A People's History of London-john Rees and Lyndsey German- Verso Books352 pages (Updated Edition) 2026
A People's History of London by John Rees and Lyndsey German is a revised, updated edition of their 2012 book. It broadens the narrative to cover the 21st century, examining London's social and economic crises. The book explores key issues such as the Grenfell Tower fire and its systemic implications, the rise of mass popular mobilisation, such as the Palestine solidarity movement, and the ongoing housing crisis, which highlights struggles against aggressive urban developers and corporate landlords.
John Rees is a recognised author, broadcaster, and political advocate. He is part of the editorial team at Counterfire and was a co-founder of the Stop the War Coalition. Lindsey German, a lifelong resident of London, is a socialist writer and activist. She serves as the convenor of the Stop the War Coalition and has previously run for Mayor of London.
John Rees and Lindsey German are key figures in Counterfire, a British pseudo-left group that split from the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in 2010. Both have played significant roles in organising the Stop the War Coalition (STWC). They maintain that the coalition isn't about establishing an authentic anti-war movement but aims to steer anti-war sentiment towards support for the Labour Party and trade union leadership. The STWC "functioned as a mechanism for capturing anti-war sentiment and bringing it under the political tutelage of the trade union bureaucracy and a handful of Labourites." This is the political environment influencing Rees and German's historical work, shaping it in fundamental ways.
What the Book Does
A People's History of London explores centuries of the city's radical and working-class history, including the Peasants' Revolt, the Levellers, the Chartists, the Matchgirls' Strike, and the Suffragettes. It is written in an accessible style and seeks to recover a tradition of popular resistance. In this way, it offers a valuable introduction to events often overlooked or misrepresented by mainstream bourgeois history.
However, the book's framework mirrors the political constraints and deceptions of its authors. Several key points need to be addressed. The "People's History" genre has a problematic history. This tradition, exemplified by Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, tends to oversimplify class differences among the oppressed, replace materialist analysis with moral outrage, and celebrate struggle as an end in itself. It fails to ask the crucial question: what program and party are necessary to guide the working class to victory? The history of London's radical movements is essentially a record of betrayed class struggles, and understanding the reasons for these betrayals requires political analysis, not mere romanticisation.
A major critique of Rees and German concerns their failure to confront reformism and the Labour Party honestly. Their political view is strongly aligned with the Labour left, including Corbynism and the STWC's focus on figures such as Jeremy Corbyn and Tony Benn. This shows they are unable to grasp key lessons from London's labour history: that the Labour Party was meant to contain the working class within capitalism, that trade union bureaucracies have often suppressed class struggle, and that London workers' setbacks are mainly due to these betrayals.
The origins of the "People's History" genre are rooted in a specific political context, rather than emerging from a vacuum. As Ann Talbot's key essay on Christopher Hill underscores, the influential first book in Britain was A.L. Morton's A People's History of England, created by the Communist Party Historians' Group, which included Hill, E.P. Thompson, Eric Hobsbawm, and Rodney Hilton.
Talbot highlights the political core of this: "People's history was an attempt to give some historical foundation to the policies of the Popular Front—the subordination of the working class to supposedly progressive sections of the bourgeoisie." Essentially, the genre was developed to support Stalinist politics, overlaying class distinctions with a nationalist "people" narrative to justify class collaboration, rather than promoting independent working-class politics.
This is not merely background; it forms the core genetic code of the genre, shaping all works that carry the "People's History" label, including Howard Zinn's influential *A People's History of the United States* and E.P. Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class.
Tom Mackaman's insightful obituary of Howard Zinn, a leading figure in the genre, offers a sharp critique of its limitations. Mackaman references Engels' view on what he called "old materialist" philosophy: it "could not answer the question of what historical forces drive the motives of individuals and groups in history." Engels argued that "its conception of history, insofar as it exists at all, is mainly pragmatic; it categorises people in history as noble or ignoble and generally shows that the noble are often defrauded while the ignoble tend to prevail."
This accurately describes the "People's History" approach, which is fundamentally moral: the oppressed versus their oppressors, resisters against the controllers, and the people versus the Establishment. While names and dates may vary, the core narrative remains unchanged. It lacks dialectical contradictions, fails to recognise historically progressive class forces, and omits analysis of how material relations of production propel social change through conflict. Instead, it depicts an endless cycle of oppression and resistance without proposing a strategy to resolve or end either.
Mackaman highlights how Zinn's approach leads to significant historiographical errors. Because Zinn views history through a strict moral binary of villains and victims, he interprets the American Revolution and the Civil War as two of the most objectively progressive events in global history—as essentially elite conspiracies aimed at controlling popular unrest. Abraham Lincoln is reduced to a mere "shrewd political operative," and Tom Paine is criticised for his association with a wealthy individual. These misrepresentations are based not on evidence but on the moralising framework characteristic of the genre.
Mackaman highlights a critical point: the "People's History" genre originated from the revisionist academic work of the 1960s and 70s, which coincided with the rise of identity politics on American campuses. This alignment is deliberate. Mackaman notes: "The new studies emerged alongside the development of identity politics and the push for affirmative action on campuses, as US liberalism, trade unions, and the Democratic Party aimed to find a new base for their policies outside the working class." This genre supported this political agenda by replacing the working class—considered the revolutionary agent of history—with a diverse array of oppressed groups whose resistance could be celebrated without questioning the need to overthrow capitalism revolutionarily.
E.P. Thompson, alongside A.L. Morton and Howard Zinn, is a key figure in the genre of A People’s History. This genre and Thompson's role in it cannot be separated from his
political roots in the Communist Party Historians Group of postwar Britain. Thompson, with Christopher Hill, Eric Hobsbawm, Rodney Hilton, and others, was educated within a tradition influenced by Stalinist politics—particularly the Popular Front strategy of the 1930s and 40s.
As Ann Talbot argued in her appraisal of Christopher Hill, this school of history was not simply a scholarly tendency: "The Communist Party sponsored a form of 'People's History', which is typified by A.L. Morton's People's History of England in which the class character of earlier rebels, revolutionaries and popular leaders was obscured by regarding them all as representatives of a national revolutionary tradition. This historical approach reflected the nationalism of the bureaucracy, their hostility to internationalism and their attempts to form an unprincipled alliance with the supposedly democratic capitalists against the fascist Axis countries."
In other words, "people's history" reflected the historiographical view of Popular Front politics, portraying the working class as subordinate to supposedly progressive bourgeois factions, cloaked in the rhetoric of a unified "national people" fighting oppression. The class struggle was transformed into an inspiring moral narrative, but one that is politically benign: a legacy of "resistance" that avoids advocating for revolution, challenging the need to overthrow the bourgeois state, or calling for revolutionary leadership.
Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class (1963) is truly a landmark in scholarship. Its goal — to uncover the agency, culture, and deliberate self-formation of the English working class during the late 18th and early 19th centuries — led to outstanding empirical research. Thompson emphasized that the working class was not merely shaped by industrial conditions but actively shaped itself, challenging simple economic determinism. His exploration of artisan radicalism, Methodist dissent, Luddism, and the radical clubs of the 1790s deepened our understanding of how class consciousness emerges.
But the political framework within which Thompson worked imposed severe limitations. Like Hill, Thompson was drawn to identifying a distinctively English revolutionary tradition — one running from the Civil War to the emerging labour movement that was fundamentally national in character. Talbot observes that both Hill and Thompson "had no interest in showing the continental origins of many of the ideas that inspired the English revolution," nor in tracing the genuinely international development of Enlightenment thought, democratic theory, and working-class politics.
A true Marxist approach to history involves analysing the leadership and goals of working-class movements, whether in London, the US, or elsewhere. Unlike the "People's History" genre, it must examine the class dynamics driving both victories and defeats, place national struggles in the context of global class conflict and draw lessons for today's socialist movement. It views the working class not just as victims to be pitied but as the revolutionary force whose consciousness evolves through struggle, and whose liberation depends on building an international revolutionary party.
The political role of the genre today. From a Marxist perspective, the main limitation of this genre is its strategic emptiness. While it can depict struggles, it cannot analyse their failures. It can praise resisters but cannot determine what program or party would have led them to victory. It can list the crimes of the ruling class, yet it cannot explain how these crimes are perpetuated, specifically through the capitalist mode of production and the state structures that sustain it.
Today, the "People's History" brand mainly serves as a marketing term for pseudo-left ideology. When John Rees and Lindsey German author a "People's History of London," they exploit the emotional appeal of centuries of working-class resistance yet deliberately sidestep the political conclusions such history implies. This genre permits them to praise the Chartists, match girls, and dockers without addressing why these movements were ultimately defeated. It also avoids recognizing the Labour Party and trade union bureaucracy as the primary agents of class betrayal in the twentieth century or advocating for a revolutionary party with a socialist agenda.
Notes
E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (London, 1982),
[F. Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England (Moscow, 1973),
A People’s History of Football By Mickaël Correia Translated by Fionn Petch Pluto Press 2026 £ 16.99
“Complaining about boring football is a little like complaining about the sad ending of King Lear: it misses the point somehow.”
― Nick Hornby, Fever Pitch
“In football, everything is complicated by the presence of the opposite team."
- Jean-Paul Sartre
“I fell in love with football as I was later to fall in love with women: suddenly, inexplicably, uncritically, giving no thought to the pain or disruption it would bring with it.”
― Nick Hornby, Fever Pitch
“Football has become one of the most profitable businesses in the world, organised not for play but rather to impede it. […] Luckily, on the field you can still see some insolent rascal, who sets aside the script and commits the blunder of dribbling past the entire opposing side, the referee and the crowd in the stands, all for the carnal delight of embracing the forbidden adventure of freedom.”
- Eduardo Galeano, in Football in Sun and Shadow
At the heart of Football, the world’s most popular sport, there's a conundrum. On the one hand, you have a grasping global capitalist elite that owns the game who will stop at nothing to make more money out of the beautiful game(See Robert Stevens ’ Billionaires’ European Super League proposal shelved amid mass opposition from football fans), on the other, you have fans who still retain a love of the game in its purest and non-capitalist form.[1]
Stevens's article shows that workers and youth, who still make up the bulk of football's audience, are not a passive body that, in the words of Mickaël Correia, bends to “logic of the market” but, time and again, have sought to “shake itself free” of greedy capitalist control of the game. It is still a “crucible of resistance to this control.
As an addition to Correia’s book, it is well worth the reader having a look at Gavin Kitching’s article, The Origins of Football: History, Ideology and the Making of the People’s Game. In this article, he examines how the modern sport emerged not as a neutral cultural pastime but as a social product shaped by class relations, schooling, institutions and ideology. Kitching traces the transition from medieval “folk” games to codified, organised association football. It shows how the game’s form, meanings and social functions were transformed by industrialisation, urbanisation, public schooling and the rise of mass spectatorship. He exposes the ideological work of institutions—schools, the press, the FA—in turning a variety of popular practices into a “people’s game” whose apparent spontaneity masks specific class origins and power relations.[2]
Having said this, one critique of Correia’s book is that it offers too little space to the working class and its historical struggles against capitalism. Roger Domeneghetti, writing in the Times Literary Supplement (TLS), makes this succinct point. “Correia’s history is epic in its scope, taking us from the origins of modern football in the late nineteenth century to the present day, from the playing fields of England’s public schools to the streets of Senegal. But this breadth is also the book’s weakness: in barely twenty pages, for example, we are taken on a whistle-stop tour of football in Mussolini’s Italy, Franco’s Spain and Stalin’s Soviet Union. The antagonisms between the respective dictatorships’ co-option of the sport for political ends and fans’ use of stadiums as a means of resistance are discussed but never afforded the space they deserve.
Correia acknowledges that the path he treads through football’s past is “meandering and fragmentary”, but this too is a weakness. Did the British football hooligans of the 1980s really have the same concerns and motivations as Palestinians trying to express a sense of national identity through football, or as the avowedly left-wing fan base of FC St Pauli of Hamburg? Beyond some loose notion of resistance to whatever form the mainstream (football) establishment in each country takes, the book never really makes a coherent argument as to how, or even whether, they did.”[3]
Even a cursory look at Correia’s A People’s History of Football would tell the reader that this is not a neutral “sports book”. Rather, it should be seen as a social-scientific document: a history of a mass cultural form shaped by capitalist property relations, class struggle and the politics of the state. Correia’s history explains why an episode like the Super League is not an aberration but an expression of capitalist accumulation in sport, how leagues are now nodes of global finance, vulnerable to crises and subject to speculative pressures. This explains recurring conflicts over ticket prices, gentrification of stadium areas, and players' labour conditions. It should be noted that not all footballers are multi-millionaires.
Correia’s book has a very contemporary relevance; he relates how football’s commercialisation and financialisation flow from capitalist accumulation and the demands of global markets. However briefly, he explains why fans, workers, and local communities are frequently in conflict with owners and governing bodies — these are class and social-interest conflicts, not mere “culture wars.” Also, how periodic crises (financial crises, pandemics) reveal the systemic contradictions of commodified sport.
Global context
Correia situates football’s transformation from a local, working‑class pastime into a global, profit‑driven industry within the same logic that governs modern imperialism, i.e. the concentration and internationalisation of capital. The expansion of transnational finance, media conglomerates and corporate ownership has turned clubs, leagues and broadcast rights into assets for speculation and surplus extraction. The 2021 European Super League episode illustrates this dynamic: billionaire owners and Wall Street financiers sought to “close” competition to guarantee revenue streams and asset values, treating clubs as franchises rather than social institutions.
Correia’s book addresses the international implications of this global, profit-driven industry for the future struggles of the working class and why those struggles must be international in both form and content. Football’s production chains and revenue flows are transnational: players move across borders, TV rights are sold worldwide, and merchandise is manufactured in low‑wage countries. Consequently, struggles are interconnected. When owners seek to centralise revenue (ESL) or when broadcasters pressure for cost efficiencies, the consequences reverberate across countries — layoffs in stadium workforces, intensified shift patterns for broadcast crews, and rising ticket and subscription costs that drive fans out of the game.
An isolated national struggle cannot stop global capital. The correct response is international working‑class coordination: rank‑and‑file committees of stadium workers, broadcast unions organised across borders, and fan organisations linking campaigns to worker demands. Partial reforms (fan seats on boards, wage floors) are necessary but insufficient. Correia’s framework leads to a strategic conclusion: only the socialisation of the commanding heights of the sporting economy — democratically controlled international public infrastructures for mass sport and public broadcasting under workers’ and communities’ control — can root out the capitalist incentives that create dispossession and commodification. This requires an international political movement of the working class that moves beyond national compromises. The strategic response is an international working‑class organisation that fuses fan resistance with the rank‑and‑file power of stadium and broadcast workers to reclaim the game as a social, not a speculative, resource.
[1] Billionaires’ European Super League proposal shelved amid mass opposition from football fans- www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/04/24/supe-a24.html
[2] The Origins of Football History Ideology and the Making of the People's Game- History Workshop Journal No. 79 (SPRING 2015), pp. 127-153 (27 pages)
[3] The other football: A Meandering People’s history of the beautiful game.www.the-tls.com/regular-features/in-brief/a-peoples-history-of-football-mickael-correia-book-review-roger-domeneghetti
A People’s History of Portugal-By Raquel Varela and Roberto della Santa Foreword by Michael Roberts Afterword by Gordon Lafer-Translated by Ana Daglish de Almeida-Pluto Press 2025
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past"
George Orwell 1984
“One of the deepest impulses in man is the impulse to record, to scratch a drawing on a tusk or keep a diary… The enduring value of the past is, one might say, the very basis of civilisation.”
John Jay Chapman, American author (1862-1933)
“History is the study of all the world’s crime.”
Voltaire, French writer and philosopher (1694-1778)
“The best moments in reading are when you come across something – a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things – which you had thought special and particular to you. And now, here it is, set down by someone else, a person you have never met, someone even who is long dead. And it is as if a hand has come out, and taken yours.”
Alan Bennett, English playwright (1934- )
A People’s History of Portugal is a valuable reconstruction of the last two hundred years of class struggle in Portugal. Raquel Varela writes, “In A People’s History of Portugal, written with Roberto della Santa, we develop the idea that Portuguese capitalism was dependent on British capitalism, in the sense of Ellen Wood’s notion of capitalism being exported by the British Empire to the periphery and semi-periphery”.[1]
Raquel Varela and Roberto Della Santa are contemporary historians whose work on Portugal must be assessed not as an abstract literary or moral account but as a political and social explanation rooted in concrete class relations. The central question posed by Santa and Varela and their “people’s history” is: which social forces and material conditions produced the events described, and how did political forms (parties, the army, unions) mediate the class struggle in Portugal?
Both Raquel Varela’s and Roberto Della Santa’s work belongs to a broad current in historiography often called the people’s history genre: recovering the struggles, experiences and agency of oppressed groups omitted from elite-centred narratives. This genre has considerable value insofar as it corrects bourgeois forgetfulness and restores the working class and oppressed peoples to the centre of historical inquiry.
One of the most important exponents of the genre put this way: “I am seeking to rescue the poor stockinger, the Luddite cropper, the 'obsolete' hand-loom weaver, the 'utopian' artisan, and even the deluded follower of Joanna Southcott, from the enormous condescension of posterity. Their crafts and traditions may have been dying. Their hostility to the new industrialism may have been backwards looking. Their communitarian ideals may have been fantasies. Their insurrectionary conspiracies may have been foolhardy. But they lived through these times of acute social disturbance, and we did not. Their aspirations were valid in terms of their own experience”.[2]
While this genre is legitimate and entirely worthwhile, the reader should know that, from the standpoint of orthodox Marxism, the recovery of forgotten facts is only the first step. Marxist historiography insists that facts be integrated into a scientific, materialist explanation that locates political consciousness and social movements in the social relations of production, class antagonisms and objective economic laws.
The father of Russian Marxism Georgi Plekhanov insisted that institutions, laws, and human ideas must be explained by deeper material relations and class interests, writing "The historical development of mankind is reasonable in the sense that it is law-governed; but the law-governed nature of historical development does not yet prove at all that its ultimate cause must be sought in the views of men or in their opinions".[3]
Why is Varela’s and Santa’s A People’s History of Portugal an important popular intervention? Because it recovers the social struggles, popular organisations and class conflicts that conventional bourgeois national histories either marginalise or explain away. From a classical Marxist standpoint, the value of Varela’s work lies less in doctrinal purity than in its insistence that classes and masses make history or as Karl Marx put it so succinctly ““Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionising themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis, they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes to present this new scene in world history in time-honoured disguise and borrowed language.”[4]
From the standpoint of a materialist conception of history, the people’s history method has two strengths: it exposes elite crimes and centres subordinate agency; and, in doing so, it helps break the ideological monopoly of official history. It also has its limits, as Marxist historian Tom Mackaman pointed out in his assessment of Howard Zinn. “ While it helps bring to light facts omitted from standard textbooks, Zinn’s work can only serve as a beginning in understanding US history. There is an unmistakable anachronistic, even a-historical, thread in A People’s History. If it has a theme, it is an endless duel between “resistance” and “control,” two of Zinn’s preferred words.
Populating his historical stage are, on the one side, a virtually unbroken line of “Establishment” villains who exercise this control and, on the other, benighted groups who often struck out against their plight. The names and dates change; the story does not. Complexity and contradiction do not rest comfortably in such a schema. The limitations of this approach are most evident in Zinn’s treatment of the American Revolution and the US Civil War, which he presents as instances of the elite beguiling the population to strengthen its control”.[5]
Raquel Varela’s erudition is plain to see in this scholarly book. Her work is noted for its attention to labour, popular movements and transnational dimensions of working-class struggle. She makes an important empirical contribution by documenting struggles and networks often neglected by mainstream historiography. Her work helps restore the subjectivity and agency of the working class to historical study, an indispensable corrective to bourgeois historiography.
But from the standpoint of Marxist science, any historiography must move beyond documentation to explanation, and that requires a mapping of the class composition and material interests of actors. It also needs an analysis of how material constraints shaped state and party forms. If left at the level of primarily descriptive, it can be hijacked by reformism or identity politics. Unfortunately, most books of this genre fall into this ideological trap.
In this book, Varela writes of the experiences of peasants, workers, and popular movements — showing how changes in production, imperialism and property relations shape politics and ideas. Varela’s narrative demonstrates how Portugal’s late and dependent capitalist development, colonial plunder and landlordism produced a fragmented bourgeoisie, a precarious working class and mass emigration — objective conditions that repeatedly gave rise to political radicalisation.
Varela and Santa reconstruct crucial episodes — the liberal revolutions, the rise of the republic, the consolidation of Salazar’s Estado Novo, the colonial wars, and the Carnation Revolution of 1974 — as outcomes of deeper economic and social contradictions. [6] Varela’s people-centred focus complements previous historiography showing how popular assemblies, strikes and local organisations expressed and attempted to resolve those objective contradictions. The book makes clear that Portugal’s political oscillations — reactionary regimes, fragile reformisms, anti-colonial wars — were not merely the result of individual leaders but rooted in capitalist development and imperial relations. The book is valuable because, by narrating the lives and struggles of ordinary people, Varela helps break bourgeois historiographical isolation of politics from production and class interest.
While invaluable as social history, Varela is not an orthodox Marxist, and her account can only understate the decisive political question of leadership. The Carnation Revolution contained both an immense revolutionary potential and a political defeat: social democracy, Stalinism and pseudo-left currents helped channel working-class power back into capitalist institutions.[7]
Raquel Varela’s A People’s History of Portugal is well worth reading, and I would recommend this book. It is a crucial corrective to elite-centred history: it returns the reader to popular agency, material forces and class struggle. Despite its limitations, it offers a rich source of historiography and allows for rigorous analysis by general readers and Marxists alike. Only by combining social-historical recovery with Leninist-Trotskyist political organisation can the working class carry out the socialist transformation of society. Given the rise of Trump and his fascist oligarchy, this is an urgent historical necessity.
Social Conflicts in the Portuguese Revolution, 1974–1975: Raquel Varela and Joana Alcântara Le Travail, FALL 2014 AUTOMNE, Vol. 74
Raquel Varela. A People’s History of the Portuguese Revolution. Ed. By Peter Robinson. Transl. [from Portuguese] by Sean Purdy. Pluto Press
Fifty years since Portugal’s Carnation Revolution-Paul Mitchell- https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/04/24/fgtz-a24.html
[1] https://raquelcardeiravarela.wordpress.com/2024/05/01
[2] The Making of the English Working Class-E P Thompson
[3] Georgi Plekhanov’s The Development of the Monist View of History
[4] Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
[5] Howard Zinn, 1922-2010-https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/02/zinn-f15.html
[6] See https://keith-perspective.blogspot.com/2020/05/a-review-of-raquel-varela-peoples.html
[7] See https://keith-perspective.blogspot.com/2024/12/the-portuguese-workers-revolution-1974.html