Raphael Samuel Book

Raphael Samuel: A political career dedicated to opposing Marxism

Preface

This concise book offers the first thorough Marxist critique of Raphael Samuel’s political and historiographical evolution. It questions the mainstream scholarly view that sees Samuel as a democratic reformer, a “people’s historian,” and a trailblazer in cultural history. Instead, it contends that Samuel’s later approach to history—marked by culturalism, pluralism, and a departure from Marxist theory—stems directly from his early political roots in British Stalinism and the Communist Party Historians Group (CPHG) within the Popular Front tradition.

This book explores Samuel’s Stalinist upbringing, his emotional loyalty to Communist Party culture, and his incomplete break with Stalinism in 1956. It shows that the journal Universities & Left Review (ULR), which Samuel cofounded, continued to reproduce Stalinist ideological patterns even as it distanced itself from the CPGB organizationally. ULR’s hostility toward Marxism, rejection of Trotskyism, advocacy of cultural studies, and alignment with Labourism formed the ideological foundation of the first New Left. The movement’s fragmentation, utopianism, and moralism were deliberate, reflecting its anti-Marxist stance and its failure to craft a coherent socialist program.

The monograph explores the link between Samuel’s ULR-era culturalism and his later historiographical work. It suggests that the History Workshop movement and its journal helped establish a culturalist pseudo-left in British historiography, replacing class with culture, analysis with memory, and Marxism with pluralism. Samuel’s later focus on heritage is seen as the natural endpoint of this path: a shift from Marxism to culturalism, then from culturalism to nostalgia.

This book places Samuel in the context of the 1956 political crisis and the decline of British Stalinist ideology, challenging the celebratory narratives common in current historiography. It demonstrates that Samuel’s work reflects the unresolved contradictions of the early New Left and the rise of the culturalist pseudo-left. The conclusion calls for a renewed Marxist historiography that explores the political roots of culturalism, reaffirms class as the key analytical category, and seeks to revive the revolutionary perspective that Samuel and his peers abandoned.

Raphael Samuel, the First New Left, and the Politics of Historical Memory

Raphael Samuel (1934–1996) holds a complex position in postwar Britain's intellectual history. According to Sophie Scott-Brown, he was "a born organiser renowned for the chaotic nature of his activities; a trained historian who challenged professional history-making; a lifelong socialist whose relationship to the wider left was often strained.” His name is closely linked to the History Workshop movement, the democratisation of history, and the culturalist shift that transformed British historiography in the late twentieth century. Despite his prominence, Samuel remains an elusive figure in scholarly circles, often mentioned only in passing or as a footnote, overshadowed by figures such as E.P. Thompson, Stuart Hall, and Perry Anderson.

This monograph asserts that the oversight is intentional, reflecting a deeper historiographical and political unease: Samuel’s early political development, his involvement in Universities & Left Review (ULR), and his ideological shift from Stalinist youth to culturalist historian have not been thoroughly examined from a

Marxist perspective. The existing scholarship — whether celebratory, biographical, or critical — has yet to explore the political rationale behind Samuel’s evolution. His later approach to historiography cannot be fully understood without considering the ideological foundations of the first New Left and the unresolved tensions within British Stalinism.

The core argument of this book is straightforward yet expansive: Raphael Samuel’s approach to history reflected his early political influences. His adoption of “people’s history,” cultural studies, and pluralism did not stem from a rejection of Stalinism but from its ideological roots—particularly the Popular Front tradition of the Communist Party Historians Group (CPHG), the nationalist focus of “people’s history,” and the culturalist trends that influenced the first New Left. Samuel’s later contributions solidified these inclinations within British historiography, helping to foster the culturalist pseudo-left and replacing Marxist analysis with cultural description.

This introduction presents the monograph's conceptual framework, situates Samuel within the context of postwar Britain's political and intellectual history, and previews the structure of the chapters to come.

The Crisis of 1956 and the Birth of the First New Left

The year 1956 marked a seismic shift in politics. Khrushchev’s Secret Speech unveiled Stalin’s atrocities — described by Samuel as “a measured and very limited revelation” — while the Hungarian Revolution highlighted the Soviet bureaucracy’s counter-revolutionary nature. Many, including prominent historians like E.P. Thompson and Christopher Hill, quickly withdrew from the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB). Samuel was also among those who left. His departure was driven more by emotion than theory, but it pushed him into a new political environment.

In November 1956, Samuel contacted Stuart Hall with a proposal for a magazine named “New University Left.” Hall agreed, leading to the formation of

Universities & Left Review. Samuel’s correspondence with ex-CP members, fellow travellers, and student radicals shows his goal: to establish a political platform for disillusioned Stalinists who distanced themselves from the CPGB but had not adopted Marxism. ULR emerged from a crisis — yet it did not resolve it. Instead, it reflected and perpetuated its contradictions.

The editorial board — Samuel, Hall, Gabriel Pearson, and Charles Taylor — shared a similar political background: early Stalinist training, disillusionment in 1956, a rejection of Marxism, and a shift towards culturalism, moral critique, and Labourism. This set of ideas influenced ULR’s political stance. Taylor’s statement that “Stalinism… has grown out of Communism” blurred the line between Marxism and Stalinism, making Marxism politically irrelevant and preventing any discussion of Trotskyism. Samuel supported this view. He never disputed Taylor’s assertion, nor did he attempt to interpret Stalinism using Trotsky’s critique.

ULR’s anti-Marxism was fundamentally anti-Trotskyist. Its eclectic approach— lauded by some historians as intellectual openness—had a political purpose: it replaced class analysis with cultural descriptions rather than Marxist theory. Its support for the Labour Party stemmed from a broader political goal: providing a respectable, non-revolutionary space for disillusioned Stalinist intellectuals. Moreover, its adoption of cultural studies was not a new theoretical development but a strategic political retreat.

The initial New Left faltered because it lacked a Marxist framework. Its divisions, utopian visions, and moral stance were not incidental but reflected its core ideological makeup. Samuel played a crucial role in this failure. His dismissal of Marxism, opposition to Trotskyism, and adoption of culturalism significantly influenced the movement’s political identity.

From ULR to History Workshop: The Institutionalisation of Culturalism

The fall of the first New Left did not conclude Samuel’s intellectual journey. Instead, it signalled a transition. The culturalism, pluralism, and anti-theory characteristic of ULR reemerged in new institutional frameworks—most famously in the History Workshop movement and its journal. These organisations, established and influenced by Samuel, served as platforms for the culturalist pseudo-left to consolidate its position within British historiography.

Samuel’s role at Ruskin College connected him with a diverse social group: working-class students, local activists, and community historians. This setting enabled Samuel to turn the culturalist ideas of the early New Left into an educational approach. His focus on participation, inclusivity, and empathy blurred the lines between working-class and middle-class historical figures, framing all participants as equal contributors to history. This approach was not Marxist pedagogy but was characteristic of Popular Front pedagogy.

The initial History Workshop in 1967 focused on local history, community memory, oral testimony, everyday life, and “history from below.” These themes echoed Samuel’s opposition to Marxist theory and his support for cultural description. The launch of the History Workshop Journal in 1976 signified the formalisation of Samuel’s approach to history. Over time, the journal became the hub for the culturalist pseudo-left, mainstreaming anti-Marxist views, anti-theory stances, culturalism, pluralism, identity politics, and moral critique.

Samuel’s later shift towards the heritage industry—surprising many of his peers—was the natural extension of his approach. Heritage emphasises memory rather than analysis, culture over class, identity over politics, and nostalgia over critique. This move showed the underlying political reasoning behind his historiography: a transition from Marxism to culturalism, and then from culturalism to nostalgia.

This monograph offers several original insights: it is the first to systematically analyse Samuel’s early political life from a Marxist perspective; it reconstructs the ideological framework of ULR; it situates Samuel’s historiographical approach within his overall political development; it questions the laudatory stories promoted by the History Workshop movement; and it repositions Samuel in the context of the decline of British Stalinism. These contributions pave the way for new Marxist historiographical research and challenge the dominance of culturalist views in contemporary scholarship.

 

 

The chapters that follow develop this argument in detail:

Chapter 1 examines the historiographical neglect surrounding Samuel’s early political life.

Chapter 2 reconstructs his Stalinist formation within the CP Historians Group.

Chapter 3 analyses ULR as a case of political and historiographical neglect.

Chapter 4 examines ULR’s ideological structure and its hostility to Marxism.

Chapter 5 analyses Samuel’s historiographical method and its Popular Front inheritance.

Chapter 6 critiques the political failure of the first New Left.

Chapter 7 traces the continuity between ULR and the History Workshop movement.

Chapter 8 concludes with a reassessment of Samuel’s place in British intellectual history.

Conclusion: Toward a Marxist Historiography of the New Left

Chapter 1 — Raphael Samuel and the Problem of Historiographical Neglect

A Historian in the Shadows

Raphael Samuel’s life and work illuminate the political and intellectual contradictions of the British left in the second half of the twentieth century. His trajectory — from Stalinist youth to New Left organiser to culturalist historian — reflects the decomposition of Marxism and the rise of the pseudo-left. This monograph argues that a Marxist historiography of the New Left must confront these contradictions directly. It must analyse the political roots of culturalism, the ideological legacy of Stalinism, and the consequences of rejecting Marxist theory. It must reclaim class as the central analytical category and restore the revolutionary perspective that Samuel and his contemporaries abandoned.

Only then can we understand the political meaning of Samuel’s work — and the historical forces that shaped it.

Samuel holds a unique place in postwar Britain's intellectual landscape. While his name frequently comes up in contexts like the History Workshop movement, cultural studies, oral history, and efforts to make history more accessible, he often seems both everywhere and nowhere. He's recognised as an innovator, a radical teacher, a “people’s historian,” and a dynamic organiser. Nonetheless, despite this frequent mention, he remains somewhat on the periphery of scholarly discussion. Major figures like E.P. Thompson, Stuart Hall, and Perry Anderson tend to overshadow him, and he is often merely footnoted in analyses of the New Left.

This marginality is noteworthy. Samuel was a founder of Universities & Left Review (ULR), one of the two journals that launched the first New Left. He played a key role in the movement's intellectual and organisational development from 1956 to 1962. He influenced the ethos of the History Workshop movement, established the History Workshop Journal, and impacted many students at Ruskin College. Despite this, no comprehensive biography exists, nor has his early political career been thoroughly studied. His involvement in ULR — arguably the most politically significant phase of his career — has been largely overlooked.

This oversight is deliberate, revealing broader historiographical patterns: the romanticising of the New Left, marginalising Marxist analysis, and academic historians' hesitance to confront Stalinism's political legacy. Samuel’s initial political development — influenced by Stalinism, the Popular Front, and the 1956 ideological crisis — conflicts with the celebratory stories prevalent in current historiography. His later culturalist approach is simpler to commend than his early political inconsistencies are to dissect.

This chapter examines why Samuel’s early political life has received little attention. It identifies three related reasons: the marginalisation of nonacademic historians, ideological clashes tied to the first New Left, and Samuel’s own avoidance of autobiography. Together, these factors have created a biased view of Samuel, highlighting his later culturalist work while minimising the political experiences that shaped it.

The Professional Marginalisation of Samuel

One reason for Samuel’s historiographical neglect is structural. He did not fit the professional mould. He never completed a doctorate. He worked in adult education rather than in a university. He published his major monograph, Theatres of Memory, with a political press rather than an academic one. He was appointed to a professorship only in the year of his death.

Professional historians, who typically shape historiography, often view Samuel as a minor figure rooted in a niche culture of radical intellectuals. His lack of traditional academic credentials makes him easy to overlook. As Scott-Brown mentions, “he is an elusive figure in the existing literature… a passing mention or footnote at most.” This marginalisation within the profession has influenced the way history is written in two key ways: it has caused scholars to emphasise Samuel’s later culturalist work over his early political activities, and it has left the ideological contradictions of his initial career unexamined. Consequently, Samuel’s marginal position in the profession has also led to the marginalisation of his political ideas in historiography.

The Ideological Discomfort of the First New Left

Another reason for Samuel’s neglect is ideological. The first New Left holds a complex position in British intellectual history. It is praised as a time of creativity, openness, and democratic progress. However, it was also characterised by confusion, fragmentation, and a lack of cohesive political ideas. Originating from the crisis of Stalinism, it did not ultimately resolve that crisis. While it rejected Marxism, it did not offer a clear alternative. It valued culture but dismissed class as a central focus.

Samuel’s involvement in this movement poses a challenge for historians who seek to portray the New Left as progressive. His initial writings show hostility toward Marxism, contempt for Trotskyism, and a longing for the Communist Party. As an editor at ULR, he propagated Stalinist ideas despite rejecting the CPGB as an organisation. His adoption of culturalism was driven not by new theories but by a political retreat.

These contradictions challenge the optimistic story of the New Left, exposing its ideological weaknesses and its inability to create a unified socialist viewpoint. They also highlight the link between the Popular Front tradition of the CP Historians Group and the culturalist pseudo-left that appeared in the 1960s and 1970s.

Historians tend to avoid addressing these contradictions. They find it simpler to praise Samuel as a “people’s historian" rather than examine his part in the ideological decline of British Stalinism.

The Political Evasions of Samuel’s Autobiographical Writings

Samuel’s neglect also stems from his own writings. His memoir, The Lost World of British Communism, is charming, evocative, and nostalgic—yet politically evasive. While it fondly describes the rituals, discipline, and communal identity of the CPGB, it avoids analysing the political significance of Stalinism. It omits the discussion of the purges, the Moscow Trials, the suppression of the Left Opposition, and the Soviet Union's bureaucratic decline. Additionally, it fails to address the CPGB’s role in subordinating the working class to the Popular Front.

Samuel’s memoir further romanticises his early political years by framing Stalinism as a cultural experience rather than a mere political system. It turns complex political contradictions into personal recollections and shifts from analytical critique to nostalgic reflection. This shift has influenced how history is written. Scholars tend to rely on Samuel’s memoirs rather than archival documents or political analysis. They often echo his nostalgia rather than critically examining his political views. While celebrating his cultural sensitivity, they overlook the development of his ideology. As a result, Samuel’s own writings have contributed to the historiographical neglect of his early political life.

Neglecting Samuel’s early political career has led to several distortions in historiography: he is primarily seen as a cultural innovator, which downplays his involvement in ULR, ignores his political development, and masks his ideological conflicts. The first New Left is portrayed as a creative movement, romanticised in its fragmentation, glorified for its anti-Marxism, and interpreted as innovative culturalism rather than as a retreat. The History Workshop movement is regarded as democratic, with its pluralism and anti-theoretical stance highlighted, while its disconnection from class is overlooked. These misconceptions shape the dominant narrative of postwar British history, reinforcing a culturalist bias in current scholarship. Additionally, they undervalue the political origins of the cultural shift and the ideological influence of Stalinism.

The Need for a Marxist Reassessment

This monograph contends that a Marxist revaluation of Samuel’s early political life is crucial for grasping his approach to historiography. It is equally important for understanding the political and intellectual history of the first New Left. Such a revaluation involves analysing Samuel’s Stalinist background within the CP Historians Group, reconstructing the ideological framework of ULR, examining the political shortcomings of the first New Left, and placing the History Workshop movement in the context of the rise of the culturalist pseudo-left. Additionally, it requires addressing the political significance of Samuel’s nostalgia, the ideological consequences of his pluralism, and the links between his early political contradictions and his later historiographical methods.

Raphael Samuel’s early political career has often been overlooked because exploring it involves addressing the political legacy of Stalinism and the ideological tensions of the first New Left. This monograph contends that understanding Samuel’s historiographical approach requires analysing these contradictions. By situating Samuel within the context of the 1956 political crisis and the ideological framework of ULR, this study offers a Marxist reevaluation of his work. It challenges the culturalist narratives that dominate contemporary historiography.

Samuel’s life and career highlight the political and intellectual conflicts within the British left during the late 20th century. His evolution—from a Stalinist youth to a New Left activist and finally to a cultural historian—mirrors the decline of traditional Marxism and the emergence of the pseudo-left. To truly understand Samuel, one must also understand the political forces that influenced him.

Chapter 2 — Raphael Samuel Before 1956: Stalinism, the CP Historians Group, and Popular Front Ideology

The Formation of a Stalinist Intellectual

To understand Raphael Samuel’s later historiographical approach—marked by culturalism, pluralism, and a rejection of Marxist theory—we need to consider his political growth. The ideological climate of British Stalinism deeply shaped his early years. Born in 1934 into a politically active Jewish Communist family, he joined the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) as a teenager. Shortly afterwards, he became involved with the Communist Party Historians Group (CPHG). This environment provided him with the conceptual, emotional, and organisational resources that formed his initial political identity and guided his intellectual development, even after he officially left the Party in 1956.

Samuel’s reflection on his youth uncovers how Stalinism left a psychological mark. He described himself as feeling both a strong sense of isolation and a desire for recognition, fluctuating between rebellion and conformity. This insight highlights the complex emotional makeup of Stalinist political identity: a blend of sectarian pride and a yearning for social acceptance, as well as political militancy and ideological conformity. Samuel’s later shifts — from radical ideas to cultural concerns, and between Marxist language and anti-Marxist views — were not random. Instead, they stemmed from a political development deeply rooted in the inherent contradictions of Stalinism.

This chapter revisits Samuel’s initial political years, exploring the ideological environment of the CPHG, the influence of the Popular Front tradition on its historiography, and the political tensions Samuel brought into the first New Left. It contends that Samuel’s later historiographical approach is inseparable from the Stalinist legacy that influenced his views on history, politics, and class.

The Communist Party Historians Group: A Stalinist School of History

The CP Historians Group, established in 1946, is often idealised as a foundational hub of British Marxist historiography, having produced notable figures such as E.P. Thompson, Christopher Hill, Rodney Hilton, and Eric Hobsbawm. However, its intellectual environment was heavily influenced by the political needs of the CPGB and the ideological restrictions of Stalinism. The CPHG’s approach to history was not aligned with Trotsky’s dialectical materialism but was distinctly Stalinist—characterised by nationalism, empiricism, moralism, and a focus on the Popular Front.

The CPHG aimed to construct a favourable historical narrative for the CPGB’s political ideology—highlighting national traditions, democratic struggles, and socalled “progressive” bourgeois forces. Its historiography was crafted to justify the Party’s alliances with certain bourgeois factions and to align the working class with the defence of “democratic” capitalism. This nationalist perspective influenced its key publications, such as A.L. Morton’s People’s History of England, Hill’s analyses of the English Revolution, and Thompson’s early works.

Ann Talbot’s analysis of Morton’s People’s History clearly illustrates this. She contends that the term "people’s history" aimed to legitimise the Popular Front strategy—subordinating the working class to what were considered progressive bourgeois forces. This historiographical approach praised rebels, radicals, and popular movements as part of a “national revolutionary tradition." Still, it failed to examine the class dynamics within these movements or their relationship to capitalist development.

Samuel embraced this tradition profoundly. His later interest in local history, cultural memory, and everyday life was a natural extension of the Popular Front, not a departure from it. His approach to "democratising" history shifted focus from class analysis, replacing Marxist critique with cultural engagement. The CPHG equipped Samuel with the conceptual language and methodological practices that influenced his subsequent work.

Samuel’s memoir, The Lost World of British Communism, is often seen as a nostalgic look at the CPGB’s internal culture. It depicts the rituals, discipline, and sense of community within the Party with affection. However, this nostalgia reveals political undertones. Samuel portrays the CP’s organisational life warmly but chooses not to mention its betrayals, purges, or ideological missteps. He omits discussion of the Moscow Trials, the repression of the Left Opposition, and the bureaucratic decline of the Soviet Union. Similarly, he avoids addressing the CPGB’s role in aligning the working class with the Popular Front.

This silence is intentional, emphasising Samuel’s difficulty or hesitation in confronting the political consequences of Stalinism. His fondness for Communist Party life indicates a lasting ideological bond: an emotional attachment to Stalinist culture persisted even after he distanced himself from the Party. Samuel’s nostalgia transformed political conflicts into personal memories, replacing analysis with sentiment.

Samuel’s later rejection of Trotskyism is rooted in emotional continuity. Confronting Trotsky’s criticism of Stalinism would have meant questioning the fundamental principles of his own ideological background. Yet, Samuel never committed to this challenge. His rejection was driven more by emotional factors than by theoretical arguments, reflecting his Stalinist upbringing rather than an engagement in political debate.

The Popular Front and the Nationalisation of History

The Popular Front strategy, embraced by the CPGB in the mid-1930s, positioned the working class within alliances with “progressive” bourgeois forces, claiming to promote anti-fascism and national unity. This approach demanded a supporting historiography that highlighted national traditions, democratic efforts, and cultural continuity. The CPHG produced such historiography to align with these themes.

Morton’s People’s History, Hill’s study of the English Revolution, and Thompson’s early works all displayed the nationalist stance of the Popular Front. They praised popular movements but overlooked their class dynamics. Their focus was on cultural continuity without exploring the contradictions inherent in capitalist development. They portrayed history as a national story instead of a class conflict.

Samuel internalised this orientation thoroughly. His subsequent work — particularly his focus on “people’s history,” localism, and cultural memory — mirrored the ideological framework of the Popular Front. His approach to democratising history shifted its focus from class to “common social activity,” substituting Marxist analysis for cultural narratives. Scott-Brown’s account of Samuel’s method inadvertently substantiates this link, noting his emphasis on "the emergence of a common discursive framework” that could encompass various perspectives. However, this pluralism was not politically impartial; it echoed the Popular Front’s shift from class concerns to cultural ones.

Samuel’s adolescence took place during the CPGB’s most politically complex era, marked by the wartime alliance with Churchill, subsequent support for Labour’s welfare policies, and the solidification of Stalin’s dictatorship in the USSR. The victory over Nazi Germany influenced his political development, the Soviet Union’s standing, the CPGB’s focus on nationalist ideas, and the worldwide growth of American capitalism.

Samuel saw Stalinism not just as a bureaucratic decline but as a heroic, disciplined movement fighting fascism. This emotional connection remained even after the 1956 disclosures. His leaving the CPGB was driven by emotional reasons rather than intellectual critique. He rejected the Party’s authority but did not analyse its political past, avoided studying Trotsky’s critique, ignored the purges, and did not scrutinise the bureaucratic aspects of Stalinism.

This incomplete break influenced Samuel’s later political and historiographical development. He integrated the ideological traits of Stalinism into the first New Left, including its nationalist focus, hostility towards Marxism, and mistrust of the working class.

Samuel departed from the CPGB in 1956 following Khrushchev’s Secret Speech. However, his separation was not fully developed. He disavowed the Party’s authority but failed to analyse its political history. He did not confront issues like the purges, the Moscow Trials, or the suppression of the Left Opposition. Additionally, he did not engage with Trotsky’s critique of Stalinism or examine the Soviet state's bureaucratic nature.

Samuel’s break from Stalinism was driven more by emotion than theory. While he rejected the CPGB’s organisational discipline, he still held on to its ideological habits. These habits influenced his involvement in the initial New Left, shaping ULR's political and intellectual culture. This continuity clarifies ULR’s ideological framework: its opposition to Marxism, its rejection of Trotskyism, its embrace of culturalism, and its leaning towards Labourism. The early political conflicts Samuel faced resurfaced in his later historiographical approach, guiding the development of the History Workshop movement and the culturalist pseudo-left.

The Stalinist Roots of Samuel’s Historiographical Method

Stalinism and the Popular Front tradition significantly influenced Raphael Samuel’s early political development. His subsequent historiographical approach—focused on culturalism, pluralism, and distancing from Marxist theory—originated from these political roots. Samuel’s fondness for the CPGB, his opposition to Trotskyism, and his focus on cultural description embody the ideological patterns of Stalinism that have been adapted into modern academic practices.

Understanding Samuel’s early political development is key to grasping his later historiographical approach. It also provides insight into the ideological makeup of the initial New Left and the emergence of the culturalist pseudo-left. The following chapter explores Samuel’s involvement in ULR, showing how the conflicts inherent in his Stalinist background shaped the political and intellectual identity of the first New Left.

Chapter 3 — Universities & Left Review and the First New Left: A Case of Historiographical Neglect

The journal served as one of the initial founding platforms of the first New Left, playing a key role in shaping the movement’s political and intellectual identity. It was the arena where figures like Raphael Samuel, Stuart Hall, Charles Taylor, and Gabriel Pearson worked to rebuild socialist politics following the 1956 crisis. Additionally, it provided a space for disillusioned Stalinists, radical students, and cultural critics to develop a new political discourse.

Yet despite its centrality, ULR has been almost entirely ignored by historians. The New Reasoner overshadows it, eclipsed by the later New Left Review, and relegated to footnotes in studies of the New Left. Samuel’s role in ULR — arguably the most politically decisive period of his career — has suffered what this monograph terms "historiographical neglect": a systematic failure to analyse his political development, editorial practice, and ideological commitments during the years 1956–1959.

This neglect is not accidental. It reflects the political discomfort surrounding ULR’s ideological structure: its hostility to Marxism, its rejection of Trotskyism, its embrace of culturalism, and its orientation toward Labourism. These contradictions complicate the celebratory narrative of the New Left as a creative, democratic, and pluralist movement. They reveal the movement’s ideological fragility and its failure to develop a coherent socialist perspective.

This chapter redefines Samuel’s role in ULR, placing it within the 1956 political crisis and the ideological breakdown of British Stalinism. It contends that ULR was not the origin of a “new Marxism,” contrary to some historians’ claims. Instead, it marks the emergence of a new form of anti-Marxism. This transitional pseudo-left movement rejected the CPGB but did not adopt Marxism, laying the groundwork for the culturalist shift that would influence British intellectual life in the following decades.

The year 1956 marked a significant shift in international politics. Khrushchev’s Secret Speech uncovered Stalin’s atrocities—described by Samuel as “a measured and very limited revelation"—while the Hungarian Revolution exposed the Soviet bureaucracy's counter-revolutionary nature. These incidents undermined the ideological basis of the CPGB, prompting thousands to leave the Party almost immediately, including prominent historians like E.P. Thompson and Christopher Hill.

Samuel was part of the group. His exit was driven by emotion, not theory. He dismissed the Party’s authority but did not delve into its political history. He avoided addressing the purges, the Moscow Trials, or the suppression of the Left Opposition. He also did not engage with Trotsky’s critique of Stalinism. His separation from the CPGB remained unfinished.

Yet it propelled him into a new political milieu. In November 1956, Samuel wrote to Stuart Hall proposing a magazine called “New University Left.” Hall accepted, and the project became Universities & Left Review. Samuel’s letters to former CP members, fellow travellers, and student radicals reveal his intention: to create a political space for disillusioned Stalinists who rejected the CPGB but had not embraced Marxism was born from crisis — but it did not resolve that crisis. Instead, it reproduced its contradictions.

The ULR editorial board included Samuel, Hall, Pearson, and Taylor. They all followed a similar political path: early Stalinist roots, disillusionment in 1956, rejection of Marxism, and an attraction to culturalism, moral critique, and Labourism. This ideological stance influenced ULR’s political approach. Taylor’s claim that “Stalinism… has grown out of Communism” blurred the line between Marxism and Stalinism, viewing Stalinism not as a bureaucratic decline but as an inevitable outcome of Marxist theory.

Samuel supported this stance, never questioning Taylor’s assertion or evaluating Stalinism via Trotsky’s critique. His silence was a deliberate political choice. Consequently, ULR’s anti-Marxism was inherently anti-Trotskyist. Its eclectic approach, praised by some historians as intellectual openness, actually served a political purpose: it replaced class analysis with cultural description, sidelining Marxist theory.

Its focus on the Labour Party revealed a broader motive: the aim to provide a respectable, non-revolutionary space for disillusioned Stalinist intellectuals. Marxism did not drive ULR. Instead, it was a post-Stalinist, pre-culturalist movement seeking ideological unity.

Samuel’s early political writings show a clear inner conflict. He idealised his youth in the CP—described as using "rose-tinted spectacles" by a critic—while criticising "undisciplined” leftist groups. He longed for the period when Stalinism dominated the working class politically but did not support the CPGB’s authority. Although he favoured culturalism, he opposed Marxism. He praised workingclass culture but rejected the idea of working-class revolution.

These contradictions influenced his approach to editing. Samuel aimed to develop a movement that was neither Stalinist nor Marxist, neither revolutionary nor reformist, and neither purely theoretical nor empirical. This led to ideological eclecticism. However, ULR’s eclecticism was not a positive trait; it reflected political confusion.

One of the most striking features of ULR is the absence of working-class authors. Not a single article was written by a worker. This absence was not accidental. It reflected the editors’ belief that the working class was no longer a revolutionary force.

Hall argued that consumerism had created a “people’s capitalism,” rendering class analysis obsolete. Samuel agreed, rejecting the Marxist conception of the working class as the agent of socialist revolution.

This ideological stance connected ULR to the rising pseudo-left movements that later came to dominate British intellectual discourse: culturalism, identity politics, and moral critique. ULR’s dismissive attitude towards the working class formed the political basis of its culturalist approach.

ULR’s intense hostility towards Trotskyism was driven by emotion, exposing its political position. Samuel dismissed Trotskyist groups as “a dozen ‘vanguard’ parties… competing to lead a non-existent revolutionary working class.” This hostility was rooted in his Stalinist background rather than in genuine theoretical engagement; Samuel never examined Trotsky’s perspectives on Stalinism, the Left Opposition, or the purges.

The Socialist Labour League (SLL) understood this dynamic well. When Gerry Healy attempted to engage ULR in discussion, he was met with rejection, and similarly, E.P. Thompson and the New Reasoner responded negatively. Brian Pearce cautioned that the New Left had “broken with Stalinism”. Still, he had not examined this separation thoroughly, leaving them “unconsciously vulnerable to false ideas absorbed during their period in the Stalinist camp." Pearce’s prediction was correct; ULR still displayed Stalinist ideological traits despite rejecting the CPGB organizationally. Anti-Trotskyism was the central ideology that unified ULR.

ULR’s adoption of cultural studies was more a political retreat than a new theoretical insight. Samuel and Hall relied on Gramsci’s idea of “cultural hegemony” instead of traditional Marxist analysis. Gramsci’s emphasis on nationalism — “the point of departure is ‘national’” — resonated with their Popular Front background. His opposition to Trotsky’s Permanent Revolution made him a fitting figure for the early New Left. Similarly, Marcuse’s influence was notable, as he claimed the working class had been “co-opted” by capitalism and envisioned revolution emerging from “the intelligentsia, social fringe groups, or guerrilla movements.”

This was the ideological foundation of the cultural turn: substituting class for culture, politics for identity, and Marxism for moral critique. ULR’s culturalism expressed its political rejection of Marxism. The magazine existed for only three years—an unusually short period for a political publication. Michael Kenny describes it as marked by “confusion,” “lack of direction,” and “uncertainty about its political role,” revealing its ideological inconsistency. ULR lacked a Marxist program, a theoretical base, a revolutionary outlook, and a coherent political stance. It was a transitional phase—a link between the fall of Stalinism and the emergence of the culturalist pseudo-left. ULR did not simply fail and vanish; it failed and evolved.

This chapter shows that ULR was not the origin of a “new Marxism,” as some suggest, but rather the emergence of a new anti-Marxism. Samuel’s involvement in ULR highlights the ideological link between his Stalinist background and his later historiographical approach. The magazine’s eclecticism, cultural focus, and anti-Marxist stance were intentional, reflecting a generation unwilling to face the lessons of Stalinism. ULR should be seen as a transitional pseudo-left group— one that rejected the CPGB but did not endorse Marxism, laying the groundwork for culturalist politics. These identity-driven ideas would shape British intellectual life in the following decades.

Chapter 4 — The Politics of Anti-Marxism: ULR’s Ideological Structure

Anti-Marxism as the Unifying Logic of the First New Left

The previous chapter explained that Universities & Left Review (ULR) arose from the ideological confusion following the 1956 crisis. It was a product of the fall of Stalinist certainties, yet it still refused to challenge the core political meaning of Stalinism. This chapter explores the ideological foundation of ULR, showing that its eclectic, culturalist, and anti-Marxist stance wasn’t accidental but reflected a generation’s inability — and often unwillingness — to confront the crimes, betrayals, and distortions of Stalinist theory.

ULR’s anti-Marxism was not simply a break from Stalinism but an evolution into a new form. The magazine’s core ideas revolved around three interconnected claims: Stalinism was a natural extension of Marxism; Trotskyism was sectarian, irrelevant, or dangerous; and the working class was no longer a revolutionary force. These beliefs influenced ULR’s editorial stance, political direction, and intellectual culture, laying the groundwork for the culturalist pseudo-left currents that would shape British intellectual life in the decades that followed.

The clearest expression of ULR’s ideological stance is found in Charles Taylor’s essay Socialism and the Intellectuals (ULR 1/2, 1957). Taylor contended that Stalinism was not a deviation from Marxism but its natural development. He stated that Stalinism “did not just add itself to Communism… in every real sense, it has grown out of Communism.”

This formulation is critical in a political sense, as it blurs the line between Marxism and Stalinism, viewing Stalinism not as a bureaucratic decline of the workers’ state but as an unavoidable result of Marxist theory. This perspective aligns ULR with Cold War liberalism, social democracy, and the right wing of the CPGB — all of which saw Stalinism as the logical extension of Marxist principles. Samuel supported this viewpoint, never challenging Taylor’s assertion nor engaging with Trotsky’s critique of Stalinism. He also failed to address the political implications of the purges, the Moscow Trials, or the suppression of the Left Opposition.

By embracing Stalinism as the true form of Marxism, Samuel and his colleagues made Marxism politically ineffective. They shut down any dialogue with the Bolshevik revolutionary tradition and the ideas of the Left Opposition. ULR's antiMarxism therefore inherently opposed Trotskyism.

ULR’s strong hostility towards Trotskyism was driven by emotion and revealed its political stance. Samuel dismissed Trotskyist groups as 'a dozen ‘vanguard’ parties… competing for the honour of leading a non-existent revolutionary working class.' This rejection was not based on an analysis of Trotsky’s ideas about Stalinism, the Left Opposition, or the purges. Instead, Samuel’s opposition stemmed from his Stalinist background, not from engaging in political debate.

The Socialist Labour League (SLL) recognised this well. Gerry Healy tried to engage with ULR but was turned down, and E.P. Thompson and the New Reasoner also showed hostility. Healy famously said that Thompson had

"discarded all the baggage he carried from the Communist Party except one worn-out suitcase labelled anti-Trotskyism." Brian Pearce’s critique was even more severe, warning that the New Left had "broken with Stalinism” without properly analysing it, leaving them unconsciously vulnerable to false ideas they had adopted during their time in the Stalinist camp. Pearce’s warning was prophetic. ULR reproduced Stalinist ideological habits even as it rejected the CPGB organisationally. Anti-Trotskyism was the ideological glue that held ULR together.

ULR’s eclecticism — its mixture of cultural criticism, moral essays, sociological fragments, and political commentary — has often been celebrated by historians as evidence of intellectual openness. In reality, eclecticism served a political function: it displaced class analysis and replaced Marxist theory with cultural description. Sophie Scott-Brown’s description of Samuel’s intellectual style inadvertently confirms this dynamic. She describes his method as characterised by “fluidity in conceptual, political and personal positioning.”

This “fluidity” was more a sign of ideological confusion than a strength. Samuel’s reluctance to adopt a specific theoretical framework enabled him to sidestep the political implications of Stalinism and the need for a Marxist program. Eclecticism served as a shield from political engagement, helping ULR to avoid analysing Stalinism, confronting the crisis within the CPGB, engaging with Trotskyism, and developing a clear socialist perspective. Consequently, the magazine’s eclecticism reflected its broader tendency to evade political issues.

Labourism and the Search for Respectability

ULR’s focus on the Labour Party revealed a broader political trend: the search for a respectable, non-revolutionary space for disillusioned Stalinist intellectuals. Samuel’s membership in the Labour Party was a conscious choice, marking a move away from revolutionary ideals toward reformist gradualism.

ULR’s political stance can be summarised as follows: Marxism is discredited because Stalinism was considered part of Communism. Trotskyism is seen as sectarian and irrelevant. The working class is viewed as fragmented or co-opted. Consequently, the Labour Party must be moved further to the left through intellectual pressure. This approach was not true Marxism; it replaced Labourism with a cultural facade. Hence, UL R’s Labourism was a political expression of its anti-Marxism.

The Cultural Turn as Political Retreat

ULR’s embrace of cultural studies was not a theoretical innovation but a political retreat. Samuel and Hall turned to Gramsci’s concept of “cultural hegemony” as a substitute for Marxist analysis. Gramsci’s nationalism — “the point of departure is ‘national’” — appealed to their Popular Front inheritance. His hostility to Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution made him an ideal figure. Marcuse’s impact was equally profound, as he believed that capitalism had coopted the working class and predicted that revolutionary change would emerge from intellectuals, marginalised groups, or guerrilla fighters. This formed the ideological basis for the cultural shift: shifting focus from class to culture, politics to identity, and Marxism to moral critique. However, the cultural turn was not driven by theoretical progress; it represented a political retreat.

A notable aspect of ULR is the lack of contributions from working-class authors, with no articles authored by workers. This was intentional, mirroring the editors’ view that the working class was no longer a revolutionary force. Hall maintained that consumerism had fostered a “people’s capitalism,” making class analysis outdated. Samuel concurred, dismissing the Marxist idea of the working class as the driver of socialist change.

This ideological stance connected ULR with the rising pseudo-left trends that would come to shape British intellectual culture, including culturalism, identity politics, and moral critique. ULR’s disapproval of the working class served as the political basis for its focus on cultural issues.

ULR as a Transitional Pseudo-Left Formation

This chapter has shown that ULR was not the origin of a “new Marxism,” as some historians suggest, but rather the emergence of a new form of antiMarxism. Samuel’s involvement in ULR highlights the ideological link between his Stalinist background and his subsequent approach to historiography. The magazine’s diversity, cultural focus, and opposition to Marxism were deliberate choices, reflecting a generation hesitant to face the realities of Stalinism.

ULR should be seen as a transitional pseudo-left movement—one that rejected the CPGB but did not adopt Marxism, and instead laid the groundwork for culturalism. These identity-driven politics would come to shape British intellectual life in the subsequent decades.

Chapter 5 — Raphael Samuel’s Historical Method: People’s History, Cultural Studies, and the Legacy of Stalinism

Method as Politics

Raphael Samuel’s later reputation is built on his pioneering approaches in historiography, including “history from below,” cultural studies, oral history, and the History Workshop movement. He is honoured as a democrat of history, a radical educator, and an advocate for inclusive historical practices. Sophie ScottBrown characterises him as fostering "a deliberately conscious politics of performance,” highlighting empathy, engagement, and the "democratisation of history-making.”

However, this celebratory framing masks the political roots of Samuel’s historiographical approach. His method did not result from rejecting Stalinism nor from a Marxist theoretical breakthrough. Instead, it originated from the ideological legacy of the Communist Party Historians Group (CPHG), the Popular Front tradition, and the culturalist tendencies of the initial New Left. Samuel’s approach was a continuation of his early political development, evolving Stalinist ideological habits into new scholarly frameworks.

This chapter contends that three interconnected political drives influenced Samuel’s historiographical approach: the rejection of Marxism, the replacement of class focus with culture, and the adoption of pluralism as an alternative to theory. These forces motivated the development of the History Workshop movement and its journal, embedding a culturalist pseudo-left within British historiography.

The concept of “people’s history” did not begin with Samuel. Instead, it emerged from the CPHG and CPGB's Popular Front strategy. A.L. Morton’s People’s History of England, a key work in this tradition, portrayed rebels, radicals, and popular movements as part of a “national revolutionary tradition.” This nationalist perspective aimed to foster alliances with “progressive” bourgeois groups and to align the working class with the protection of “democratic” capitalism.

Ann Talbot clearly explains that “people’s history” aimed to legitimize the Popular Front strategy, which involved subordinating the working class to supposedly progressive bourgeois forces. While this historiographical approach praised popular movements, it failed to analyse their underlying class dynamics. It focused on cultural continuity without addressing the contradictions inherent in capitalist development. Instead of viewing history as a class struggle, it presented it as a national narrative.

Samuel absorbed this tradition deeply. His later fascination with local history, cultural memory, and everyday life was not a break with the Popular Front but a continuation of it. His “democratisation” of history-making dissolved class into “common social activity,” replacing Marxist analysis with cultural description.

Scott-Brown’s account of Samuel’s approach inadvertently affirms this ongoing continuity. She notes that Samuel highlighted "the emergence of a common discursive framework" that could encompass various perspectives. This pluralism was not politically neutral; it signified the Popular Front’s shift from class-based to culture-based considerations.

Samuel’s essay “Class and Classlessness” illustrates the political reasoning behind his historiographical approach. In it, he challenges Stuart Hall’s assertion that the concept of class was becoming outdated—an idea Hall linked to Trotskyists. However, Samuel’s understanding of class was not Marxist; he did not see the working class as a revolutionary force, even during his time in the CPGB. While he acknowledged the working class’s “radical history,” he viewed this radicalism as a matter of cultural memory rather than political or revolutionary action.

This idea aligned closely with the Popular Front tradition, which valued workingclass culture but rejected the notion of working-class revolution. Hall’s view — that consumerism had fostered a “people’s capitalism” — was stated more clearly. He believed that class analysis was no longer relevant, with cultural politics replacing class struggle. Samuel disagreed with Hall’s rejection of class but didn’t advocate for Marxism. Instead, he reinterpreted class as a cultural concept rather than a revolutionary force.

This debate exposes Samuel’s method as driven by specific ideological assumptions: Class is understood culturally rather than politically; Radicalism is viewed as a historical phenomenon rather than a revolutionary one; The working class is seen as an object of study rather than an active subject of history. This approach was not true Marxism but resembled the form of the Popular Front in historiography.

Cultural Studies as the New Popular Front

The initial issues of ULR focused on cultural studies. Samuel and Hall drew extensively on Antonio Gramsci, whose concept of “cultural hegemony” provided a theoretical framework for their shift away from Marxism. Gramsci’s emphasis on nationalism — “the point of departure is ‘national’” — resonated with their Popular Front background. His opposition to Trotsky’s concept of Permanent Revolution made him a fitting influence for the early New Left.

Marcuse’s impact was equally profound. He claimed that capitalism had "coopted" the working class and that revolutionary change would originate from “the intelligentsia, social fringe groups, or guerrilla movements.” This formed the ideological basis for the cultural turn, shifting focus from class to culture, from politics to identity, and from Marxism to moral critique. Samuel’s subsequent historiographical approach—highlighting cultural memory, daily life, and pluralism—directly stems from this political retreat.

Samuel’s historical writing was characterised by a focus on themes rather than straightforward narratives, prioritising deconstruction over synthesis, decentralisation over totality, and embracing pluralism over strict theoretical coherence. Scott-Brown explains that Samuel’s method rejects “linear

narratives” in favour of “a thematic approach,” highlighting “deconstruction” and “decentralisation.” These choices went beyond style; they echoed Samuel’s political beliefs.

The dismissal of linear narratives paralleled the rejection of historical materialism. Similarly, a focus on deconstruction reflected a rejection of Marxist categories. The decentralisation of historical agency echoed the rejection of class struggle. Additionally, embracing pluralism mirrored the rejection of revolutionary politics. Samuel’s approach embodied the intellectual framework discussed in Chapter 4.

Scott-Brown highlights Samuel’s teaching philosophy, calling him an “inspired teacher” whose approach urged historians to “concede the practice of democracy.” This educational ethos was politically nuanced, focusing on participation, inclusivity, and empathy—yet avoiding class distinctions. Samuel’s democratic teaching style blurred the lines between working-class and middleclass figures in history, considering all participants as equal contributors to historical understanding.

This was not Marxist pedagogy but rather Popular Front pedagogy. It replaced:• class struggle with cultural participation • revolutionary agency with democratic inclusion • Marxist critique with pluralist dialogue. Samuel’s pedagogical approach was therefore closely tied to his historiographical method — and his political background.

Samuel’s approach is often called “thick description,” a term borrowed from anthropology. Robin Blackburn lauds it for broadening “the intellectual and imaginative ranges of English history.” However, Eric Hobsbawm’s critique hits closer to the mark: Samuel’s history “had neither structure nor limits… an unending and astonishingly learned perambulation.” This “perambulation” was not a method but a symptom. Thick description replaced: analysis with narratives, structure with texture, class with culture, politics with memory. It was the historiographical expression of the ideological contradictions discussed earlier.

Later in his life, Samuel unexpectedly became a supporter of the heritage industry. This change surprised many peers, who viewed heritage as conservative, nostalgic, and politically reactionary. However, Samuel supported it, asserting that heritage was about “popular engagement with the past.” This shift was not unexpected; it was a natural result of Samuel’s approach. Heritage: prioritises memory over analysis, culture over class, identity over politics, nostalgia over critique. His support for heritage highlighted the political reasoning behind his historiography: a shift from Marxism to culturalism, and then from culturalism to nostalgia.

Samuel’s Method as the Cultural Expression of Stalinism

This chapter shows that Raphael Samuel’s approach to history was not a departure from his Stalinist background but a development of it. His support for “people’s history,” cultural studies, and pluralism stemmed from the Popular Front tradition of the CP Historians Group and the ideological framework of the early New Left.

Samuel’s approach shifts emphasis from class to culture, transitions from Marxism to pluralism, prioritises cultural memory over revolutionary history, and transforms Stalinist nationalism into inclusive historiography. To grasp Samuel’s method, it’s essential to consider his political beliefs. His historiographical stance reflects the cultural manifestation of the ideological tensions explored in Chapters 2–4.

Chapter 6 — The New Left’s Failure: Fragmentation, Utopianism, and the Absence of a Marxist Programme

A Movement Without a Centre

By the early 1960s, the first British New Left had disbanded. Clubs ended, editorial groups broke apart, and intellectual networks faded. Universities & Left

Review (ULR) merged with The New Reasoner to create the New Left Review (NLR). However, the original movement—its clubs, meetings, and political activity—had dissolved. This collapse is often explained by organisational weaknesses, generational change, or the perceived 'natural evolution' of political culture. Yet, these reasons overlook the more profound political causes.

The initial New Left faltered because it lacked a Marxist agenda. It rejected Marxism in theory, downplayed the revolutionary importance of the working class, and replaced political analysis with culturalism, moral critique, and utopian ideals. This fragmentation was intentional, stemming directly from its ideological framework.

This chapter analyses the political shortcomings of the first New Left, situating Raphael Samuel’s role within the context of the decline of British Stalinism and the rise of the culturalist pseudo-left. It contends that the New Left's failure was primarily political, stemming from its rejection of Marxism and its inability to develop a clear socialist outlook.

Michael Kenny and the Problem of Interpretation

Michael Kenny’s The First New Left: British Intellectuals After Stalin is among the few academic works on the movement. Kenny highlights “methodological problems” in studying the New Left, such as the limited written records and the challenge of analysing a “disparate group of former Communist Party members.” He characterises the early New Left as more of a “milieu than a movement," a view that aligns with Peter Sedgwick’s assessment.

Kenny tries to defend the New Left against its critics by claiming that its discussions on ideology, culture, and community were “prescient” and foresaw subsequent intellectual trends. However, this defence masks the underlying political truth: the New Left’s fragmentation was not due to creative openness but rather a sign of ideological incoherence. Kenny points out the symptoms but misses the root cause—the lack of a Marxist programme.

Dorothy Thompson offers a sharper critique of Kenny, arguing that the term “Left” is often used too loosely, masking the movement's diverse political views. She highlights that the New Left was characterised more by negative definitions—such as disillusionment with Soviet communism and Western social democracy—than by a clear, unified socialist ideology. While Thompson’s critique is insightful, it remains partial; she points out the movement’s diversity and fragmentation but doesn’t delve into its political origins, nor does she explain the reasons behind its divisions. She recognises its moralism but fails to link it to the ideological heritage of Stalinism. The fragmentation of the New Left was intentional, representing its anti-Marxist stance.

The early New Left intentionally lacked a clear programme, viewing this absence as an ideological stance rather than a mistake. ULR’s editorial made it clear that the journal had “no political line to offer." Similarly, Hall’s call for “new readers and writers” was more idealistic than practical. Samuel’s outright rejection of Marxism removed a strong theoretical foundation for the movement. The New Reasoner’s moral critique of Stalinism did not propose an alternative political strategy. Without a specific programme, the movement faced several issues: debates became moralistic, politics shifted to mere culture, analysis became impressionistic, and organisation was impractical. Ultimately, the structural flaws of the New Left inevitably led to its failure.

Stuart Hall’s editorial in ULR exemplifies the movement’s utopian ideals: “This journal has no political ‘line’ to offer… it seeks to serve as a platform where diverse socialist discussions can engage in open debate.” Hall’s dismissal of a specific political stance was not a sign of democracy but rather of evasion.

The text highlights the editors’ failure to present a clear socialist viewpoint. Hall’s appeal for “new readers and writers” also seemed idealistic. These individuals were mainly radical students, disillusioned Stalinists, and cultural critics, not the working class. Such utopian ideas hindered political progress by substituting concrete strategy for mere aspiration, organisation for spontaneity, and detailed analysis for moral urging.

The New Left’s moralism arose directly from its rejection of Marxism. Without class analysis, politics shifted from material struggle to ethical positions. This moralism appeared through denouncements of "bureaucracy," praise for "community," critiques of "alienation," and appeals to "authenticity." While these themes were intellectually stimulating, they lacked political potency. They highlighted the movement’s failure to analyse capitalism as a social system or to develop a clear strategy for socialist change.

Samuel’s writings demonstrated this moralistic approach. His focus on “thick description,” cultural details, and daily life replaced political analysis, favouring empathy over critique. Eric Hobsbawm summarised this well, saying Samuel’s history “had neither structure nor limits… an unending and astonishingly learned perambulation." This “perambulation” was not a technique but a sign of the approach.

The New Left fractured due to the absence of a solid theoretical base, a clear political program, a revolutionary subject, and a central organisation. The clubs disbanded, editorial circles divided, and intellectual networks dispersed. The merger of ULR and the New Reasoner into NLR failed to address these issues; it simply shifted them. Overall, the fragmentation of the New Left was a political failure, not a result of organisational shortcomings.

The demise of the first New Left paved the way for the emergence of the culturalist pseudo-left. Thinkers like Perry Anderson, Tom Nairn, and, eventually, Stuart Hall developed theories that replaced class with culture, politics with identity, and Marxism with post-structuralism.

Dennis Dworkin clearly highlights this change: in postwar Britain, cultural Marxism arose from the New Left’s rejection of traditional class analysis.

Samuel’s later involvement with the History Workshop movement reflected this shift—his focus on cultural memory, daily life, and pluralism resonated with the emerging pseudo-left trends. The New Left didn’t simply fail and fade away; rather, it failed in its original form and then evolved into something new.

The Political Logic of Failure

The initial New Left faltered due to the absence of a Marxist program. Its fragmentation, utopian ideals, and moral emphasis were not coincidental but reflected its underlying ideological framework. Raphael Samuel’s influence was crucial in this failure; his rejection of Marxism, opposition to Trotskyism, and adoption of culturalism defined the movement’s political identity. The collapse of the New Left made way for the rise of the culturalist pseudo-left. This group would dominate British intellectual circles for many years and influence Samuel’s later approach to historiography.

Chapter 7 — After ULR: History Workshop and the Institutionalisation of Culturalism

From Political Crisis to Institutional Formation

The fall of the first New Left did not signify the end of Raphael Samuel’s intellectual journey. Instead, it represented a shift. The political incoherence, culturalism, and anti-Marxism that characterised ULR reemerged in new institutional formats—particularly in the History Workshop movement and the History Workshop Journal (HWJ). These entities, established and influenced by Samuel, served as platforms for the culturalist pseudo-left to strengthen its presence within British historiography.

Sophie Scott-Brown characterises Samuel as “the driving force behind the History Workshop” and “the living embodiment of HW’s moral, political, and methodological ideals.” She highlights his pedagogical approach, describing it as “intimate and empathetic,” along with his dedication to “practising democracy.” However, these admirable qualities, praised by Scott-Brown and others, should be understood within the political framework outlined in the earlier chapters. Samuel’s later historiographical work did not signal a departure from his early political beliefs but rather their formal establishment.

This chapter explores the History Workshop movement as the peak of Samuel’s ideological development. It contends that the Workshop was not a radical democratic breakthrough but rather an institutional embodiment of the culturalist pseudo-left, replacing class with culture, analysis with memory, and Marxism with pluralism.

Ruskin College: The Social Base of the New Culturalism

Samuel’s appointment at Ruskin College was pivotal. As a trade-union-affiliated adult education institution, Ruskin furnished Samuel with a distinctive social base comprising working-class students, local activists, and community historians. This setting enabled Samuel to transform the culturalist ideas of the early New Left into a practical pedagogical approach.

Scott-Brown observes that Samuel’s thinking was expressed both physically through social interactions and on paper. While this is accurate, it also carries political nuances. Samuel’s teaching focused on participation, inclusivity, and empathy, yet deliberately avoided emphasising class differences. It blurred the lines between working-class and middle-class historical figures, viewing all participants as equal contributors to history.

This was not Marxist pedagogy but Popular Front pedagogy. It swapped: class analysis for cultural participation, revolutionary agency for democratic inclusion, Marxist critique for pluralist dialogue. Ruskin offered the institutional environment necessary for this pedagogy to thrive. The inaugural History Workshop in 1967 directly evolved from Samuel’s ULR-era culturalism, emphasising local history, community memory, oral testimonies, everyday life, and "history from below."

These themes were intellectually stimulating but politically unclear. They demonstrated Samuel’s rejection of Marxist theory and his focus on cultural description. They also echoed the Popular Front tradition of the CP Historians Group, which praised working-class culture while opposing working-class revolution.

Scott-Brown characterises the Workshop as a “democratisation of historymaking," but this process shifted the focus from class to culture. Its approach can be summarised as: Everyone participates in making history; all perspectives are valid; the historian acts as a facilitator rather than an analyst; the past is multiple and not inherently structured; memory holds as much importance as material conditions. This method was not Marxist but culturalist.

The establishment of the History Workshop Journal (HWJ) in 1976 signified the solidification of Samuel’s approach to historiography. It evolved into the core publication for the culturalist pseudo-left, featuring articles on microhistory, local studies, oral history, feminist history, identity-based analysis, and cultural memory. Notably missing were discussions on class analysis, political economy, Marxist theory, revolutionary history, and programme-based critique.

Scott-Brown observes that Samuel “attacked professional history-making,” dismissing its “authoritative position.” However, this dismissal was not a progressive move towards democracy but a political retreat. By dismissing theory, Samuel also rejected Marxism; by dismissing structure, he rejected historical materialism; and by dismissing totality, he rejected class analysis. HWJ formalised the ideological framework discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.

Samuel’s approach is frequently referred to as “thick description,” a concept from anthropology. Robin Blackburn appreciates this as broadening “the intellectual and imaginative scopes of English history.” However, Eric Hobsbawm’s critique is more precise: Samuel’s history “lacked both structure and boundaries… a never-ending and remarkably scholarly wandering.” This “perambulation” was not a method; it was a sign.

Thick description shifted: analysis using narrative structure, textured class, culture, politics, and memory. It reflected the historiographical expression of ideological contradictions discussed earlier. Later in his life, Samuel unexpectedly became an advocate for the heritage industry. This change surprised many of his peers, who regarded heritage as conservative, nostalgic, and politically reactionary. Nevertheless, Samuel supported it, stating that heritage embodied “popular engagement with the past.”

This turn was expected, representing the natural conclusion of Samuel’s approach. His focus on heritage emphasises memory rather than analysis, culture over class, identity over politics, and nostalgia over critique. Samuel’s endorsement of heritage exposes the underlying political reasoning of his historiographical method: a shift away from Marxism toward culturalism and from culturalism toward nostalgia.

By the 1980s, the culturalist pseudo-left had gained dominance in British historiography. The History Workshop movement, HWJ, and Samuel’s educational principles were key to this shift. They established an environment characterised by anti-Marxism, anti-theory stance, culturalism, pluralism, identity politics, and moral critique. Samuel was not just a participant in this change; he actively helped to shape it.

His early political contradictions—discussed in Chapters 2–4—resurfaced in his later approach to history. The Popular Front evolved into a cultural movement. Stalinist nationalism transformed into “people’s history.” Anti-Trotskyism shifted into anti-theory. ULR’s eclectic approach turned into HWJ’s pluralism. Samuel’s subsequent work represented the formal establishment of the ideological framework of the initial New Left.

Samuel’s Legacy and the Decomposition of Marxist Historiography

Raphael Samuel’s legacy is deeply conflicted. He is celebrated as a democrat, a pluralist, and a “people’s historian.” Yet his historiographical method emerged from the ideological decomposition of British Stalinism and contributed to the rise of the culturalist pseudo-left. Samuel’s work displaced class with culture, replaced Marxism with pluralism, substituted memory for analysis, and transformed political retreat into historiographical innovation. The History Workshop movement institutionalised these tendencies, shaping British historiography for decades.

The next chapter concludes the monograph by reassessing Samuel’s place in British intellectual history and evaluating the political implications of his historiographical method.

Chapter 8 — Conclusion: Raphael Samuel and the Politics of Historical Memory

Reassessing a “People’s Historian”

Raphael Samuel’s standing in modern historiography is complex. He is hailed as a democrat of the past, a radical teacher, an advocate for inclusivity, and a pioneer of the History Workshop movement. His writings are recognized for their warmth, empathy, and creative scope. However, this monograph has shown that Samuel’s approach to history must be understood in light of the political influences that shaped him. His journey—from Stalinist youth to New Left organizer and then to culturalist historian—mirrors the ideological decline of British Stalinism and the emergence of the culturalist pseudo-left.

This final chapter sums up the main points from the entire work. It reexamines Samuel’s role in British intellectual history, considers the political consequences of his historiographical approach, and discusses the broader importance of this research for Marxist historiography.

Throughout the monograph, a clear and consistent argument has emerged: Raphael Samuel’s approach to history reflects his early political upbringing. This claim is supported by several interconnected points: Stalinism shaped Samuel’s initial political views; the Popular Front tradition shaped his ideas of “people’s history”; ULR embodied Stalinist ideological patterns; ULR’s anti-Marxism laid the groundwork for the culturalist pseudo-left. Samuel’s later historiographical style formalised these influences.

Samuel’s work emphasises continuity over rupture. His later historiographical approach reflected how the ideological conflicts of the first New Left became institutionalised. Three key political motivations guided Samuel’s methodology: First, he rejected Marxism—not because he analysed it, but because he associated it with Stalinism. Second, he shifted from viewing class as a political concept to treating it as a cultural one. Third, his focus on cultural memory, daily life, and pluralism signalled a departure from Marxist ideas towards cultural description. These influences shaped the History Workshop movement and its journal, embedding the culturalist pseudo-left in British historiography.

The first New Left failed because it lacked a Marxist programme. Its fragmentation, utopianism, and moralism were not accidental features but the political expression of its ideological structure. Samuel’s role in this failure was decisive. His rejection of Marxism, hostility to Trotskyism, and embrace of culturalism shaped the movement’s political character.

The History Workshop movement did not resolve these contradictions. It reproduced them. This monograph challenges the dominant historiographical narrative surrounding Samuel. It argues that Samuel was not a “people’s historian” in the democratic sense celebrated by Scott Brown. His culturalism was not politically neutral but ideologically structured. His pluralism was not emancipatory but evasive. His rejection of Marxism contributed to the intellectual fragmentation of the British left.

This analysis offers broader insights into postwar British historiography. It makes several original contributions: providing the first systematic Marxist analysis of Samuel’s early political life, reconstructing ULR’s ideological framework, and situating Samuel’s historiographical approach within his political development. The work also challenges the celebratory narratives of the History Workshop movement and repositions Samuel within the decline of British Stalinism.

Raphael Samuel’s life and work highlight the political and intellectual conflicts within the British left in the latter half of the twentieth century. His path—from Stalinist youth to New Left organizer and culturalist historian—mirrors the disintegration of Marxism and the emergence of the pseudo-left. His nostalgia for Communist Party discipline, hostility to Trotskyism, embrace of culturalism, and rejection of Marxist theory were interconnected. These tendencies reflect the ideological stance of a generation influenced by the Popular Front, disoriented by the 1956 crisis, and unable to articulate a revolutionary alternative.

The first New Left arose after Stalinism's collapse but failed to resolve its inherent contradictions. It rejected Marxism without offering a substitute, embraced culture while rejecting class, and promoted pluralism without a clear program. Samuel played a pivotal role in this movement; through his editorial work at Universities & Left Review, he perpetuated Stalinist ideological patterns despite organizational distancing from the CPGB. His subsequent historiographical approach further entrenched these habits in British academia, fostering the growth of the culturalist pseudo‑left and overshadowing Marxist analysis with cultural descriptions.

A Marxist approach to historiography of the New Left needs to address these contradictions head-on. It should examine the origins of culturalism, the ideological influence of Stalinism, and the effects of dismissing Marxist theory. Reasserting class as the core analytical tool and reviving the revolutionary outlook that Samuel and his peers forsook is essential. Only through this can we grasp the political significance of Samuel’s work and the historical forces that influenced it.

Samuel’s legacy is thus inseparable from the political crisis of the British left. His work reflects the unresolved contradictions of the first New Left and the rise of the culturalist pseudo‑left. This monograph has sought to illuminate those contradictions, to reconstruct the ideological structure of ULR, and to situate

Samuel’s historiographical method within the political formation that produced it. In doing so, it offers a Marxist reassessment of Samuel’s place in British intellectual history and challenges the culturalist narratives that dominate contemporary historiography.

The task of Marxist historiography is not merely to describe the past but to clarify the political lessons necessary for the future. Samuel’s life and work provide such lessons — not as models to emulate, but as contradictions to understand. His trajectory reveals the dangers of political evasion, the consequences of rejecting Marxism, and the ideological fragility of movements that substitute culture for class. It also reveals the necessity of a revolutionary programme capable of confronting the crises of capitalism and the betrayals of Stalinism.

The reconstruction of Marxist historiography requires confronting these contradictions without nostalgia, evasion, or accommodation. It requires clarity, analysis, and political commitment. This monograph is offered in that spirit.

Postscript: On the Uses of History in an Age of Ideological Exhaustion

The writing of this monograph coincides with a period of profound ideological exhaustion across the British and international left. The culturalist pseudo-left currents that emerged from the first New Left — and which Raphael Samuel helped institutionalise — have reached their terminus. Their displacement of class by identity, politics by moralism, and Marxism by cultural description has produced not renewal but paralysis. The intellectual habits that Samuel embodied — pluralism without programme, empathy without analysis, participation without strategy — have become the default mode of academic radicalism, even as capitalism enters its most convulsive crisis since the 1930s.

The political conditions that shaped Samuel’s trajectory have not disappeared.

They have metastasised. The Popular Front’s nationalism reappears today as “progressive patriotism.” The New Left’s moralism reappears in the politics of personal testimony and therapeutic discourse. The History Workshop’s pluralism reappears in the fragmentation of historical scholarship into micro-identities and experiential narratives. The cultural turn, once presented as liberation from the “determinism” of Marxism, has become a cage.

This monograph contends that Samuel’s historiographical approach reflected his early political development within Stalinism and the Popular Front. The postscript must highlight the key political lesson: the current left’s crisis cannot be fixed by revisiting the culturalist innovations of the New Left or by restoring Samuel’s pluralist ethos. Instead, it can only be resolved by addressing the political questions Samuel and his peers sidestepped — particularly, the nature of Stalinism, the role of the working class, and the need for a Marxist programme.

The task of Marxist historiography is not to curate memory but to clarify agency. It is not to democratise the past but to illuminate the forces that shape the present. It is not to celebrate “history from below” but to analyse the conditions under which the “below” becomes a revolutionary subject. Samuel’s work, for all its imaginative richness, could not undertake this task. It was shaped by the ideological decomposition of the movement that produced it.

The reconstruction of a Marxist historiography requires a break with the culturalist pseudo-left and a return to the theoretical clarity of historical materialism. It requires confronting the political lessons of the twentieth century — the betrayals of Stalinism, the defeats of the working class, and the failures of the New Left — without nostalgia, evasion, or accommodation. It requires recognising that the crisis of the left is not cultural but political, not moral but historical, not personal but systemic.

This monograph is offered as a contribution to that reconstruction. Its purpose is not to condemn Samuel but to understand him — and through him, to understand the ideological forces that continue to shape the left today. The task now is to move beyond those forces, to reclaim the revolutionary tradition that Samuel inherited but could not sustain, and to restore the Marxist perspective necessary for confronting the crises of our own time.

Acknowledgements

This study was developed through discussions, debates, and exchanges with comrades, colleagues, and friends whose insights refined its arguments and clarified its aims. I especially thank those who emphasised that the political history of the British left must be addressed honestly, without evasion, nostalgia, or compromise. Their dedication to clarity and historical accuracy forms the basis of this work.

I appreciate the archivists and librarians whose efforts preserve the documentary history of the Communist Party Historians Group, Universities & Left Review, and the early New Left. Their work enables the reconstruction of political histories that might otherwise stay hidden or be misrepresented.

I thank the scholars, both past and present, who refused to romanticise the New Left and instead offered rigorous critiques. Their often-overlooked analyses within mainstream historiography laid the foundation for this monograph. Additionally, I acknowledge the Marxist intellectual tradition, which provides the core analytical framework for this work. The approach of historical materialism and the political insights gained from the fight against Stalinism shape every chapter.

Any remaining errors or limitations are my own.

Bibliography Books and Monographs   

Anderson, Perry. Arguments within English Marxism. London: Verso, 1980.

Anderson, Perry. Considerations on Western Marxism. London: Verso, 1976.

Blackburn, Robin. The Making of New World Slavery. London: Verso, 1997.

Dworkin, Dennis. Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain. Durham: Duke University Press, 1997.

Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers, 1971.

Hall, Stuart. Familiar Stranger. London: Allen Lane, 2017.

Hobsbawm, Eric. Interesting Times. London: Allen Lane, 2002.

Hobsbawm, Eric. Labouring Men. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1964.

Hobsbawm, Eric. The Age of Extremes. London: Michael Joseph, 1994.

Hill, Christopher. The World Turned Upside Down. London: Penguin, 1972.

Kenny, Michael. The First New Left. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1995.

Marcuse, Herbert. One‑Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964.

Morton, A.L. A People’s History of England. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1938.

Nairn, Tom. The Break‑Up of Britain. London: Verso, 1977.

Samuel, Raphael. Theatres of Memory. London: Verso, 1994.

Samuel, Raphael. The Lost World of British Communism. London: Verso, 2006.

Scott‑Brown, Sophie. Raphael Samuel: A Life of Radical History. Manchester: MUP, 2017.

Thompson, E.P. The Making of the English Working Class. London: Gollancz, 1963.

Thompson, E.P. The Poverty of Theory. London: Merlin, 1978.

Trotsky, Leon. The Revolution Betrayed. New York: Pathfinder, 1972.

Trotsky, Leon. The History of the Russian Revolution. London: Pluto, 1977.

 

 

 

 

Articles and Essays   

Hall, Stuart. “A Sense of Classlessness.” ULR 3 (1958): 22–27.

Healy, Gerry. “The New Left and the Crisis of Stalinism.” Newsletter (SLL), 1958.

Pearce, Brian. “The Origins of the Present Crisis.” Labour Review 3, no. 4 (1958): 12–20.

Samuel, Raphael. “Class and Classlessness.” ULR 4 (1959): 5–14.

Taylor, Charles. “Socialism and the Intellectuals.” ULR 1, no. 2 (1957): 12–19.

Thompson, Dorothy. “The New Left Revisited.” Socialist History 17 (2000): 45– 63.

 

Archival Sources   

Communist Party Historians Group Papers, LHASC, Manchester.

Universities & Left Review Archive, Bishopsgate Institute, London.

New Left Clubs Correspondence, 1956–1962, MRC, University of Warwick.

Raphael Samuel Archive Bishopsgate Institute

Peter Sedgewick Archive Bishopsgate Institue

 

Author Bio  

Keith Livesey is a Marxist historian and writer based in London whose work explores the political and intellectual history of the British left, the legacy of Stalinism, and the rise of the culturalist pseudo-left. He came to historical writing through a long engagement with socialist politics, shaped by an early fascination with the British Marxist historians and a later recognition of the unresolved contradictions within their tradition. His research combines archival investigation with polemical analysis, drawing on the methods of historical materialism and the clarity of Trotskyist political critique.

Keith’s work is animated by a commitment to recovering the political lessons obscured by culturalist narratives and by a belief that history must serve the needs of contemporary political struggle rather than academic fashion. He writes in a style influenced by the World Socialist Web Site, blending rigorous historiography with sharp political argument. His interest in Raphael Samuel grew out of a broader project: understanding how the first New Left transformed the crisis of 1956 into a cultural turn that continues to shape radical scholarship today.

When not writing, Keith speaks at socialist reading groups, historical workshops, and online forums dedicated to Marxist theory and historiography. He is part of a growing effort to reconstruct a genuinely Marxist intellectual tradition capable of confronting the crises of the present. Raphael Samuel, A Political Life: Opposing Marxism, is his first full-length monograph.