The theory and practice of history and its relevance to the modern world, by Britains greatest radical historian.

What was the French Revolution? Was it the triumph of Enlightenment humanist principles, or a violent reign of terror? Did it empower the common man, or just the bourgeoisie? And was it a turning point in world history, or a mere anomaly? E.J. Hobsbawm’s classic historiographic study—written at the very moment when a new set of revolutions swept through the Eastern Bloc and brought down the Iron Curtain—explores how the French Revolution was perceived over the following two centuries. He traces (...) how the French Revolution became integral to nineteenth-century political discourse, when everyone from bourgeois liberals to radical socialists cited these historical events, even as they disagreed on what their meaning. And he considers why references to the French Revolution continued to inflame passions into the twentieth century, as a rhetorical touchstone for communist revolutionaries and as a boogeyman for social conservatives. _Echoes of the Marseillaise _is a stimulating examination of how the same events have been reimagined by different generations and factions to serve various political agendas. It will give readers a new appreciation for how the French Revolution not only made history, but also shaped our fundamental notions about history itself. (shrink)

How docs Marx stand one hundred years after his death? If we look at the literature written and read by intellectuals, and the polemics among Marxists, the answer is: not too firmly. In the past they disputed about the political and ideological significance of Marx’ theory. Today some of the most basic propositions of the old gentleman are queried even among people claiming to be Marxists, from the materialist conception of history to the labour theory of value. People ask with (...) increasing frequency what precisely has survived in Marxism. So it is important to establish, at the outset, that today—unlike the situation even thirty years ago— nobody seriously doubts that something of Marx has survived, indeed that a great deal has survived. If this were not the case, there would not be such passionate argument about the matter. For there is no argument about thinkers who are dead. (shrink)

La historia, afirma el autor, es la continuación de la evolución biológica del homo sapiens por otros medios; enfoque que aporta a los fundamentos teóricos de la historia ambiental, una historia que debiera ser como una tela indivisible donde se interconectan todas las actividades humanas. Esto –señala- lleva a examinar a través de la historia el conflicto o tensión entre, por una parte, las fuerzas responsables de la transformación del homo sapiens desde la humanidad del neolítico hasta la humanidad nuclear, (...) y por otra, las fuerzas que mantienen inmutables la reproducción y la estabilidad de las colectividades humanas y de los medios sociales, y que durante la mayor parte de la historia se han contrarrestado eficazmente. Postula además que los historiadores marxistas, que no entendieron las consecuencias involuntarias y no deseadas de los proyectos colectivos humanos del siglo XX, quizás puedan esta vez, enriquecidos por su experiencia práctica, ayudar a comprender cómo hemos llegado a la situación actual, y ayudar a descubrir las mejores formas de encarar esa situación de un modo que contribuya efectivamente al desarrollo de nuestra especie en armonía con el resto del mundo natural. (shrink)