There are several
things I would like to take issue with
in Alan Wood's extraordinary long attack on the BBC or more precisely its Channel
Four documentary titled: ‘Charles I, Downfall of a King’.
Wood begins his polemic with
this opening paragraph, “I did not believe that it was possible for
the low esteem in which I hold modern academics in general, and bourgeois
historians in particular, to sink any lower than it already was. However, that
belief was misplaced. I have just had the misfortune to watch a three-part
series put out by BBC Channel Four with the title: ‘Charles I, Downfall of a
King’. I now hold the intellectual qualities of our modern historians at a
slightly lower level than those of Mr Bean. At least Mr Bean can be mildly
amusing at times, but our self-appointed intellectuals lack even that redeeming
virtue”.
Woods talks about “experts
and self-appointed intellectuals”. I am not up on the libel laws of Britain, but
Wood needs to reign in his scattergun approach. The historians appearing on the
programme were all professional historians and have written several books on
the subject. Woods is writing his first book on the subject, so a little humility
would not go amiss.
The second thing to comment
on is Woods disdain for modern academia. There are ways of polemicising about
the general level of thought in academia. Unfortunately, Wood’s way is not a
very good one. Also, it is one thing to attack the political bias of the
historians that took part in the programme; it is another to dismiss their
contributions to an understanding of the English revolution. The majority of
those historians taking part have written thoughtful books on the subject. Those
historians who have written narrative-driven books such as Charles Spencer are
well worth a read.
If wood would like to view
how an orthodox Marxist tackles modern academia, he could do no worse than
consult the writings of David North, the quote below is taken from his lecture Eighty
Years of the Fourth International: The Lessons of History and the Struggle for
Socialism Today[1].
Under the subtitle, The
impact of academic attacks on Marxism North writes “Of course, young people
cannot be blamed for their limited knowledge of the revolutionary upheavals of
the past century. From whom and from where are they to acquire the necessary
knowledge? The capitalist media indeed will not dispense knowledge that may
contribute to the overthrow of the existing social order. However, what about
the universities, with their many learned professors? Unfortunately, the
intellectual environment has been for many decades deeply hostile to genuine
socialist theory and politics. Marxist theory—rooted in philosophical
materialism—was long ago banished from the major universities.
Academic discourse is
dominated by the Freudian pseudo-science and idealist subjectivism of the
Frankfurt School and the irrationalist gibberish of post-modernism. Professors
inform their students that the “Grand Narrative” of Marxism is without
relevance in the modern world. What they actually mean is that the materialist
conception of history, which established the central and decisive revolutionary
role of the working class in a capitalist society, cannot and should not be the
basis of left-wing politics”.
Before moving on to other
things, it is worth a comment on the title of Wood’s polemic. Woods believes that
the BBC has slandered the English revolution. Slander is a strange word to use.
Maybe Wood is preparing a libel action against the BBC, or he has not been paying
too much attention to the many BBC history programmes which have all been
written very conservative standpoint. Woods is correct in that the BBC has
shunned this subject up until now, but this has been the response by other
media such as cinema and commercial television.
Woods does make a correct
point that “Our historians do not like to talk about this because it
contradicts everything we have been led to believe for decades, and indeed
centuries. Now, at last, they finally decided to talk about it because the
present crisis in Britain has upset all the old comforting illusions. We are
living in the most turbulent period, probably in the whole history of Britain –
certainly for a very long time. Moreover, if we are to seek some point of
reference in history for events that are unfolding before our eyes, it is
impossible to ignore what occurred in this country in the stormy years of the
17th century”.
I do agree that Hilton
should have made more of Rees. However, this is the BBC, what do you expect.
One criticism I have made, and it is in my review[2]
is that the historians who contributed to the programme went into it blind, not
knowing the historical bias of the programme.
Wood correctly states that
the programme was the product of the current postmodernist trend in history. This
trend in history as in many subjects glorifies irrationalism, through the cultivation
of backwardness and religious prejudice against the search for objective truth.
My problem with Wood on this matter is that he has given the programme importance
it does not merit. The BBC four programme does not constitute slander or betrayal
of the English revolution it is a very conservative history
programme why elevate it to world-historical importance it does not have.
Wood’s finishes his over
eleven thousand word polemic saying “With the honourable exception of John
Rees, the self-styled ‘experts’ in this series cannot conceal their spiteful
attitude towards long-dead revolutionaries. This extreme vindictiveness can
hardly be explained by the events that happened so long ago. Behind it lies an
unspoken fear that revolution can recur in our times”.
It is not surprising that
Wood announced at the end of his article that he is writing a book on the
English revolution. It is hoped that his scattergun approach to history is
reigned in and that his attitude towards revolution is re-examined. Wood’s
record on the subject of revolution is not a very good one as his support for Hugo
Chavez would imply.
Woods wrote in his glowing obituary
of Chavez. “ Hugo Chávez is no more. Always a fighter, Chávez spent his last
months in a life and death struggle against a cruel and implacable enemy –
cancer. He fought bravely to the very end, but finally, his strength gave out.
On Tuesday, March 5, at 4.25 pm the cause of freedom, socialism and humanity
lost a great man and the author of these lines lost a great friend”[3].
However, a more orthodox
Marxist assessment of Chavez would be “Chavez’s nationalist rhetoric, his
government’s diversion of revenues from the country’s protracted oil bonanza to
pay for social assistance programs and its forging of extensive economic ties
to China earned him the hatred of both Washington and a fascistic ruling class
layer in Venezuela. They did not, however—as both he and his pseudo-left
supporters claimed—represent a path to socialism. Chavez was a bourgeois
nationalist, whose government rested firmly on the military from which he came
and which continues to serve as the crucial arbiter in the affairs of the
Venezuelan state”.[4]
The moral of this article is that people living in glass houses should not
throw too many stones.
[1] www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/09/codn-o09.html
[4] Hugo Chavez and
socialism-8 March 2013- https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/08/pers-m08.html
