Friday, 20 April 2018

Marxism and the English Revolution

(I have just received Chris Thompson’s email regarding my article Norah Carlin, The Socialist Workers Party and the First English Revolution posted on the 15th April. At this moment I cannot reply to Chris at length as I would like to. This will be done at a later date. I would, however, invite more debate on the subject.  I do stand by my interpretation of Carlin’s work which in my view despite having substantial political differences with Carlin her two essays are an important contribution to the development of a orthodox Marxist historiography on the English revolution).

I read your latest post with great interest and considerable surprise, surprise because it is wrong not just in a factual sense but also interpretatively. All of the historians you mentioned with the exception of Tawney have been personally known to me including Norah Carlin who was a colleague of mine at the Enfield College of Technology in 1971-72 and the Middlesex Polytechnic in 1972-73. She now lives in Scotland and can be tracked down via Twitter. Let me deal with your points in a little more detail.

1. Hugh Trevor-Roper. He was not a Tory in the modern sense at all but, as he himself stated and Adam Sisman's biography confirmed, "an eighteenth-century Whig". He had an exceptional range of knowledge and a wonderful command of the English language. He was a generous supervisor of postgraduates and critical only of those whose arguments he found unsound or whose pretensions - e.g. Lawrence Stone - he thought unfounded. His objections to Tawney's arguments in favour of the "rise of the gentry" and his alternative hypothesis proved immensely stimulating to early modern historians of England (and Wales) in the 1950s and 1960s. The debates over Court and Country in that period testify to that too.

2. Christopher Hill. It is quite wrong to suppose that Hill failed to object strongly enough to Trevor-Roper's arguments about the significance of the 'mere' or 'lesser' gentry in the period up to and during the English Revolution. On the contrary, as the comments of mine that you published not long ago showed, he was a vigorous and public critic of Trevor-Roper's case in the journal Annales and in History in the 1950s. Brian Manning was one of his pupils. Both men were severe critics in Past and Present of the analysis of the membership of the Long Parliament offered by Brunton and Pennington in 1954. Non-Marxist analyses were the subject of vituperative attacks from members of the historians' group of the Communist Party of Great Britain.

3. There were and are many different strands in Marxism and Marxist historiography. It was, however, evident no later than 1960 that attempts to classify the English Revolution as the product of a transition to capitalism or as a 'bourgeois' revolution could not be sustained. If you look, for example, at Valerie Pearl's study of London, the connections between the leaders of the Long Parliament, whether peers or gentry, and the radicals who captured control of the city are obvious even if one does not have to accept them in the form later advanced by Robert Brenner. The sects and groupings that emerged later in the course of the 1640s were neither bourgeois nor petty bourgeois nor simply representative of artisanal or peasant groups.  There was, in any case, a well-developed tradition long before the rise of the Levellers and Diggers that English people had rights protected by common law that could not and should not be overridden by arbitrary actions by the sovereign. The entire effort to apply procrustean Marxist terminology to the analysis of the period had failed.

4. The revolt against economic and social determinism had begun long before the rise of 'revisionism' in the mid-1970s. Conrad's Russell's work reflects his, no one else's, belated emancipation from the dogmas of his time as an undergraduate. John Morrill's interest at that time in the politics and religious tensions in the provincial communities of England and Wales was more influential in the long run as, indeed, was the interest Kevin Sharpe took in the imagery, self-representation and values of the Stuart Courts. I should add that Trevor-Roper was the first to point to the issues raised by the problems of ruling over multiple kingdoms in 1968, a subject about which figures like Koenigsberger wrote well before Russell took up the subject. Marxists like Hill and Manning never addressed the difficulties the hypothesis about the role of multiple kingdoms posed for their interpretations of the English Revolution in a full sense nor have their putative successors done so effectively since then.

5. The entire debate about the causes, course and significance of the English Revolution has moved on a long way since Norah Carlin's comments in and after 1980. The public sphere and the significance of news, the importance of the Atlantic archipelago, the interrelationships between the peoples of the British Isles, are all vital topics for current investigation. I should add that important research is currently being carried out into the bargaining mechanisms that operated in English and Welsh societies to ensure that people of differing social ranks could live peacefully together and to trace how those at the bottom were linked those higher up the social hierarchy. The one aspect that no longer carries much interest is the revival of the Marxist approach. It is dead and cannot be resuscitated.

Sunday, 15 April 2018

Norah Carlin, The Socialist Workers Party and the First English Revolution.


In 1980 Norah Carlin, historian and member of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) published her essay Marxism and the English Civil War[1]. In 1983 she released a second called the First English Revolution. Both articles were of a polemical nature. They exuded the need for a complete change in how we saw the English revolution. While Carlin did not express it the most important conclusion to be drawn from them was the need for new Marxist historiography based on the work of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. This need was palpable.

Carlin in both compositions makes some critical points worthy of much further study, three of which stand out. She believed that England witnessed a bourgeois revolution, that so-called Marxist historians have not done enough to stem the tide of revisionism that undermined both Whig and Marxist historiography and the need for a more precise understanding of the class nature of the radical groups like the Levellers and how they fit into the concept of a Bourgeois revolution. Carlins work did not sit very well with the SWP’s orientation to Historians like Hill and Manning.The SWP rejected Carlin’s historiography and adopted of the genre of “Peoples History”  which was developed by the Communist Party Historians Group (CPHG). This essay will examine the SWP’s refusal to pursue Carlin’s call to action and why it instead collaborated with historians that were associated with the Stalinist Communist Party of Britain.


If Carlin thought defending a Marxist theory of the English Revolution was hard in the 1980s, she should try doing it now. For nearly four decades any historian who sought to favour Marxist historiography has come up against a battery of revisionist historians with their heavy weapons of anti-marxism. When challenged, the revisionists have been able to hide behind an academic establishment whose anti-Marxism has become legendary.

Given this near-unanimous global academic hostility to Marxism, it is surprising that Carlin fails to place this anti-Marxism within the context of the broader “Marxism is Dead” campaign.In the field of study of the English revolution, Carlin traces the beginning of this anti-Marxism to the 1950s. Perhaps the most famous and nastiest attack on the Marxist conception of the English Bourgois revolution came from the typewriter of Hugh Trevor-Roper. Roper was a very right-wing historian and politician. He had a habit of being an offensive, personally abusing any historian he did not agree with, especially if that historian had any connection with Marxism.

Another titan of revisionism was Conrad Russell who in the introduction to a widely-used textbook[2] said “for the time being ... social change explanations of the English Civil War must be regarded as having broken down.’ Also during the 1970s, John Morrill put forward his theory that war was precipitated in 1642 by local interests and local rivalries in particular provincial areas. Morrill’s work was useful to a point but said nothing about why such conflicts developed.

Carlin cites another historian who went even further complaining that Marxist historians have over explained the past and that ‘We must allow,’ he says, ‘for the role of sheer muddle and misunderstanding in history[3].’  Unfortunately, this muddle and misunderstanding have followed us right up to the present day. Today’s revisionists are clear what they are against but have nothing to replace Whig or Marxist historiography except what Carlin calls “craftism”.

In both essays, Carlin spends some time trying to understand why it has been difficult to defend and expand Marxist historiography as regards the concept of the English Bourgeois revolution. She is correct to say that outside of the CPHG very few “Marxists” have written on the subject. This goes for the Trotskyist movement as well. Outside of Leon Trotsky himself and a small contribution from C.L James nothing much substantial has been written.

If a significant new Marxist historiography is to be developed, then it must take on board the best of the old work. This work must have as its foundation a solid exposition of Marx and Engels writing on Historical materialism. After that, the best is undoubtedly from a Marxist standpoint the work of Christopher Hill. His most outstanding work was the seminal essay written in 1940 The English Revolution, 1640 (part of a Communist Party education pamphlet. It was reissued in 1955. Apart from this work how much has been written from an orthodox Marxist position.Carlin believes far too little. Despite Hill’s significant contribution, the fact that no other historian has even come close to developing orthodox Marxist historiography is troubling.

On this Carlin makes this point “Hill left the Communist Party in 1957 after playing a not very memorable role on the Commission for Inner-Party Democracy and ended up as Master of Balliol College, Oxford. Given the nasty and personalised tone of the right-wing attack, it is hardly surprising that defending Hill should come to be almost a significant activity in itself, yet the striking fact is that when a collection of essays by former pupils of his was got together to mark his retirement at the end of the 1970s, not one article made any explicit reference to Marxism, only one contributor (Brian Manning) could be regarded as in any sense a Marxist, and several (including the advocate of muddle quoted above) were openly anti-Marxist. There is something slightly odd about ‘Britain’s greatest Marxist historian’ (as he is described continuously in journals such as New Left Review and History Workshop) raising no successors”.

Carlin believed it became easy for revisionist historians to mislabel other historians as Marxist even though they were patently not. One glaring example is that of R H Tawney. Tawney it must be said is well worth reading and was a historian of note.It has however been effortless to attack his work on the gentry. As Carlin notes “The other major influence on the Marxist orthodoxy of the last forty years has been R.H. Tawney’s work on the rise of the gentry. Though Tawney did not see himself as a Marxist, he identified the English Civil War as a bourgeois revolution; but in his version, the bourgeois revolution was made by and for the landed gentry. Whatever the precedents for this view in passing remarks by Marx or Engels, Tawney’s treatment of the question has caused utter havoc for the class interpretation of the English Civil War. It has shaped the development of right-wing history, in the concern to deny it, as well as the stagnation of Marxist history in the concern to defend it”.

The mistake made by Tawney was to see the gentry as a class in itself. If the matter of class was so clear cut then why were there gentry on both sides of the civil war? For that matter why was the bourgeoisie on both sides.This stagnation of Marxist historiography had some consequences. Firstly it allowed the revisionist's historians to consolidate and develop their arguments. Secondly, the historians that came out of the Communist Party instead of deepening the study of the common nature of the revolution started to do work around the radical groups of the revolution such groups as the Levellers, Diggers and to a lesser extent the Ranters at the expense of a more orthodox Marxist historiography.

This type of history appealed to the SWP who promoted it at every opportunity especially when one of its most capable exponents Brian Manning came into their party. While much of Mannings work is worth reading, it is not explicitly Marxist.  As Carlin points out “Manning, for example, states his position on the nature of the class struggle in the Civil War in nine lines of his preface, and in a form which makes it almost impossible to recognise it as Marxist. Left-wing historians seem more concerned to establish their fair use of evidence than to engage in the development of a Marxist understanding of the class struggle”.

The Bourgeois Revolution

Carlin correctly states that “The ‘rise of the gentry’ thus becomes a gaping trap for Marxists into which perhaps only Perry Anderson of New Left Review has jumped with both feet. For Anderson, the English Civil War was ‘a “bourgeois revolution” only by proxy’, because it was made by a section of the ruling class. But if a bourgeois revolution can be made by proxy from above, can a proletarian revolution? If a section of the ruling class could break the last bonds of feudalism on behalf of the bourgeoisie, could not a part of the bourgeoisie set up socialism on behalf of the working class?”.

How do we get out of this trap?. As Carlin states a Marxist analysis of the gentry and for that matter, the bourgeoisie has to be made not via Tawney but Marx and Engels. Also at some point, an orthodox Marxist appreciation of Hill must also be made. After all, he was the only historian that consistently made a defence of the notion of a bourgeois revolution.

Hill like Marx was clear that the revolution paved the way for a victorious bourgeoisie and we witnessed the rise a new social order. This was a victory over feudal property relations. Marx correctly states “it is certainly true that feudal relations were not delivered one concentrated blow. Feudalism [in England – eds.] was destroyed but disappeared only gradually. This process extended over many centuries during which certain aspects of the feudal order displayed surprising adaptability and vitality”. This approach was indeed taken on board by Hill and to a lesser extent Manning.

Carlin in her essay elaborates that the "new class of merchants and manufacturers played a crucial role in the development of the revolution.They represented new wealth and wanted political power to go with it. They made their money not out of old feudal rights of land and peasants but out of the profits from goods produced by the growing wage workers. Carlin correctly believed that this process of reducing all the workforce to the level of wage-labourers began at least two centuries before the industrial revolution and Marx called it the ‘primitive accumulation of capital".

Who was the leader of this new class and the revolution? Carlin was in no doubt that without Cromwell and his New Model Army the revolution would not have been the same. Carlin believed that Cromwell made England safe for capitalism. The Russian Marxist Leon Trotsky was very clear on this point “At a certain moment in political history the fate of 'democracy' hung not upon parliament but -- however terrible this might be to scrofulous pacifists! -- upon the cavalry, Cromwell very quickly realised that the fate of his class would be decided by cavalry. He said to Hampden: “I will raise such men as have a fear of God before them and make some conscience of that.”

The Left and Revisionism

According to Carlin, Hill and Manning must take some blame for the rise of revisionism. On the surface of things, it would seem that Carlin had a contradictory attitude towards Hill and Manning. This not the case. Carlin praises Hill and Manning for their work on the English bourgeois revolution and that any new historiography should incorporate much of their best writings.

However, when it comes to taking on the revisionists attack Marxist historiography, their contribution does leave a lot to be desired.  It is clear that the SWP saw these two as bulwarks against the revisionist onslaught. At best this a was lousy piece of judgement at worse they sacrificed a struggle against revisionism over a closer relationship with these two historians who were in one way or another closely tied to the apron strings of the Communist Party.

If you examine Hill’s role, to his credit he did albeit in a lesser extent play a role in the “storm over the Gentry” debate. His defence of Tawney is still worth reading today. In many senses, this was a missed opportunity to do some severe damage to the anti-Marxists. The fact that Roper was able to walk away from this debate mostly unscathed merely emboldened further hostile attacks of Marxist historiography.

Gifted as a historian as Hill was he did not understand the need for a consistent struggle against revisionism. This stems not from his understanding of history but his complete lack of Marxist political consciousness. When the SWP did try to prompt Hill into a more active role in the struggle the results were not good. In an interview with John Rees and Lee Humber, this question was asked, How do you see the development of the debate around the English Revolution over recent years? Would you agree that the revisionists have taken some ground?

Hill’s answer was “they have made a lot of useful points, but their more extreme views are now being attacked by the younger generation of historians. Although the revisionists had all sorts of useful ideas, they had a narrow political approach in that they tried to find the causes of the English Revolution solely in the years 1639–41. This simply assumes what you are setting out to prove. If you look just at those years then, of course, it’s a matter of political intrigue and not long-term causes. I think people are reacting against that now. The better of the revisionists are themselves switching around a bit. John Morrill, for instance, who thought everything depended on the county community and localism, is now taking a much broader point of view. And Conrad Russell has become aware that long-term factors have to be taken into account – he doesn’t like it, but he recognises that religion has some long-term effects on what happened in 1640, a rather elementary point but he left religion out altogether in the early days. Now he’s bought it in. He still leaves out the cultural breakdown in society of that period, but he is moving a bit. I think a consensus will arise and then there will be another explosion in 20 years or so. These debates occur regularly – ever since 1640 people have been arguing about what it was all about”.

Not a bad answer but when asked about dropping some of his earlier jargon. And how important is the Marxist approach in studying history? Again his answer gave too many concessions to the revisionists, he said “I took a conscious decision in the 1950s to guard against political jargon after a lovely young woman from the Communist Party told me she thought my book on 1640 had done more harm than good because of the language I used. I’ve striven not to use sectarian language since. Some words can have an amazing effect on people. Using the word ‘bourgeoisie’ is a red rag to most academics. Even the most intelligent of them, Lawrence Stone, for example, believe that the bourgeoisie must have something to do with the towns and that if you can prove that the gentry were the main capitalists in England in the 17th century, you’ve disproved the idea of a bourgeois revolution. But to have to explain this every time you use the word bourgeois is a bore. It’s much easier just to leave out the word bourgeois – but of course, it’s very easy to slide from dropping the word to dropping the idea. Initially, I thought I had to drop the jargon to get people to take me seriously. I have changed some of my ideas, naturally, but not I hope my basic approach”[4].

Carlin took exception to Hill’s approach inside the SWP. To what extent this was discussed inside their party I cannot tell at this moment, but as will be brought out in the third part of this essay it cut across their overtures to Hill and Manning.

Radicalism and the English revolution

Carlin also calls for a class analysis of the radical groups that formed the left wing of the revolution.One gaping hole in the historiography of these groups has been the failure to examine what Russian historians wrote on these groups. To be more precise those historians who opposed the Stalinist bureaucracy and paid for it with their lives.

Hill to his credit at the beginning of his career started to examine Russian historians. As early as 1938 he wrote Soviet Interpretations of the English Interregnum published in The Economic History Review. Hill took a big chance with this article in the sense that he quotes the brilliant Soviet Writer Evengy Pashukanis who in 1937 was denounced as a “Trotskyite saboteur in 1937 executed by Stalin.

It goes without saying that any starting point when dealing with the radical groups should be Hill’s early work on the bourgeois revolution and the Soviet historians. Caution should be taken with Hill’s early work as he was still a member of a party that supported the mass extermination of the best elements of the October revolution.

Carlin correctly states that the vanguard of the revolution in 1642 was the radical groups that carried out political work in the early party the revolution. To what extent these groups were organised as a party has been open to fierce debate only recently a new revisionist work by Gary De Krey denies they were assembled as a party but were one element in a broad independent movement.

Another matter that needs to be solved is the correct terminology when describing the class nature of the radical groups. So far they have been variously described by Marxists as ‘the petty bourgeoisie’, ‘the middling sort of people’, ‘small independent producers’ and ‘plebeian elements.’
While Carlin does not like the term petty bourgeois to describe the class base of the say the Levellers in this paragraph, she describes precisely this class,

“Many of those who took part in the revolt of 1640–42, in the New Model Army during the war and in radical movements later, were indeed small independent producers. In feudal society, the small producer enjoyed ownership or possession of the means of production, and wage-labour was typically a temporary or supplementary source of livelihood – for the near-landless peasant family, for the journeyman on his way to being an independent master craftsman, and even for domestic servants, who saved their wages for marriage and a household of their own. Under capitalism, wage-labour has become the norm, and the small independent producer exists only in competition with large-scale capitalist production.

“England in the seventeenth century was in transition from feudalism to capitalism, and the separation of the labourer from the means of production was the crucial issue for the development of the capitalist mode of production. As Marx recognised, this proletarianisation of the labour force preceded the accumulation of capital on a large scale: it was the essence of ‘so-called primary accumulation’ or ‘the first revolutionising period of feudal production”.

Another contentious subject raised by Carlin is the extent there was a working class involved in the revolution. It should be pointed out that this was a working class at the beginning of its existence and bore no relation to the working class today. According to Carlin, there was a substantial number of proletarians. But how you quantify what part they play is difficult.
It is clear that further research is needed. But Carlin insists that “ large numbers of wage-earners must have taken part in the riots and demonstrations of the period. Unfortunately, the bias of contemporary propaganda is compounded by that of recent historians, both Marxist and non-Marxist, who seem determined to belittle working-class participation.”

She continues “he reputation of the Levellers has fallen low in the ‘orthodox’ Marxist version in the last twenty years. The view that they were not such radical democrats after all, that they would have denied the vote to the whole of the working class, and that their political theory foreshadows bourgeois rather than socialist thought, originated with C.P. Macpherson in 1962. It is still propagated by Christopher Hill among others. Coupled with this is the idea that Leveller democracy was premature because the potential electorate was backward and even reactionary”.

When she says it is wrong to see the Levellers as merely the most revolutionary section of the bourgeoisie, I cannot agree with it. They were precisely that. That does not mean that we should not recognise their struggle and deepen our understanding of the class nature of all these radical groups

The Diggers, or True Leveller according to Carlin were a far more revolutionary outfit. According to her they “went further than the Levellers in identifying the fact that private property was at the heart of their problems. She believes that “it is wrong to dismiss the Diggers as backwards-looking ‘agrarian communists’. Their great achievement was to go beyond medieval ideas of the redistribution of wealth to propose the continuing creation of wealth by collective production

Carlin, The SWP and History from Below.

To what extent Carlin’s substantial essays were discussed inside the SWP is open to conjecture. In my opinion, her essays should have been given far more attention that they were. If that were to happen, they would have had to tone down their overtures towards the Stalinist Communist Party and its “Peoples History.”

As Ann Talbot succinctly puts it “ the Communist Party sponsored a form of “People’s History”, which is typified by A.L. Morton’s People’s History of England in which the class character of earlier rebels, revolutionaries and popular leaders was obscured by regarding them all as representatives of a national revolutionary tradition. This historical approach reflected the nationalism of the bureaucracy, their hostility to internationalism and their attempts to form an unprincipled alliance with the supposedly democratic capitalists against the fascist Axis countries. People’s history was an attempt to give some historical foundation to the policies of Popular Front—the subordination of the working class to supposedly progressive sections of the bourgeoisie and the limiting of political action to the defence of bourgeois democracy—which provided a democratic facade to the systematic murder of thousands of genuine revolutionaries, including Trotsky. It was the approach that Christopher Hill was trained in, along with E.P. Thompson, Rodney Hilton and Eric Hobsbawm, who were part of the Marxist Historians Group and came under the influence of Maurice Dobb and Dona Torr”.

This turn towards the Peoples History also fitted in with the SWP’s political perspective at the beginning of the 1980s. The SWP leadership drew some pretty negative conclusions from the series of defeats suffered by the working class in the 1970s. The downturn in the class struggle which saw the victory of Thatcher meant for the SWP that for the task was not to build a revolutionary leadership, but to develop "a broader radical left that can begin to present a credible and principled alternative to capitalism."

Tony Cliff wrote in an infamously pessimistic article. So, the downturn continues. There are not going to be set-piece confrontations. The question of intervention means individual intervention in individual disputes. In ninety cases out of a hundred, we will do it from outside. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, we’ll do it in a very low key[5]Two years after he wrote this piece the biggest strike in working-class history outside of the 1926 General strike broke out in 1985-86.

In the field of history, this took the form of a closer relationship with Hill and Manning with the SWP publishing some of his books and him speaking at their Marxism conferences. Manning Joined the SWP from the Labour Party, and the majority of his work was published by the SWP.
Other radical groups also opposed Carlin's attack on Hill and to a lesser extent Manning. Workers Liberty sprang to Hill’s defence “the SWP's Norah Carlin, herself a gifted historian of the 17th century, is surely wrong and sectarian to say flatly that Hill was "not a Marxist". I think we might, instead, read Hill's oeuvre as a rather heroic example of the development of a Marxist research with Hill constantly seeking to renovate theory in the light of new empirical evidence and critique, developing falsifiable hypotheses on the foundation of the "hardcore" of the research programme”[6].

Carlin remained unrepentant and in a further attack on the genre of Peoples History. In a review of People’s History and Socialist Theory-History Workshop Series.Carlin writes.
“Many contributors do regard themselves as committed Marxists, and explicitly discuss the relationship between Marxist history and political activity. But the conclusions they come to (except feminist ‘fragmentism’) are always negative. ‘Given the political formlessness and difficulties of our times,’ says Ken Worpole, it is better to concentrate on the ‘long-revolution’ which seems to be composed of working-class autobiographies. Robert Colls regards the History Workshop forum as ‘a surrogate politics for those depressed by the dismal political options of a country which no longer has a radical movement worthy of the name.’ Bob Scribner, though he admires the ‘People’s History’ work of the German Communist Party in the early 1920s, thinks that ‘In so far as ... the historian is actively involved in politics, there is a problem of time and resources to carry out historical investigations with the necessary rigour.’

What the high point of Carlin’s defence of her political position came with the joint article was written with Ian Birchall called Kinnock’s favourite Marxist-Eric Hobsbawm and the working class-(Autumn 1983)[7].

Carlin writes of Hobsbawm “the working class that Hobsbawm now sees vanishing never really existed; it was a myth of the Stalinist era. For Hobsbawm is not so much a prophet as a casualty, the product of an age which distorted Marxism until it became unrecognisable. From Hobsbawm the historian we can still learn much, though his work needs a more critical assessment than it has yet received. But we should be extremely unwise to take him as a guide in the present struggle”.


In summing up, her work Carlin is correct to say that we are no nearer an answer to the development of genuine Marxist historiography on many historical topics, not just the English revolution.It is also correct to say that for too long The struggle for Marxism inside academia has taken a defensive position.

Carlin concludes “the reflexes of the siege mentality – uncritical defence of ideas or personalities because of their long-standing identification with the Marxist cause, and the refusal to even examine anything new revealed by a hostile source – have not helped our understanding of class struggle in the past or the present. “The restoration of Marxist theory to the history of the revolution is an essential requirement. This is a historical field in which theory has disappeared perhaps more thoroughly than in any other. The mechanical orthodoxy of the Stalinist period was followed by a period of adaptation to bourgeois academic ‘standards’ in which theory was apparently regarded as too provocative to mention. This has now been overtaken by the ‘poverty of theory’ debate in which some Marxist historians are claiming lack of a theoretical perspective as a positive virtue. A full and free discussion in explicitly Marxist terms is the touchstone by which both old ideas and new ones must be measured”.

Further Reading.

Kinnock’s favourite Marxist-Eric Hobsbawm and the working class- Norah Carlin & Ian

The Levellers and the Conquest of Ireland in 1649-Norah Carlin-The Historical Journal
Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun. 1987), pp. 269-288

2.C. Russell, (ed.) The Origins of the English Civil War (1973)
3. C. Russell, (ed.) The Origins of the English Civil War (1973)
4.John Rees and Lee Humber-The good old cause-An interview with Christopher Hill-From International Socialism 2 : 56, Autumn 1992, pp. 125–34.Transcribed by Christian Høgsbjerg.
5.Building in the downturn-(April 1983)-Tony Cliff

Thursday, 29 March 2018

Swedenborg Society: In Conversation & Book Launch TheaurauJohn Tany, English Radicalism and Swedenborgians Ariel Hessayon in conversation with John Rees

Swedenborg Society: In Conversation & Book Launch TheaurauJohn Tany, English Radicalism and Swedenborgians Ariel Hessayon in conversation with John Rees

In collaboration with Goldsmiths, University of London and Breviary Stuff Publications WEDNESDAY 25 APRIL 2018 | 7.00 - 8.30 pm FREE ADMISSION (but book in advance)

Thomas Totney (1608-1659), born in Lincolnshire and largely based in London, was a goldsmith who, following a mystical experience in 1649, changed his name to TheaurauJohn Tany and proclaimed himself a herald of the restitution of the Jews to Jerusalem. Travelling around England and the Low Countries issuing broadsides and more extensive works of prophesy, Tany was for a long time overlooked by historians as just another ranter of the English Civil War period. More recently his writings and impact have begun to be re-evaluated, in no small part due to the dedicated researches of Ariel Hessayon, and a picture has emerged of an extraordinary figure worthy of his place in both the histories of Western esotericism and of English Radicalism. It has also become apparent that Tany was read by early British Swedenborgians, a fact that further elucidates the complex relationship between a nascent Swedenborgianism and the radical thought of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

To mark the occasion of the publication of The Refiner’s Fire: the Collected Works of TheaurauJohn Tany by Breviary Stuff Publications, which features reproductions of material held in the Swedenborg Society Archive, the editor of the volume, Ariel Hessayon, will be in conversation with historian and activist John Rees, discussing Tany, English Radicalism and their connections to Swedenborgianism.

ARIEL HESSAYON is a Reader in the Department of History at Goldsmiths, University of London. He is the author of ‘Gold tried in the fire’. The prophet TheaurauJohn Tany and the English Revolution (Ashgate, 2007) and co-editor / editor of several collections of essays on Scripture and Scholarship in Early Modern England (Ashgate, 2006); Varieties of Seventeenth- and early Eighteenth-century English Radicalism in Context (Ashgate, 2011); An Introduction to Jacob Boehme: Four Centuries of Thought and Reception (Routledge, 2013); Gerrard Winstanley: Theology, Rhetoric, Politics (special issue of Prose Studies, 2014); and Jane Lead and her transnational legacy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016). He has also written extensively on a variety of early modern topics: antiscripturism, antitrinitarianism, book burning, communism, environmentalism, esotericism, extra-canonical texts, heresy, crypto-Jews, Judaizing, millenarianism, mysticism, prophecy, and religious radicalism. His essay ‘Jacob Boehme, Emanuel Swedenborg and their Readers’ was published by the Swedenborg Society in The Arms of Morpheus (2007). 

John Rees is a journalist, author, historian and activist who has been a member of the National Executive of the NUS and was a founder of the Stop the War Coalition. Rees has edited and written for many journals and has also made documentaries for television. His books include The Algebra of Revolution: The Dialectic and the Classical Marxist Tradition (Routledge, 1998); Imperialism and Resistance (Routledge, 2006); (with Lindsey German) A People’s History of London (Verso, 2012); and The Leveller Revolution: Radical Political Organisation in England, 1640-1650 (Verso, 2017).

Swedenborg Hall 20/21 Bloomsbury Way London WC1A 2TH 0207 405 7986


Thursday, 15 March 2018

Claire Canary’s Review of Thomas Alcock: A Biographical Account by Susan Margaret Cooper

Of course, it’s something of an irony that a debauchee who took sexual promiscuity to new levels employed somebody called Alcock. This fact was nicely pointed out in the play and film The Libertine and, when I saw both productions, I assumed the cheeky Cockney character to be a creation of writer Stephen Jeffreys, the surname a perfect way to squeeze in a giggle or two.

It was, therefore, a surprise for me to find Thomas Alcock not only existed in reality but also boasted a top education and social respect. The name may mean nothing to you. If you’re into Restoration England though, I can assure you the names of some he’s linked with will ring more than a distant bell.

As biographical accounts go, this must have posed a challenge to Susan Margaret Cooper, as seeking out information on lesser-known individuals such as Mr Alcock is never an easy task. However, the book is satisfyingly full of facts and speculation is logically discussed, taking the reader along the route with the author as she connects her findings to put forward theories and explanations.

While the ins and outs of one person’s life remain the focus of the work, Cooper also makes room for a bit of historical context in her work. From the provocations of the Civil Wars in which Alcock grew up to the happenings of the Monmouth Rebellion he fought against, there’s just enough detail to set the scene but not distract from the subject. This helps immerse even non-historians and is interesting reading in itself. Getting down to the nitty-gritty though, some of the real gems to be found in this book are the documents the author has uncovered and reproduced as both images and transcripts.

 I dread to think how long it took to copy type from 17th-century handwriting, especially with such attention to detail. You’ll find the original spellings, unexpected capitalisation and use of superscript bringing the transcripts to life as you read. Adding similar feeling to the account is an array of pictures, with portraits putting faces to names, a 20th-century shot of one of Alcock’s homes and publication title pages all serving as a perfect illustration.

Assessment of the personality of anyone from the past is a tricky matter to approach. The objective is always safer than subjective when it comes to something like this and Susan Margaret Cooper has stuck to relating the data but in doing so she’s opened up a nice window into the heart of this man. The word ‘friend’ and ‘friendship’ crop up several times in the book and exemplify the close bonds he evidently formed with those he met, especially, it appears, those he worked for. 

Without the amazing research of Cooper, however, we would have no real insight at all into this man, as letters she has uncovered reflect something of his character, while her report that he was chosen as an arbitrator demonstrate the high regard he seems to have been held in.

Thomas Alcock was associated with a wide range of people. Two of the most intriguing parts of this book, however, takes us back to that employer immortalised in a film for his hedonistic ways. When it comes to Alcock’s time under John Wilmot, Second Earl of Rochester, the shocks come in two forms. 

On the one hand, things get spooky thanks to some remarkable ghost stories. But perhaps the bigger jaw-dropper is not in the supernatural but in the indisputable true story of deceit that’s enough for a movie of its own. Thomas Alcock: A Biographical Account is non-fiction. But some of the content really gets your imagination going.

The effort put into this research is evident and, what’s more, has paid off. It’s the sort of work that can answer historians’ questions, with figures, names, places etc. all included throughout and the revelation of new information makes this a publication to celebrate. By sharing Alcock’s story, we can better understand a person who has long since passed but, like each and every other being on Earth deserves to never be forgotten.

How I Write as a Historian- By: Penelope J. Corfield

Penelope J Corfield has kindly consented to give me an article on How I Write as a Historian. Her article is divided into nine headings.If quoting please cite Copyright © Penelope J. Corfield (2018)

1. Learn to enjoy writing: writing is a craft skill, which can be improved with regular  practice.  Learn  to  enjoy  it.  Bored  authors  write  bored  prose.  Think carefully  about  your  intended  readership,  redrafting  as  you  go.  Then  ask  a trusted and stringent critic for a frank assessment. Adjust in the light of critical review – or, if not accepting the critique, clarify/strengthen your original case. 

2. Have something to say: essential to have a basic message, conferring a vital spark of originality for every assignment. Otherwise, don’t bother. But the full interlocking details of the message will emerge only in course of writing. So it's ok to begin with working titles for books/chapters/essays/sections and then to finalise them about three-quarters of way through writing process.

3.  Start  with  mind-mapping:  cudgel  brains  and  think  laterally  to  provide visual overview of all possible aspects of the topic, including themes, debates and  sources.  This  is  a  good  moment  for  surprise,  new  thoughts.  From  that,generate a linear plan, whilst keeping mind-map to hand as reference point. And it’s  fine,  often  essential,  to  adapt  linear  plan  as  writing  evolves.  As  part  of starting process, define key terms, to be defined at relevant point in the text.

4.  Blend  discussion  of  secondary  literature  seamlessly  into  analysis: beginners are rightly trained to start with a discrete historiographical survey but,with  experience,  it’s  good  to  blend  exposition  into  the analysis  as  it unfolds.Keep  readers  aware  throughout  that  historians  don’t  operate  in  vacuum  but debate constantly with fellow historians in their own and previous generations. It’s a process not just of ‘dialogue’ but of complex ‘plurilogue’.

5.  Interpret  primary  sources  with  respect  and  accuracy:  evaluate  the strengths  and  weaknesses  of  primary  sources  from  the  past;  be  prepared  to interpret  them  but  only  while  treating  them  with  the  utmost  respect  and accuracy. Falsifying data, misquoting sources, or hiding unfavourable evidence are  supreme  academic  sins.  Historians  are  accustomed  to  write  within  the constraints of the evidence. That’s their essential discipline. Hence the claim by postmodernist theorists that historians can invent (or uninvent) the past just as they  please  is  not  justified.  Indeed,  if  history  (the  past)  was  simply  ‘what historians  write’,  there’d  be  no  way  of  evaluating  whether  one  historian’s arguments are historically more  convincing than another’s.  And there’d be no means of rebutting (say) Holocaust denial. The challenging task of evaluating, interpreting  and  knitting  together  many  different  forms  of  evidence  from  the past, in the light of evolving debates, is the essence of the historian’s practice.  

6. Expound your case with light and shade: Counteract the risk of monotony by  incorporating  variety.  Can  take  the  form  of  illustrations;  anecdotes;  even jokes. Vary choice of words and phrases. Vary sentence lengths. Don’t provide typical academic prose, full of lengthy sentences, stuffed with meandering sub- clauses,  all  written  in  densely  Latinate  terminology.  But  don’t  go  to  other extreme of all rat-a-tat sub-Hemingway terse Anglo-Saxon texts either. Variety keeps readers interested and gives momentum to an unfolding analysis. 

7.  Know  the  arguments  against  your  own:  advocacy  works  best  not  by caricaturing opposite views but by understanding them, in order to refute them successfully. All courtroom lawyers and politicians are well advised to follow this rule too. But  no  need to  focus  exclusively  on all-out  attack  against rival views. That way risks making your work become dated, as the debates change.   

8. Relate the big arguments to your general philosophy of history:  Don’t know what that is? Time to decide. If not your lifetime verdict, then at least an interim assessment. Clarify as the analysis unfolds. But  again ensure that the general  philosophy  is  shown  as  informing  the  unfolding  arguments/evidence.It’s not an excuse for suddenly inserting a pre-conceived view.

9. Know how to end: Draw threads together and end with a snappy dictum.

Penelope J. Corfield is Historian, lecturer and education consultant: Her blog can be found @

Wednesday, 14 March 2018

1956: The World in Revolt by Simon Hall. Faber & Faber 2017.

It is hard not to agree with the Simon Hall that the world was in revolt in 1956. To what extent Hall has understood the nature of this revolt is another matter. While the book has a broad scope, Hall has only a rudimentary understanding of what needs to be said.

The twentieth century has seen some world-shaking events none more so than in 1917 which saw the successful October Russian revolution. While 1956 is not quite in that ballpark, it nonetheless was a significant year by any stretch of the imagination. It is to Hall’s credit that he spent so much time highlighting it. It is also true that while other dates have been widely studied the 1950s and particularly 1956 have been under-researched.

The first question any reader will ask is how one examines a whole year in one medium-sized book. The answer, in this case, is very neatly. Part 1 is ‘Winter; Part II is ‘Spring Part III is called ‘Summer and Part IV, Autumn’.

This cleverness can, however, take you only so far. Although Hall writes in a very accessible and exciting style, he has a limited understanding of the significance of this year on future world events. Moreover, an even less understanding of Stalinism, which diminishes his capacity to produce consistent or groundbreaking work.

While Hall narratively describes these events, it is to the detriment of a more analytical study of the world in 1956. His book tends to end up as a collective mishmash of events that have no real connection other than they happened in 1956.Hall is too reliant on memoirs and secondary sources, which tend to blur out what Hall thinks. The book tends to be written more from a journalist than a historians point of view.

As One reviewer states “1956 is enjoyable and informative, but it has limits. What is missing is the sense of a bigger picture or a deeper rationale. Hall seems to sense this, as he makes periodic efforts to provide a connecting thesis. He ends his Prologue: "1956 saw ordinary people, across the globe, speak out, fill the streets and city squares, risk arrest, take up arms and lose their lives to win greater freedoms and build a more just world... It was an epic contest that would transform the post-war world[1]."

Five Themes

At least five significant themes need to be examined if a book about 1956 is to be any good. First and foremost you would have to examine the explosive rise and dominance of American Capitalism. Secondly the worldwide crisis of Stalinism.Thirdly the catastrophic impact of the policies of the petty bourgois nationalist movement especially in Latin America. Fourthly, The growth of Left-wing groups after 1956. Last but not least the response of the working class and the growth of Trotskyism.

First Theme-American Imperialism

Hall opens the book with the firebomb attack on Martin Luther King. Hall’s writing on the explosive Civil rights protest is separated from the very explosive rise of American capitalism.
The events of 1956 were a confirmation of Leon Trotsky’s prognosis that the early to middle part of the 20th century would see the violent confrontation between the rise US imperialism and the demise of European capitalism.

Although writing in 1924 the Russian Marxist Leon Trotsky’s analysis showed remarkable foresight ” From the power of the United States and the weakening of Europe flows the inevitability of a new division of world forces, spheres of influence and world markets. America must expand while Europe is forced to contract. In precisely this consists the resultant of the basic economic processes that are taking place in the capitalist world. The US reaches out into all world channels and everywhere takes the offensive. She operates in a strictly “pacifist” manner, that is, without the use of armed force as yet, “without effusion of blood” as the Holy Inquisition said when burning heretics alive. She expands peaceably because her adversaries, grinding their teeth, are retreating step by step, before this new power, not daring to risk an open clash. That is the basis of the “pacifist” policy of the United States. Her principal weapon now is finance capital backed by its billions of gold reserve.

“This is a terrible and overwhelming force in relation to all parts of the world and particularly in relation to devastated and impoverished Europe. To grant or to refuse loans to this or that European country is, in many cases, to decide the fate not only of the political party in power but of the bourgeois regime itself. Up to the present time, the US has invested 10 billion dollars in the economy of other countries. Of these 10 billion, two have been granted to Europe in addition to the ten billion formerly supplied for its devastation. Now, as we know, the loans are granted in order to “restore” Europe. Devastation, then restoration: these two aims complement each other, while the interest on the sums appropriated for both keeps flowing into the same reservoir. The US has invested the most capital in Latin America which, from the economic standpoint, is becoming more and more a dominion of North America. After South America, Canada is the country which has obtained the most credits; then comes Europe. The other parts of the world have received much less”[2].

Many of the events described in Hall’s book were in some cases indirect products of this new era. One more direct product was the Suez crisis. Which largely confirmed America’s preeminence as a global superpower and the demise of one of Europe’s leading bourgeois nations Britain.

Second Theme-Stalinism

The second point that needs to be examined is the USSR’s relationship with America. Many processes were at work to bring about Khrushchev's actions in 1956.  However, the main one being that national autarkic economy of the Soviet Union was rapidly disintegrating and was no match for the global reach of the American Economy. Stalin’s theory that you could build a nationally insulated economy within one country was coming to a bloody demise.

As Nick Beams points out “Leon Trotsky, writing in his book The Revolution Betrayed traced the origins of the bureaucracy and warned that its monopolisation of political power, its nationalist doctrine of socialism in one country and the defence of its material interests and privileges against the Soviet masses would lead inevitably to the liquidation of all the gains of the 1917 revolution and the restoration of capitalism unless it was overthrown by the working class.

Beams continues "In that book, Trotsky refused to characterise the Soviet Union as “socialist”. The Russian Revolution and the nationalisation of the property had, he insisted, done no more than lay the foundations for the transformation of the Soviet Union into a socialist society. Its future depended on a complex series of national and international factors. The transition to socialism depended on the interconnection of two processes. If the revolution, which had begun by 1917, had extended to the advanced capitalist countries and if the Soviet working class was able to overthrow the usurping Stalinist bureaucracy then the USSR could evolve in the direction of socialism. However, if the Soviet Union remained isolated and if the bureaucracy, in defence of its material interests and privileges, continued to stifle the progressive tendencies inherent in the nationalised industry and central planning, then the Soviet Union would undergo a continuous degeneration, leading eventually to the restoration of capitalism”[3].This is precisely the process that was underway in 1956.

In 1956 sections of the Stalinist bureaucracy turned on its commander in chief and partner in crime Stalin. Kruschev’s  “secret speech”  was hardly secret and was not so much a political break with Stalinism but a mechanism in which to deal with the raging political and economic crisis that gripped world Stalinism.

Khrushchev's speech was typical of a man who was implicated in all the major crimes committed by the Stalinist bureaucracy. One subject all the Stalinist bureaucrats were in agreement was the correctness of the struggle against Leon Trotsky the only leading Bolshevik not to have been rehabilitated by the Stalinists. Khrushchev said “We must affirm that the party fought a serious fight against the Trotskyists, rightists and bourgeois nationalists and that it disarmed ideologically all the enemies of Leninism. The ideological fight was carried on successfully ... Here Stalin played a positive role.”

Khrushchev had a very limited understanding of what social forces he was inadvertenly unleashing with his speech.Far from preventing revolution, he opened the floodgates. His response was the same as Stalin and unleash terror on the working class.

Third Theme-Castroism

While Hall does not glorify the growth of Castrism, he does not explain its ideological roots or the enormous damage it did to the revolutionary aspirations of the Latin American working class.

It is not within the remit of the article to go into any great detail on Castroism, but a few points can be made. It would not be an overstatement to say that Castroism has been the subject of extraordinary misunderstanding. Some people portray it as a movement towards socialism some say it is real existing socialism even Marxism.

None of these falsehoods is true. Castroism was not a movement of working class. It was a movement based on the petty bourgeoisie of Cuba. When describing Castro as a "petty-bourgeois nationalist" One is merely calling things by their right scientific name.

As the American Marxist writer Bill Vann states “Marx correctly stated that the petty-bourgeoisie is incapable of independent and consistent political action. Its inconsistency is a reflection of its intermediate social position. Caught between the two main classes of society and continuously being differentiated into exploiter and exploited, it is compelled to follow one or other of these classes—either the proletariat or the bourgeoisie”.

Far from leading to socialism throughout Latin America the working class there was lead to defeat after defeat; the responsibility lies with the petty bourgeoisie nationalists.
An examination of Cuba today is a sad confirmation of these defeats. Castro’s brother is leading the country to a disaster by opening up the economy to the rapacious nature of American capitalism.

Fourth Theme-The New Left and 1956.

The political and social crisis produced by the 1956 crisis of Stalinism opened new opportunities for left-wing groups in Britain and globally. The break of Stalinism’s grip on the working class led to new formations on the left.

The majority of these formations were not that healthy and still clung to the ideological baggage of the Stalinists.The Britsh Communist party lost a significant amount of it working class cadre and a large section of its intellectuals such as EP Thompson Christopher Hill, Raphael Samuel, John Saville to name but a few.

The historian Eric Hobsbawm stayed in the Party and ended his days an admirer of Gorbachev.” I have a lasting admiration for Mikhail Gorbachev. It is an admiration shared by all who know that, however, for his initiatives, the world might still be living under the shadow of the catastrophe of a nuclear war - and that the transition from the communist to the post-communist era in eastern Europe, and in most non-Caucasian parts of the former USSR, has proceeded without significant bloodshed”

Samuel who left at the same time as Hill formed a new Magazine alongside Stuart Hall.In November 1956, he sent a letter to Stuart Hall suggesting they set up a magazine called ‘New University Left,' Hall accepted the idea, but the magazine went on to be called Universities & Left Review. To gain support for the publication which would orientate not towards the working class but to students, former CP members, fellow travellers, and various other left-wing radicals Samuel sent letters to these forces appealing for money and articles.

Samuel and Hall were both hostile to Trotskyism and refused to collaborate when the Trotskyists of the SLL sought a joint political approach to the demise of Stalinism.Healy’s initial response to the ULR was friendly, and he sought a dialogue with them and other New Left groups. The ULR’s hostility to Trotskyism soon became apparent. Samuel said “There has been an incredible mushrooming of inner-party groups. On the ultra-Left—the dissidence of Dissent—a dozen ‘vanguard’ parties, and as many tendencies and groups, compete for the honour of leading a non-existent revolutionary working class”.

Similar hostility was shown by  E P Thompson and John Saville who formed the New Reasoner magazine. Cliff Slaughter then a leading member of the SLL wrote this overture to the first New Left

“Many others in Britain, today besides contributors to LABOUR REVIEW, are consciously trying to make a Marxist theoretical contribution to the socialist movement.Those connected with the New Reasoner and Universities and Left Review number avowed Marxists in their ranks, and some of their work is of great value.

However, in the belief that theory is very important,indeed basic to the building of a Marxist working-class leadership-and we assume that the editors of those journals agree that this must be the primary aim of all of us-we think it vital to state sharply where we different basic questions of theory and method, as well as genuinely to try to find areas of common ground in research and common fronts in current political struggles”[4].

Despite the SLL’s comradely approach, this was not reciprocated by the New reasoner editorial board,leaving SLL leader Gerry Healy to write “Comrade Thompson seems to have cast away all the luggage, he was equipped with the Communist Party except one soiled old suitcase labelled anti-Trotskyism.

Brian Pearce won to the SLL out of the CP wrote warning of the dangers of founding an organisation without thorough assimilation of the struggle waged by Leon Trotsky against Stalinism was prescient. Pearce warned of the dangers of an uncritical attitude by the ULR editors towards their past affiliation to Stalinism and their hostility towards the orthodox Marxist in the SLL.

“Nothing could be more dangerous today than a revival of the illusions which dominated that ‘old Left.' One of the chief sources of the confusion and worse in ‘new Left’ quarters, and in particular of their hostile attitude to the Socialist Labour League, is to be found in the fact that though these people have broken with Stalinism they have not undertaken a thorough analysis of what they repudiate, have not seen the connection between the apparently contradictory features of Stalinism at different times or even at one time, and so they remain unconsciously open to influence by false ideas absorbed during their period in the Stalinist camp”.

Fith Theme -Gerry Healy and the Socialist Labour League.

The ULR was not the only magazine around in 1957 that sought to gain political ground from the breakup of the Communist Party. A magazine of an entirely different political calibre was founded by Gerry Healy’s the Club forerunner of the SLL (Socialist Labour League) called Labour Review.

The knockback from the ULR did not stop the orthodox Marxists or Trotskyists in the Fourth International from doubling their efforts to gain from the crisis within the British Communist party. Healy continued to believe that Stalinism was a counter-revolutionary force. The SLL won prominent figures such as Cliff Slaughter, Tom Kemp, Peter Fryer and Brian Pearce out of the CP.


As an epitaph to his book Hall wrote "many of those who took to the streets or called for change, as well as those who defended the status quo, were aware of the global context in which they were acting. Indeed, some sensed that they were part of a larger interconnected story".

While it is facile for one historian to entirely ditch his theory of historical events and adopt another, I believe that if Hall had delved into the Marxist archive and attempted to give his book on 1956 a more analytical and perspective driven angle, then a better book would have been achieved.

[2] Europe and America-(Part 1) (February 1924)
[3] A question on the economic reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union- 
[4]   The 'New Left' and the Working Class- Cliff Slaughter