Jesus Casquete's recent article in the May edition of
History's Today continues the magazines love affair with Eric Hobsbawm. Given
the stature of Hobsbawm, there is nothing wrong with examing a historian that
made a significant contribution to the study of history.
However, like many articles before there are substantial
problems with the content of this article. It is written from the standpoint of
airbrushing any criticism of Hobsbawm's Stalinism from left to be more precise from an
orthodox Marxist viewpoint.
There are several issues worth examining in this article.
Casquetes is correct that Hobsbawm was obedient to the "guidelines established
by Moscow". This is a very strange formulation, almost casual and non-descript.
Hobsbawm was not just obedient, he agreed with the political line that came
from Moscow and implemented it when he was a member of the British Communist
Party. It is not hard to figure; he was after all a Stalinist to his dying day
Casquete is also correct to praise Hobsbawm's "literary
quality", and Judt's description of him as "master of English prose"
is very accurate. The problem occurred for Hobbawm when he wrote anything that
took place in the 20th Century and especially during the Russian
Revolution.
As the Marxist writer David North states "his writing
suggests that he has failed to subject to any critical review the political
conceptions that allowed him to remain a member of the British Communist Party
for many decades: "The terrible paradox of the Soviet era," Hobsbawm
tells us with a straight face, "is that the Stalin experienced by the
Soviet peoples and the Stalin seen as a liberating force outside were the same.
Moreover, he was the liberator for the ones at least in part because he was the
tyrant for the others."North said that it would have been no great loss if
Hobsbawm had stuck to writing history before the 20th Century.
The subject of the rise of Fascism is a legitimate topic. My
two issues of concern are that the article airbrushes from the historical
record of Stalinism's part in the coming to power of the Fascists. The other
concern is the consistent airbrushing out the history of the opposition to both
Stalinism and Fascism by Leon Trotsky. Whether you agree with Trotsky or not
the readers of history Today should be allowed to make up their minds. Trotsky
was not just some innocent bystander and wrote extraordinarily perceptive
articles as this one shows
What is Fascism? The name originated in Italy. Were all the
forms of counter-revolutionary dictatorship fascist or not (That is to say,
prior to the advent of Fascism in Italy)?. The former dictatorship in Spain of
Primo de Rivera, 1923-30, is called a fascist dictatorship by the Comintern. Is
this correct or not? We believe that it is incorrect. The fascist movement in
Italy was a spontaneous movement of large masses, with new leaders from the
rank and file. It is a plebian movement in origin, directed and financed by big
capitalist powers. It issued forth from the petty bourgeoisie, the slum
proletariat, and even to a certain extent from the proletarian masses;
Mussolini, a former socialist, is a "self-made" man arising from this
movement.[1]
To conclude it must be said that Casquete's last remarks on
Hobsbawm are a little generous. He continues the political line that Hobsbawm
was a willing dupe of Stalinism's "Poisonous legacy". This is not
only wrong but gives a false picture as to what Hobsbawm represented.
[1]
FAascism What it is Extracts from a letter to an English comrade, November 15
1931;printed in The Militant, January 16, 1932-https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm#p1
