A People's History of the World
Michael Gavin
People's History of the World" I said I would post my impressions of the
book when I had finished. At the moment however I don't have time to
adequately deal with this very interesting book, so I've decided to post
John Molyneux's review of the book from "Socialist Review", with which
I'm in broad agreement.
- text -
Feature article: People's history Living in a material world
An accessible Marxist account of human history has been long awaited.
Now, says John Molyneux, we have a volume which can help us make sense
of the world
*******************************************************************
Chris Harman has produced an outstanding book, astonishing in scale and
quality.
Speaking at Marx's funeral, Engels proclaimed that 'just as Darwin
discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered
the law of development of human history'. This theory, known as
historical materialism, begins from 'the simple fact, hitherto concealed
by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink,
have shelter and clothing before he can pursue politics, science, art,
religion, etc,' and it has proved the essential foundation for any
serious revolutionary practice. It has also given rise to many works of
concrete history, including a number of indisputable masterpieces
Marx's own studies of contemporary French history, Trotsky's History of
the Russian Revolution, CLR James's "The Black Jacobins" or EP
Thompson's "The Making of the English Working Class".
But one thing the tradition has not produced until now is a
totalising account of the whole history of humanity. There are obvious
reasons for this omission the immense knowledge required and the
intense demands on the time and energy of the movement's best minds.
There has also been a crucial political factor, however: the baleful
influence of Stalinism. Quantitatively speaking, the greatest
concentration of intellectual resources under the banner of Marxism was
assembled in the ranks and orbit of the Communist Parties in the middle
decades of the century. But at precisely that time, large and crucially
important chunks of world history were politically off limits for
serious and honest research.
Nevertheless there is a real need for such a work. The bourgeoisie, of
course, has its own account, or rather accounts, of world history. These
range from attempts by individuals (Toynbee, HG Wells) to the teams of
specialists at universities round the world working on every subject
under the sun. Our rulers are keenly aware of the need for intellectual
hegemony. They know that the more revolutions can be written out of past
history, the easier it is to rubbish the case for revolution today. The
further nationalist sentiments can be projected back into history, the
more Nelson at Trafalgar can be made heir to Drake on Plymouth Hoe,
Henry V at Agincourt and Alfred burning his cakes, the more natural it
will seem to support 'our' boys in the Gulf or Kosovo. Even the earliest
history is made to serve ideological purposes. The more
pseudo-scientific literature and popular images suggest that 'cavemen'
behaved like 'Neanderthals' or vice versa (i.e. as stupid, violent and
brutish), the more this is made to seem like basic human nature. The
bourgeois version of history is strongest when it is the only version on
offer.
This is what makes Harman's book so necessary and so welcome. Now for
the first time we have an accessible and serious Marxist account of the
whole damn story which can be counterposed at every point to the
bourgeois view. Of course, as Harman recognises in the introduction, it
cannot literally be a total history of the whole world dealing with
every important event and process that would require many, many
volumes. But it is a totalising account which tells the story of
humanity from our emergence as a distinct species to the present day. As
such, it is an awesome achievement.
Methodical analysis
However, it is not primarily an achievement of scholarship and industry,
impressive as they are, but of method. From start to finish Harman
maintains the firmest of grasps on the central insight of historical
materialism: that in the final analysis all history depends on the
production of the necessities of life; that every advance in the
effectiveness of this production alters the social relations between
people and the ideological and political temper of the age; that classes
whose rise is linked with the emergence of new ways of producing
develop, once in power, a vested interest in the existing forms of
property, relations of production and state superstructures, and so
become a fetter on further development unless and until they are
themselves overthrown by a new and more progressive class.
Armed with this method Harman is able to make sense of the rise and fall
of a multitude of societies (civilisations) in the course of history.
He shows they are neither an arbitrary chain of accidents nor the
fulfilment of some mystical design, but the outcome of material
contradictions and the clash of real social forces. Yet at no point does
this become an exercise in mechanical economic determinism, as the
caricaturists of Marxism always claim. This is no tale of the inexorable
march of progress or the inevitable triumph of socialism. Harman never
loses sight of the fact that in the struggle of the classes different
outcomes are possible. He shows how the first great civilisations in
Egypt, Mesopotamia, Crete and the Indus Valley all succumbed to deep
crisis which led in some cases to the desertion of cities and regression
to less developed stages of production. He then demonstrates how ancient
Rome went into decline due to its need for an endless supply of slaves
and its failure to develop its productive forces contradictions which
no social force within the empire was able to restore with the result
that Europe entered into 'centuries of chaos', in which culture withered
and the population halved. And in a brief but fascinating analysis he
shows how the same absence of a revolutionary class in the eastern half
of the Roman Empire led to a thousand years of sterility in the Balkans
and Asia Minor under the aegis of 'the living fossil' of Byzantium.
A People's History of the World is full of such fascinating passages
on ancient India and China, the rise of Islam, the Thirty Years War, and
so on which cannot fail to inform the reader. Politically, there are
certain features which stand out as especially important.
A question of class
There is the account in the opening chapters of the origin of class
divisions. This is an area where for most people the norm is more or
less complete ignorance or, worse, the prevalence of fanciful just-so
stories. The absence of historical knowledge on this question is not
accidental. It derives from the fact that bourgeois ideology on this
question is not just at odds with the facts but also self contradictory.
On the one hand it claims that now, and at any given point in the past,
class and class struggle either don't exist or are not very significant.
On the other hand it maintains that class divisions have always existed
and are an eternal and ineradicable feature of the human condition. The
result is that the real story is shrouded in mystery and buried under
silly images of people in loincloths fighting dinosaurs.
In contrast Harman demonstrates, on the basis of serious history and
anthropology, that class did not exist for 95 percent of the history of
the modern human species (homo sapiens sapiens), when all humans on
earth lived as hunter-gatherers and foragers on the basis of cooperation
and sharing rather than competition and oppression. The historical
process leading to class divisions began with the emergence of crop
cultivation and herding in the Middle East about 10,000 years ago as a
result of climatic change which made it difficult to survive through
foraging. This consolidation of class divisions, which went hand in hand
with the birth of civilisation (living in cities), the development of
state machines (to protect the privileges and positions of the ruling
class), and the oppression of women, took another 5,000 years. For
Harman, 'class divisions were the other side of the coin of the
introduction of production methods which created a surplus', but there
was nothing automatic about this process, and in much of the world it
never took place, hence the survival of forager societies until recent
times.
The development of class society was not unmitigated progress. It was
both a necessary step forward and a profound loss. It was the
precondition for the further development of the forces of production,
and therefore of literature, the arts, medicine, science and all
subsequent history, but it was also the loss of a harmonious society in
which the basic standard of living was low, but better than that
experienced by many millions in the world to this day, and in which
there was neither exploitation, nor alienation, nor war, nor oppression.
The ideological significance of this argument is hard to exaggerate and
Harman's statement of it is the clearest, most coherent that I have
seen.
Equally outstanding is the account of the birth of capitalism. Once
again the bourgeoisie has a huge vested interest in obscuring the
matter; if capitalism has no discernible beginning then maybe it will
have no end. Our rulers are especially keen to cover up the
revolutionary origins of their own power. Consequently mainstream
history takes the principal episode of the rise of capitalism the
Renaissance, the Reformation, the Dutch Revolt, the English Revolution,
the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the industrial
revolution and treats them as separate, limited events with no
necessary connection to what went before or came after.
Harman's approach is the opposite of this. Synthesising vast quantities
of research on a multitude of societies, he presents a single, though
differentiated, process in which the rising class fights to establish a
new mode of production and new forms of state power in the teeth of
bitter opposition from the old order. Driving the whole process is the
development of the forces of production which takes place under
feudalism, particularly in the towns, but economic development is not
enough on its own. In addition there has to be a prolonged social,
ideological and political struggle lasting centuries, in which advance
is followed by retreat or deadlock, and victory alternates with defeat
victory in Holland and England became defeat in Belgium, Italy and
Germany, then victory in America and France, and so on until
eventually the whole world is transformed.
Especially good is the way Harman disposes of the idea that the
emergence of capitalism in Europe is testimony to some peculiar European
'genius' or superiority. He shows that a number of other societies came
to the brink of capitalist development but were held back by their state
superstructures whereas, paradoxically, it was the relative backwardness
of Europe in the Middle Ages that provided the incentive for the
introduction of new methods of production which enabled parts of Europe
to leapfrog over the rest of the world.
Global perspective
The final outstanding feature of this work is its consistent
internationalism and global standpoint in stark opposition to the
Eurocentrism and British nationalism that dominates conventional history
and all other aspects of our education system. This does not mean it
pays equal attention to all parts of the world at all times. What
happened in Germany in 1517 (Luther) and 1933 (Hitler) was of world
historical significance in a way that what happened in 1717 and 1833 was
not, and the same applies to everywhere else. But it does insist from
the beginning on the unity of the human species and comprehensively
refutes the notion that any 'race' or 'nation' has a leading role in the
development of civilisation. Harman stresses that numerous non-European
societies have been at various times in the forefront of development and
have made immense contributions to human history. This generates a
wealth of facts, such as that 12th century Constantinople was larger
than London, Paris and Rome combined, and that China developed printing
in the 11th century, years before Europe, and its iron production in the
11th century was double that of England's in 1788.
Socialism or barbarism
However, it is the final section dealing with the 20th century, the
'century of hope and horror', which is the climax of the book. In ten
chapters Harman takes us through the First World War, the Russian
Revolution, the failure of revolution in Europe, the revolt of the
colonies, the great slump, Stalinism, fascism, the Second World War, the
Cold War, the collapse of Communism, and much else besides, right up to
the crisis facing humanity today. In the conclusion he looks forward to
the possible outcomes of that crisis as we enter the new millennium. At
this point, fittingly, the writing reaches its greatest intensity and
fluency. Harman looks back at the rise and fall of civilisation over the
whole 5,000 years of class society, and especially the mounting
devastation of the terrible clashes of this century, and draws on this
experience to inform his analysis of the present and the future.
Recording the ever-increasing polarisation between the world's rich and
the world's poor, the development of the underlying economic crisis of
capitalism, the growing threat to the survival of the planet as a
habitable environment, and the escalating scale and power of the weapons
of destruction, he argues that humanity really does face the choice of
overthrowing capitalism and advancing to socialism or falling back into
barbarism in the full scientific sense of the word, i.e. the destruction
of civilisation.
These passages make chilling reading, but Harman does not leave matters
there. He shows that there exists a social force with both a vital
interest in and the capacity to resolve the crisis in a positive
direction. He shows that this class is now larger and stronger than ever
before in history. Whether or not it is able to realise its full
potential depends on its ability to develop within its own ranks the
consciousness, organisation and leadership to secure victory in the
great struggles between capitalist and labour which can only intensify
in the coming century. The book thus ends by consciously positioning
itself as a small factor in the overall battle whose history it records
and analyses: the battle for the self emancipation of the working class
and the liberation of humanity.
With a book of this scale and range it was inevitable that I, like any
reader, sometimes wished for a shift of emphasis, for more on this and
that, especially sometimes on cultural or philosophical matters, and
occasionally I cavilled at the odd comment or formulation, but frankly
these points pale into insignificance in the face of the extraordinary
total achievement. A People's History of the World will win people to
socialism, strengthen the convictions of the already converted and
enhance the ideological armoury of everyone who reads it. It will serve
as an indispensable reference point for years to come.
A People's History of the World
Chris Harman, Bookmarks Publications £15.99
Issue 235 of SOCIALIST REVIEW
Published November 1999
Copyright © Socialist Review
William Kaufman
United States. Does anyone have any information about U.S. distribution?
A.Prianikoff
>I checked amazon.com, and this book does not seem to be available in the
>United States. Does anyone have any information about U.S. distribution?
Bookmarks, P.O. Box 16085, Chicago, IL 60616
book...@internationalsocialist.org
David Stevens
grateful for any representative text segments of the
Harman book to be posted.
Howard Zinn's _A People's History if the United States,_
(HarperPerennial, 1995), [ISBN 0-06-092643-0] has been
a useful source. Zinn's Z-magazine popfrontism (IMO) does
not keep his book from being a rich resource for Marxists
on the history of the United States from a CLASS STRUGGLE
perspective. That's rare enough (at least in the US) that
even a broad survey that just gives attention to class forces
can still provide a lot of illumination.
It would be unfair for me to expect Harman to transcend the
ideological bounds of dim-light Third Campism. Yet I have to
wonder about the value, to historical materialists, of an
historical survey made on grounds compatible with the
impressionism, historical _idealism_, and ahistorical petty
bourgeois moralism we've seen from the Kevin Murphies here.
Will the Harman book see mainstraem distrubution like
the Zinn book did, or is this one of those vanity press
affairs like Walter Daum's Resurrection of Marxist Theory?
I am interested in hearing more about this book, especially
from Marxists who don't pitch their tents in a 'Third' Camp.
- David Stevens
Stephen R. Diamond
"William Kaufman" <kma...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Let's not be sloppy with terminology. A popular front is a common
> programmatic or electoral bloc with explicitly procapitalist parties.
Not necessarily explicitly. It is the actuality that counts, and not its
mere expression. Trotsky recognized the Radical Party in France as a
capitalist party, even though it was not explicit about it.
Kaufman thinks that the Democratic and Republican parties cannot be
replaced as the instruments of capitalist rule. He has provided no
argument for his static view of that reality.
srd
William Kaufman
to his credit, has repeatedly called for a break with the
Democratic-Republican duopoly in American politics. This may not be
sufficiently revolutionary for your taste, but it is not, strictly speaking,
popular frontism.
Vicente Balvanera
<CTjB4.13776$kv6.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"William Kaufman" <kma...@earthlink.net> wrote:
A popular front involves some degree of class collaborationism
with the bourgeoisie to avoid a workers' and farmers'
government, under a pseudo-revolutionary program. This means that
it comes at a time of significant ascent of the working class,
which is to say that it has a certain historical context.
The "social democratic" governments in Europe (like Blair,
Jospin, etc.) are NOT of course popular fronts: there the
usurping parties simply compete with ostensibly right-wing
parties for being seen by imperialism as the best candidate
capable of guarranteeing their anti-workingclass program.
Vicente Balvanera
v_bal...@usa.net
Comité Iniciativa Obrera Socialista
(Socialist Worker Iniciative Committee)
http://www.geocities.com/trotskist_1999/
textos en español:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1602/
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Vicente Balvanera
<CTjB4.13776$kv6.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"William Kaufman" <kma...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Let's not be sloppy with terminology. A popular front is a
common
>programmatic or electoral bloc with explicitly procapitalist
parties. Zinn,
>to his credit, has repeatedly called for a break with the
>Democratic-Republican duopoly in American politics. This may not
be
>sufficiently revolutionary for your taste, but it is not,
strictly speaking,
>popular frontism.
>
Looking back over Comrade Stevens message, he characterizes Z
magazine as being "popfrontist", which he defined and
distinguished from the popular front the other day in another
thread.
Hunter H. Watson
Balvanera <v_balvane...@usa.net.invalid> wrote:
> A popular front involves some degree of class collaborationism
> with the bourgeoisie to avoid a workers' and farmers'
> government, under a pseudo-revolutionary program. This means that
> it comes at a time of significant ascent of the working class,
> which is to say that it has a certain historical context.
Note that the purpose of this class collaborationism is to *prevent*
the ascent of the working class and to exacerbate the misery index for
both workers and farmers so long as their government is not to be run
by Leninist intellectuals. Louis admits openly what we all know to be
true. It really is a bit of a shock to see him let it all hang out in
this fashion. It's proof he has actually given up on politics. Note
also that the chance of workers and farmers having influence on a
Leninist government is near zero as is proved by the history of all
such regimes during the 20th Century. EVERY DAMNED ONE OF THEM! And in
every damned one of them workers lived gray, essentially miserable
lives.
Workers' and farmers' regimes are not even pseudo-revolutionary, both
components being deeply conservative. Industrialists don't like but can
live with workers' and farmers' regimes. None of the three can live
with Leninist intellectuals. They all know that Leninists can not make
the rivers flow backwards despite their willingness to shed rivers of
blood in the effort.
> The "social democratic" governments in Europe (like Blair,
> Jospin, etc.) are NOT of course popular fronts: there the
> usurping parties simply compete with ostensibly right-wing
> parties for being seen by imperialism as the best candidate
> capable of guarranteeing their anti-workingclass program.
"Usurping parties!" Balderdash. They are legitimate parties. Organize.
Go to the god damned polls and vote, Proyect. When you Marxist
intellectuals get a majority, then *you*, Proyect, will no longer be a
potential usurper. Until then you are simply a whiner with deeply
criminal intent and a disgusting life style to match your Resume.
Hunter Watson
REMEMBER THE TERROR!
constantin
>A popular front involves some degree of class collaborationism
>with the bourgeoisie to avoid a workers' and farmers'
>government, under a pseudo-revolutionary program. This means
that
>it comes at a time of significant ascent of the working class,
>which is to say that it has a certain historical context.
>
>Jospin, etc.) are NOT of course popular fronts: there the
>usurping parties simply compete with ostensibly right-wing
>parties for being seen by imperialism as the best candidate
>capable of guarranteeing their anti-workingclass program.
while the revoloution making which have brought the hell to the
workers is a reall alternative------who is better of after all
the vietnamese ,the cambotians .north korea or south korea and
thailand(comparing the 300 anual income of vietnam to the 13 000
of south korea says much).
all of america all of the formers rebels have spit on the cuba-
gevarist\castrist model but some people seems to be beyond
repair and keep insist on revoloution mambo jumbo.