Chris Brady cdbrady at attglobal.net
Thu Sep 19 23:38:43 MDT 2002

Thus, according to expert Marxists, Hobsbawm is neither a Marxist nor a
Communist, although he wrote history from a Marxist point of view and
belonged to the Communist Party.

I don't understand this judgement.
I empathize, knowing his personal history, and his historical situation,
with how Hobsbawm could both become a Marxist, a Communist, and an
internationalist-anti-nationalist.  I understand how he could become an
anti-Zionist, and further I also recognize a certain consistancy in his
failure to support Irish nationalism.  Whether he is incorrect in a
certain point or not does not expell him from having been a Communist
Party member for most of his life--they never expelled him!--nor does it
mean that his perspective and goals are not Marxist.  He may not be
certain people's ideal of a Communist, a communist, or a Marxist, but he
was all of those things.  So was Stalin.  So was Trotsky.  So was Mao.
Face it.

So were and are thousand upon thousands of people in this world who may
disagree whole or in part with all three--and never heard of Hobsbawm.

It is far more to our advantage to accept him as one of us --and to
subject his work and actions to the same rigorous criticism as anything
else, but not to hurl him into the arms of our enemies.  They have
enough already.

Captain Swing really is still good research, and is probably intuited
fully through life experience by new recruits to the FARC--and the IRA.

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list