British historian Eric Hobsbawm, who died this week at 95, was a big influence on the New Left from the 1960s and onward, though he was very much Old Left himself.
His background was about an interesting as you can get: born in Egypt to Jewish parents, an English father and Austrian mother, he grew up in Berlin and Vienna.
He and his sister arrived in England in 1931 with their aunt after his parents died. At university, he was fluent in five European languages and embraced Marxism as a member of the Apostles at Cambridge. This, of course, was the breeding ground for a generation of Soviet spies, including the odd New Zealander.
While Hobsbawm was unwavering in his commitment to Marxism, he had many other talents, which brought him as much admiration from his ideological enemies as from his supporters. Many have described him as the greatest historian of his time.
Some could not forgive his defence of Stalinism and Maoism, which led to the deaths of 20-30 million people.
Conservative historian Michael Burleigh (Sacred Causes, Blood and Rage, Earthy Power and most recently Mortal Combat) is among a younger generation (b 1955) to hold this view. His obit in The Daily Telegraph describes Hobsbawm’s refusal to recant for the tens of millions who perished for the “murderous failure” of Bolshevism as typical of a “belligerent mindset.”
Yet others, including on the Right, have lavished praise on Hobsbawm throughout his long and influential academic life.
In a more balanced piece, Allan Massie, writing in his Telegraph blog, notes that the trilogy on the “long” 19th century (from the French Revolution to World War I) that all history students should have read –The Age of Revolution, The Age of Capital, and The Age of Empire (published 1962-87) – impressed others such as Niall Ferguson (and naturally myself).
Massie describes Marxism as a “serious” theory of society, culture and economics that provided Hobsbawm with the intellectual basis for his historical writing, which covered a wide range from banditry and rebellion through to his later and more controversial The Age of Extremes, about the “short” 20th century (from 1914-91).
A comprehensive listing on Wikipedia provides contrasting views of Hobsbawm’s legacy by other historians and commentators.
The UK and US media have provided a raft of obits, among which I would recommend these (though by no means exhaustive):
Simon Schama – Financial Times
Added since original posting: Bret Stephens -- The Wall Street Journal
Georgia rules
In Stalin’s birthplace, the result of a parliamentary election in post-Soviet has created more than passing interest from the outside world.
The United National Movement, the ruling party of pro-Western President Mikheil Saakashvili, was defeated by a former Russia-based oligarch, Bidzina Ivanishvili, and his Georgian Dream party.
His victory has to be interpreted as also one for Russia, which has been engaged in a one-sided campaign of intimidation against Georgia, including an invasion in 2008 that grabbed some territory (South Ossetia) to add to the breakaway statelet of Abkhazia.
Ivanishvili’s win was not that much of a surprise, given this backgrounder in Newsweek, published a week or so earlier.
In the latest reports from Tblisi, Ivanishvili is trying to calm his supporters from protesting outside local election commission offices in a bid to get recounts and win even more votes. Usually, such protests come from the defeated.
"You should understand that we are not in opposition anymore and we should move into buildings, courts and the parliament and clarify everything there," Ivanishvili was quoted as saying.
As the Newsweek article details, he partly won the election because of damaging claims that President Saakashvili, whose term of office ends next year, used heavy-handed tactics against the then opposition during his nine-year rule.
You can’t beat the dollar
While the war of words and threats between Israel and Iran continues, the real battle has already been fought and won.
The Iranian currency has collapsed under the weight of sanctions imposed by the US, European Union and its allies, including New Zealand.
This is good news, as even the most belligerent Islamic regime cannot survive when its money is worthless.
The BBC’s Persian business reporter Amir Paivar has an excellent backgrounder, describing who really wields the power in Teheran: the money-changers in the “street.”
The exchange bureaux are licensed and monitored by Iran's central bank and handle bigger transactions. They are normally caught between a central bank that sometimes dictates exchange rates, and a market that works on more acceptable, basic rules of supply and demand.
The kingmakers, though, are the big traders of the back alleys, "the invisible mafia" as the government prefers to brand them, those who are blamed for everything that goes wrong with Iran's currency market.
It remains to be seen where it will end – Argentina and Russia survived the collapse of their currencies, and the wiping out of middle class wealth, while North Korea did the same not so long ago.
The rial, at 35,000 to the US dollar, is now the world’s least valued currency. The previous holder of this unenvied position was Zimbabwe, which was forced to adopt the US dollar as its currency before its economy could be revived.
© All content copyright NBR. Do not reproduce in any form without permission, even if you have a paid subscription.
Was he the world’s greatest historian?
24415