E. P. Thompson
- This topic has 12 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._P._Thompson
Is he any good? Is he a Leninist or Labourite?
Is his biography of William Morris the best?
Is he the best communist historian?
What was his dispute with Althusser about?
Have you seen this from our ever-growing archive?The Making of the English Working Class, by E. P. Thompson. Pelican. 18s.Thompson’s excellent work, 800 pages long and first published in 1965, has now been brought out as a paperback. Applying the Marxist view that men make their own history but only out of the materials at hand, Thompson traces the formation of working class consciousness (by which he means the awareness among industrial workers that they were a separate class in society apart from the ruling landed and commercial oligarchy and manufacturing middle class) under the impact of the industrial revolution between 1780 and 1832. But this was not a passive process; working class consciousness was forged out of the struggles of London artisans, weavers, field labourers and Irish migrants against oligarchic government and the factory system.The early working class is often seen as an ignorant rabble. Thompson exposes this myth and shows how the independent craftsmen who spearheaded the resistance to capitalism, in the Midlands and the North as well as in London, were in fact well-informed and literate with their own view of what society should be like – basically a simple and stable community with a secure place for all.Wilkes and Liberty, Tom Paine and radicalism, the Corresponding Societies, the pernicious effects of Methodism, Peterloo, the early trade unions, the Cato Street Conspiracy, Robert Owen and Owenism are among the names and events in radical and working class history examined in detail.Thompson’s book deserves a place on every socialist’s bookshelf alongside Thorold Rogers’ Six Centuries of Work and Wages, the classic history of the workers in England which it (to a certain extent) replaces and certainly supplements.ALBSocialist Standard No. 772 December 1968›
The Making of the English Working Class is a great book – required reading for 1st year BA Humanities degree. I don’t see Thompson as a Labourite considering his criticism of Wilson and Callaghan governments in 60s and 70s. Leninist ? Well, he was a Leninist when he was in CPGB but he left in 56 which really is the latest date to leave in my opinion. The best communist historian ? It is no compettition but there are Christopher Hill, Eric Hobsbawn, even AJP Taylor was once a communist ! Althusser believed there was some clear division in Marx’s writings between ‘young’ and ‘mature’ which personally I disagree with, the development of Marx’s thought from writing on the thefts of wood in the Rhineland to ‘Capital’ is clear. How can anybody not appreciate Marx’s 1844 Paris Manuscripts ! The argument about Althusser is more about arguments in the New Left between Trots, Maoists and old CPGB’ers i would think but there are others who will know more. I have not read Thompson’s Morris biography but if he was following some CPGB diktat to identify domestic currents of Marxism as opposed to ‘foreign’ influences ie. Moscow, then it could be suspect. Anyway Morris is a forerunner of SPGB and is ours and always will be ! Thompson is described as a ‘socialist humanist’ which can’t be bad.
stevead1966 wrote:I have not read Thompson’s Morris biography but if he was following some CPGB diktat to identify domestic currents of Marxism as opposed to ‘foreign’ influences ie. Moscow, then it could be suspect.There are two editions of his biography of Morris. The first came out in 1955 when he was still in the CP and does put the “Party line”. In the second edition, in 1977, Thompson cut out much of this and added a 50-page postscript. This is the one to read, even though he does criticise Morris for what we like in him, what Thompson called his “purism”. It is probably the best biography of Morris, certainly better than the more recent one by Fiona McCarthy which tries to make him out to be some sort of Green rather than a class-struggle Socialist.
I disagree with ALB. Thompson’s biography is superb, but so is McCarthy’s. I prefer McCarthy’s because it is just so beautifully written. I did not get the impression that she was trying to make Morris out to be anything other than what he was: multifaceted, and hence appealing to many people, including greens and class struggle sociaiists.To answer Jon’s initital question, is Thompson any good? Who better?
stevead1966 wrote:The best communist historian ? It is no compettition but there are Christopher Hill, Eric Hobsbawn, even AJP Taylor was once a communist !If I remember correctly A. L. Morton (A People’s History of England) is straight forward and easy to read and well worth a look at. (The CPGB overtones need to be ignored.) Leo Huberman Man’s Worldly Goods is clear and well written. (The last chapter in which Russia / the Soviet Union is given a glowing write-up can be missed.) There are several critical / liberal left / materialist / “class struggle” historians eho provide a bracing antidote to much conventional “great men” historians. Some of them (marked with a * ) make for difficult reading at times:E. H. CarrTimothy MasonPhillip FonerRodney HiltonChristopher Hill*David RoedigerGeorge Fredrickson*E. LeRoy LadurieGeorge RudeEugene Genovese*Perry AndersonEric WilliamsGotz Aly All must be read critically of course Several Party members speak highly of Howard Zinn (A People’s History of the US). It’s on my “Must Get Round to Soon” list.
crtiical history ‘The origins of the second world war’ by AJP Taylor is worth a look, it got up the nose of liberal historians. Taylor’s ‘English History 1914-45′ is very good and was the standard A Level British History text in early 1980s. Taylor’s ,Bismarck’ good.(according to Kenneth Maorgan : AJP Taylor and Michael Foot singing ‘The Red Flag’ at Lord Beaverbroks house in the 1930s…..)CLR James ‘The Black Jacobins’. Christopher Hill ‘The World Turned Upside Down’, Hobsbawn,of course EP Thompson.EH Carr ‘What is History’ is sympathetic, required text for BA Humanities 1st year in 1984.
Notwithstanding the general excellence of his historical work, EP Thompson’s definition of class does not fit with that of the SPGB (or Marx). He views the working class as having been ‘born’ only when it has a consciousness of itself as a class. For EPT this was around the 1830s/40s. This makes problematic the study of social class in societies with no consciousness of class, ie. feudal, ancient, etc. which is clearly silly. For Marx, and the SPGB, class exists whether or not there is a consciousness of it (a class in itself as against a class for itself).
Other historians of note in the labour history tradition in the UK (all ex-CPGBers) are John Saville (particularly on the British state and capitalist class consciousness, eg. 1848), Dorothy Thompson (wife of EPT, particularly on Chartism, e.g. The Chartists) and Rodney Hilton (medieval history and the transition from feudalism to capitalism). More recently Ellen Meiksins Wood (various titles, particularly on the transition to and rise of capitalism) are well worth a read.EP Thompson’s view of class, as summarised by himself in the preface to “The Making of the English Working Class”, as opposed to the summary offered by Colin, doesn’t seem at all silly to me:”By class I understand an historical phenomenon, unifying a number of disparate and seemingly unconnected events, both in the raw material of experience and in consciousness. I emphasize that it is an historical phenomenon. I do not see class as a “structure,” nor even as a “category,” but as something which in fact happens (and can be shown to have happened) in human relationships.”[…] And class happens when some men, as a result of common experiences (inherited or shared), feel and articulate the identity of their interests as between themselves, and as against other men whose interests are different from (and usually opposed to) theirs. The class experience is largely determined by the productive relations into which men are born—or enter involuntarily. Class-consciousness is the way in which these experiences are handled in cultural terms: embodied in traditions, value-systems, ideas, and institutional forms. If the experience appears as determined, class-consciousness does not.”
I was not suggesting Edward Thompson was silly. His study of the emergence of class consciousness is a masterpiece. No argument there. Only that the implications of his definition of class were (let me substitute a new word for silly) problematic.
The problem is, if there is no language of class then class is assumed not to exist. EPTs historical work is around the late-eighteenth-century to mid-nineteenth century because he is interested in exploring the ’emergence’ as it were of the working class. This is problematic, like it or not, from a Marxian perspective because ‘structure’ is important. EPT says that class happens when people identify their interests as different to those of others. This is saying that when the working class do not identify their interests as against the capitalists and aristocrats then the working class does not exist. Consciousness for EPT is everything when it comes to class. But it is not. It exists whether there is consciousness of it or not.You’re saying that, for EP, if the working class doesn’t identify itself as a class, or use the language of class, then it doesn’t exist. This IS a silly view. But it’s not EP’s. EP’s view, as made clear in the quote given, is that class is something “that happens”, and it happens when people are born into certain productive relationships. The productive relationships are given – entered involuntarily. But class consciousness (“the way in which these experiences are handled in cultural terms”) are not.
It is subtle but it is his view. The productive relations are involuntary, the consciousness is active and
“…class happens when some men, as a result of common experiences (inherited or shared), feel and articulate the identity of their interests as between themselves, and as against other men whose interests are different from (and usually opposed to) theirs.”
However, whether class relationships happen or not does not depend on their being articulated or otherwise. It obviously makes the history writing easier if it is articulated. Most historical work on class before working class consciousness is looking at structure and not primarily consciousness to identify class.There's a meeting on him in Central London a week today. See here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/events-and-announcements/ep-thompsons-legacy
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.