been the crucible for Eurocommunism, the great “triumph” having been
the “historic compromise”, which saw a coalition government between the PCI and
the Christian Democrats (as comrade Toby Abse has put it, the Christian
Democrats made the history, while the communists made the compromise).

The following year, he delivered the annual Marx Memorial lecture, the
text of which became the infamous essay, ‘Forward march of labour halted?’ His
argument was simple and somewhat statistics-heavy: the CPGB’s focus on
developing its ranks through the trade unions and the traditional labour
movement left it vulnerable to ongoing changes in the structure of the British
labour force. The extension of women’s employment, the declining overall share
of manual workers in the total workforce – all pointed to the unsustainability
of the view that the labour movement was on a perpetual forward march to social
dominance. Hobsbawm concludes by suggesting that we need a less economistic
vision of the working class.4

The essay is in fact an object lesson in how the history of ideas works.
There is very little in it that is, at face value, objectionable from the point
of view of revolutionary Marxism – even its vague conclusions. The meaning it
took on in the context of 1978 – the year of the ‘winter of discontent’, that
rounded off a decade of militant labour struggles – was unmistakable.
Soviet-loyal centrists in the CPGB, such as the Straight Left faction, were
also the most enthusiastic advocates of work in the unions and labour movement
as a whole; dismissing this period of industrial militancy as, in a sense, the
last gasp of that movement, fired a shot across the bows of such elements, and
emboldened the Euros.

It became the opening sally, if you will, of the ‘long 1980s’ in the
CPGB, a period of decay and dissolution; seized on (as was intended) by the
Eurocommunists to justify not a less economistic working class politics, but an
ever more intense disavowal of class politics altogether, culminating in the
formal liquidation of the CPGB in 1991.

Hobsbawm’s political activity in the 1980s was of this character. It was
not only Martin Jacques, the Euro editor of Marxism Today, who seized on
‘Forward march …’, but Neil Kinnock, who described Hobsbawm as his “favourite
Marxist”. Hobsbawm provided the intellectual meat for the wholesale decimation
of the Labour left by the Labour Party bureaucracy. The ultimate result
was the Tony Blair government, which at different times included a number of
former Euros.


The greatest irony of Eurocommunism is that it promised a ‘third way’
between social democracy and pro-Soviet communism, but ended up on the ‘third
way’ as we now recognise it – that is, a political project radically to the right
of the social democratic mainstream of the 1980s.

It is to
Hobsbawm’s credit that his drift to the right stopped well short of certain former
‘comrades’ (“I used to be a Marxist,” sneered former Blair-era home secretary
John Reid once – “I used to believe in Santa Claus”). In a rogue’s gallery that
includes not only Jacques and Reid, but also Jack Straw and the prince of
darkness himself, Peter Mandelson, Hobsbawm stands out as the most principled
of a pretty unprincipled bunch.

He continued
to avow a commitment to the Marxist method – as he understood it – to his
death. He scandalised the good people of the BBC by affirming that, in his view,
20 million deaths would have been justified if they had genuinely ushered in a
communist society. Despite having abandoned more or less every direct political
commitment to communism, he refused to lower the flag.

In the end,
this was an emotional problem for him, rather than a political one. His
writings on the 20th century are slippery and evasive, in order to keep open
the possibility that ‘official communism’ was a legitimate – indeed, the only
correct – political choice for progressive individuals of his generation.

We may grant
Hobsbawm his unrepentance – but that sentimental attachment to Stalinism did
not, in the end, strengthen the cause to which he committed almost his whole
adult life. Rather it led him to prepare the ground for Blair.


1. The Guardian October 1.

2. The Daily Telegraph October 1.

3. Daily Mail October 1.


Posted in

Tony Greenstein

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.