Skip to main content


<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "base.dtd">




<title>Marx and Marxism</title></titleStmt>

<publicationStmt><distributor>BASE and Oxford Text Archive</distributor>


<availability><p>The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading, under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Centre for English Language Teacher Education, Warwick) and Paul Thompson

(Department of Applied Linguistics, Reading), with funding from BALEAP,

EURALEX, the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The

original recordings are held at the Universities of Warwick and Reading, and

at the Oxford Text Archive and may be consulted by bona fide researchers

upon written application to any of the holding bodies.

The BASE corpus is freely available to researchers who agree to the

following conditions:</p>

<p>1. The recordings and transcriptions should not be modified in any


<p>2. The recordings and transcriptions should be used for research purposes

only; they should not be reproduced in teaching materials</p>

<p>3. The recordings and transcriptions should not be reproduced in full for

a wider audience/readership, although researchers are free to quote short

passages of text (up to 200 running words from any given speech event)</p>

<p>4. The corpus developers should be informed of all presentations or

publications arising from analysis of the corpus</p><p>

Researchers should acknowledge their use of the corpus using the following

form of words:

The recordings and transcriptions used in this study come from the British

Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, which was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Warwick) and Paul Thompson (Reading). Corpus development was assisted by

funding from the Universities of Warwick and Reading, BALEAP, EURALEX, the

British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. </p></availability>




<recording dur="00:48:02" n="7069">


<respStmt><name>BASE team</name>



<langUsage><language id="en">English</language>



<person id="nm0089" role="main speaker" n="n" sex="m"><p>nm0089, main speaker, non-student, male</p></person>

<personGrp id="ss" role="audience" size="m"><p>ss, audience, medium group </p></personGrp>

<personGrp id="sl" role="all" size="m"><p>sl, all, medium group</p></personGrp>

<personGrp role="speakers" size="3"><p>number of speakers: 3</p></personGrp>





<item n="speechevent">Lecture</item>

<item n="acaddept">History</item>

<item n="acaddiv">ah</item>

<item n="partlevel">UG3</item>

<item n="module">Historiography</item>





<u who="nm0089"><kinesic desc="overhead projector is on showing transparency" iterated="n"/> well good morning everybody <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="1.4"/> last year i volunteered or was volunteered to give this lecture because somebody was on leave that somebody's come back and apparently i'm still giving the lecture i don't know how that happened but <pause dur="0.5"/> here i am <pause dur="0.6"/> and what i'm going to talk about is Marxism <pause dur="0.2"/> # and Marxist historiography since Marx <pause dur="0.6"/> linking up with what <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> said last week <pause dur="0.7"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> i think one of the points that <pause dur="0.6"/> # is very important about Marx is that Marx's ideas and i i think <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> mentioned this last week <pause dur="0.8"/> are a sort of unique fusion of <pause dur="0.3"/> two separate categories of thinking <pause dur="0.6"/> first of all <pause dur="0.2"/> there is a strongly philosophical element to Marx <pause dur="0.5"/> Marx's ideas <pause dur="0.2"/> developed # <pause dur="0.3"/> as philosophical ideas in the first place <pause dur="0.8"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> it was <pause dur="0.5"/> once he'd kind of developed a # a philosophical view of the world based on Hegel and other # thinkers of early nineteenth century Germany <pause dur="0.6"/> he then <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> began to observe the realities of capitalist society around him and this

led to the second layer of his thought <pause dur="0.4"/> the kind of empirical <pause dur="0.3"/> practical <pause dur="0.3"/> pragmatic <pause dur="0.2"/> understanding of the society in which he lived <pause dur="0.8"/> now any aspect of Marxist thought has got these two things <pause dur="0.4"/> closely infused together <pause dur="0.8"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> this makes it rather exceptional <pause dur="0.7"/> if you go back before Marx <pause dur="0.5"/> you had philosophers i mentioned Hegel Kant and others who were not social analysts <pause dur="0.6"/> and you had people who were social analysts Montesquieu <pause dur="0.3"/> # Adam Smith <pause dur="0.5"/> who were not in the true sense philosophers i'm not saying they didn't have ideas but they didn't have this fusion <pause dur="0.6"/> and many people have argued that <pause dur="0.2"/> # Marx came to his conclusions philosophically <pause dur="0.4"/> and then used the world around him to justify them <pause dur="0.5"/> and there's a very # the linkage between them i think is brought out by this perhaps the most famous quotation of from Marx from eighteen-forty-eight from his thesis on Feuerbach <pause dur="0.8"/> where he argues that philosophers have only interpreted the world <pause dur="0.4"/> the point is to change it <pause dur="1.2"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> for Marx <pause dur="0.6"/> # understanding was simply <pause dur="0.3"/> a

preliminary step <pause dur="0.5"/> to action and to changing things <pause dur="0.7"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> it follows from this that for a Marxist history is as i've said at the bottom <pause dur="0.4"/> it's about analysing the present as well as the past <pause dur="0.5"/> with a view <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> to changing the future not necessarily foretelling the future <pause dur="0.4"/> but changing the future <pause dur="1.0"/> now <pause dur="0.2"/> it's with this background in mind that i want to talk particularly <pause dur="0.4"/> about <pause dur="0.2"/> two aspects really following from this <pause dur="0.4"/> the way that Marxist ideas developed <pause dur="0.5"/> and to jump in from time to time to talk about the way <pause dur="0.4"/> that development of Marxist philosophy <pause dur="0.4"/> began <pause dur="0.2"/> to affect the way they looked at history because that's our main concern here is the historiography of all this <pause dur="1.4"/> now <pause dur="0.8"/> the <pause dur="2.2"/> question <pause dur="0.4"/> which arose <pause dur="0.3"/> almost <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>p</trunc> # <pause dur="0.5"/> permanently <pause dur="0.7"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="8"/> in people's minds after Marx <pause dur="0.7"/> was the question of <pause dur="0.3"/> why <pause dur="0.2"/> was it <pause dur="1.0"/> that the revolution that he'd predicted <pause dur="0.4"/> had not come about <pause dur="2.8"/> and <pause dur="0.5"/> in many ways the philosophical responses and the other responses to Marx <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> in the late nineteenth century are answers to this question and <trunc>stro</trunc> and on into the <pause dur="0.3"/>

twentieth century as well <pause dur="1.1"/> and <pause dur="0.5"/> the first stage in this process really <pause dur="0.5"/> was one which began <pause dur="0.6"/> with <pause dur="0.2"/> not Marx himself so much but Engels <pause dur="0.7"/> and the person who became the leading figure <pause dur="0.5"/> in Marxist philosophy after <pause dur="0.7"/> # after Marx <pause dur="0.3"/> Karl Kautsky the leader of the <trunc>s</trunc> German Social Democratic Party <pause dur="1.0"/> it's famous <pause dur="0.2"/> famously <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> quoted everywhere that Marx said <pause dur="0.7"/> in the latter part of his life as for me <pause dur="0.5"/> i am not a Marxist <pause dur="0.7"/> # and if that phrase meant anything it meant that the kind of <pause dur="0.5"/> processes which were going on with Marx's ideas towards the end of his life <pause dur="0.5"/> and certainly after his death in eighteen-eighty-one <pause dur="0.4"/> were ones which # <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>w</trunc> which <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> were <pause dur="1.3"/> not <pause dur="0.4"/> # in his view <pause dur="0.2"/> following up <pause dur="0.2"/> the main <trunc>i</trunc> the main # essence of his ideas in particular <pause dur="0.7"/> there were attempts to turn his ideas into systems into rules into laws <pause dur="0.4"/> they were becoming in the context of the time much more positivistic <pause dur="0.5"/> # and they turned into what some people have called <pause dur="0.2"/> vulgar Marxism <pause dur="0.4"/> # a very crude form of historical materialism <pause dur="0.5"/> and Kautsky <pause dur="0.2"/>

very much # <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>f</trunc> pushes forward this <pause dur="0.4"/> # concept of vulgar Marxism and of scientific Marxism <pause dur="0.8"/> if we look at some of the major features <pause dur="0.3"/> of that sort <pause dur="0.3"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="5"/> # of vulgar Marxism or <trunc>s</trunc> or or or <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> this attempt to turn into a set of dogmas essentially <pause dur="1.0"/> the <pause dur="0.5"/> starting point for most versions of it was the economic # interpretation of history <pause dur="0.6"/> economics is the fundamental <pause dur="0.3"/> aspect of history <pause dur="0.5"/> everything arises <pause dur="0.2"/> # or can be explained in terms of economic conjunctures economic development <pause dur="0.5"/> # and and economic base <pause dur="0.8"/> # and that <pause dur="0.2"/> there is <pause dur="0.2"/> # in this interpretation i'll come on to that in a moment <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> # a model of base and superstructure but the economic interpretation argued the fundamental factor on which all other <trunc>fac</trunc> social factors depended <pause dur="0.4"/> was <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> economy particularly the means of production <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> and ownership of it the means of production in different societies being land <pause dur="0.6"/> in feudal society machines and industrial society <pause dur="0.4"/> capital and labour <pause dur="0.4"/> # capital in capitalist society labour in in a number of other societies as well <pause dur="0.4"/> and

the way in which those means of production were organized and particularly who owned them hence the basis <pause dur="0.3"/> of class because classes were divided into those people who owned these means of production <pause dur="0.5"/> and those people who were employed to work these means of production <pause dur="0.4"/> # in Marx's terminology in in a capitalist society <pause dur="0.4"/> # the bourgeoisie and the proletariat <pause dur="1.0"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> vulgar <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> Marxists <pause dur="0.5"/> argued very strongly for the economic <pause dur="0.3"/> # determination of society and this led <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> some and many of the tendencies continued in the twentieth century in fact in some ways Stalin is one of the <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> leading exponents of this particular version and crude <pause dur="0.4"/> Marxism as it was developed in the Soviet Union in the nineteen late twenties and thirties <pause dur="0.6"/> that <pause dur="0.4"/> society has a kind of basis and a superstructure <pause dur="0.6"/> the economy is the basis <pause dur="0.3"/> the superstructure is everything that's built on it social forms <pause dur="0.4"/> but not just social forms <pause dur="0.3"/> also ideas cultural phenomena <pause dur="0.5"/> # law <pause dur="0.4"/> # religion <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> what we're doing today <pause dur="0.2"/> # higher education whatever it happens

to be <pause dur="0.3"/> all these things arise in this very crude interpretation <pause dur="0.4"/> from economic # economic # <pause dur="0.3"/> economic # origins <pause dur="0.7"/> and associated with this <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> is <pause dur="0.2"/> a stress <pause dur="0.2"/> on <pause dur="0.5"/> the on <pause dur="0.2"/> class interest <pause dur="0.2"/> and class struggle <pause dur="3.3"/> and the idea of historical laws and historical inevitability <pause dur="0.5"/> # in other words # <pause dur="0.3"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> version of Marxism which is most often criticized by people who don't know much about Marx himself <pause dur="0.4"/> is often this particular version of Marxism this <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> version of Marxism which possibly Marx had in mind when he said he wasn't himself a Marxist <pause dur="0.4"/> but the first stage of development of Marxist ideas <pause dur="0.5"/> brings it into this rather <pause dur="0.2"/> # schematic <pause dur="0.4"/> positivist influenced <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> rule based idea of <pause dur="0.2"/> controlling history <pause dur="0.3"/> history working directly through laws <pause dur="0.3"/> and those laws being readily <pause dur="0.3"/> perceptible <pause dur="0.2"/> # and readily # understandable <pause dur="1.0"/> now <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> that <pause dur="0.9"/> interpretation <pause dur="0.8"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="8"/> doesn't satisfy everybody on a number of grounds <pause dur="0.7"/> and as i've said the key question in people's minds was why had there not been <pause dur="0.3"/> a revolution of the Marxist kind <pause dur="0.6"/> and the first <pause dur="0.3"/>

bold effort <pause dur="0.3"/> to try to <pause dur="0.4"/> answer this question # was put was was one <pause dur="0.3"/> associated with <pause dur="0.2"/> # the name Eduard Bernstein <pause dur="0.4"/> in late <pause dur="0.3"/> # nineteenth # he developed these ideas in late nineteenth # <pause dur="0.4"/> early twentieth century <pause dur="0.4"/> # Britain actually although he was German <trunc>h</trunc> # # his British experiences <pause dur="0.4"/> meant a great deal to him <pause dur="0.5"/> and he began to argue that there were some fundamental flaws he didn't actually challenge the <pause dur="0.2"/> positivistic element so much he challenged <pause dur="0.4"/> the working out of some of those rules that we were looking at <pause dur="0.4"/> and he argued that <pause dur="0.2"/> in actual fact the the laws as they were understood by Kautsky and orthodox Marxists <pause dur="0.5"/> the laws of capitalist development <pause dur="0.3"/> were mistaken <pause dur="0.9"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="16"/> hence his ideas are often referred to as revisionism <pause dur="0.6"/> instead he argued <pause dur="0.5"/> that <pause dur="0.7"/> first of all <pause dur="0.3"/> the class <pause dur="0.4"/> idea that Marx had and i think that <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> emphasized last week let me just take that it's probably easier if i just take that completely off there <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> all that <pause dur="0.3"/> classes will polarize <pause dur="0.4"/> the middle class will disappear the

proletariat will sink into penury <pause dur="0.3"/> the peasantry will <trunc>th</trunc> will disappear the petit bourgeoisie will disappear under capitalism <pause dur="0.3"/> and everything will move out into <pause dur="0.3"/> a wide range of of of polarized classes <pause dur="0.3"/> according to Bernstein this was not happening <pause dur="0.5"/> and he argued that the middle class doesn't disappear in fact the middle class is the <trunc>s</trunc> is the class which is expanding most rapidly <pause dur="0.5"/> in Britain in the late <trunc>n</trunc> nineteenth and early twentieth century <pause dur="0.3"/> so far from polarizing and disappearing into a a class struggle <pause dur="0.3"/> between the impoverished <pause dur="0.2"/> and the super rich which is the crude interpretation of Marx <pause dur="0.5"/> # the <pause dur="0.6"/> development of capitalism <pause dur="0.2"/> was moving in a different direction <pause dur="0.4"/> and # the # <pause dur="0.6"/> lower classes were not disappearing <pause dur="0.4"/> and the reason for this was that ownership of capital ownership of the means of production was not as Marx thought polarizing <pause dur="0.4"/> through competition driving <pause dur="0.3"/> poor # # <trunc>sec</trunc> # <pause dur="0.6"/> # failed producers out of the market <pause dur="0.4"/> and creating a smaller and smaller number of big <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> successful producers <pause dur="0.6"/> # whether it be in

agriculture or in industry <pause dur="0.9"/> so instead <pause dur="0.5"/> # Bernstein argued the middle class was getting broader <pause dur="0.6"/> the working class was actually getting richer <pause dur="0.7"/> its wages were improving <pause dur="0.3"/> it was owning more <pause dur="0.4"/> the petit bourgeoisie <pause dur="0.4"/> small land owners in particular market gardeners that kind of person were becoming more rather than less numerous <pause dur="0.4"/> and even shareholding was becoming dispersed through society <pause dur="0.6"/> so that <pause dur="0.4"/> from Bernstein's point of view <pause dur="0.5"/> # capitalism itself was beginning to evolve <pause dur="0.5"/> # a kind <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>o</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> would hopefully evolve into a kind of socialism <pause dur="0.4"/> which could be developed through <pause dur="0.3"/> pursuit of reformism <pause dur="0.3"/> through <pause dur="0.2"/> pursuing democracy <pause dur="0.4"/> through pursuing <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> # current paths of capitalist development without revolution <pause dur="0.7"/> in other words he saw in an optimistic way that capitalism itself was dispersing ownership through society and once the ownership was dispersed through society was effectively <pause dur="0.4"/> almost a socialist society <pause dur="0.6"/> and that's i think behind that other rather mysterious quotation there <pause dur="0.3"/> <reading>the

ultimate goal of socialism is nothing to me <pause dur="0.2"/> the movement is everything</reading> in other words <pause dur="0.4"/> for him <pause dur="0.2"/> the idea of <pause dur="0.3"/> future communism or whatever # <trunc>i</trunc> utopian society you had <pause dur="0.3"/> was not the crucial thing <pause dur="0.2"/> the crucial thing was the movement towards it <pause dur="0.4"/> # and the ideas that # <pause dur="0.7"/> the the the <pause dur="0.6"/> the the workers movement for reform for change bringing people together <pause dur="0.3"/> # things like trade unions eventually the Labour Party these were all things which were developing <pause dur="0.3"/> in a big way in the eighteen-nineties and around nineteen-hundred in the in Britain <pause dur="0.2"/> and he saw that as the way forward for the labour movement <pause dur="0.8"/> of course you'll realize that that is exactly the split which has occurred in <pause dur="0.2"/> the socialist movement in the twentieth century <pause dur="0.8"/> between those who follow the revolutionary path <pause dur="0.4"/> and those who follow this reformist path <pause dur="0.3"/> if you like Bernstein is the founder of New Labour <pause dur="0.5"/> maybe they don't even talk about socialism but the <pause dur="0.3"/> ultimate goal is nothing to me could certainly be said by # Tony Blair <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> but the movement is

everything # <pause dur="0.4"/> and the idea that that # <trunc>th</trunc> i mean the the problem that arises from this that socialism is split <pause dur="0.4"/> of course has helped <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> to maintain <pause dur="0.3"/> socialism as a as as as a <pause dur="0.7"/> # an unsuccessful movement in most respects in the twentieth century in terms of # <pause dur="0.2"/> # in terms of what was expected in the late nineteenth century <pause dur="0.6"/> however not all Marxists were as pessimistic about the future although <pause dur="0.4"/> Bernstein i wouldn't say is pessimistic <pause dur="0.5"/> but they were they were less pessimistic than he was about the potential for <pause dur="0.4"/> # revolution <pause dur="0.7"/> and <pause dur="0.8"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="10"/> the revolutionary side of Marxism <pause dur="0.5"/> was given <pause dur="0.7"/> a <pause dur="0.2"/> new lease of life naturally by the Russian Revolution <pause dur="0.6"/> # but also by <pause dur="1.5"/> some ideas which preceded it <pause dur="0.6"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> the <pause dur="0.4"/> # person <pause dur="0.4"/> # who <pause dur="0.2"/> engendered a number of these ideas <pause dur="0.5"/> is <pause dur="0.2"/> # Rudolf Hilferding <pause dur="0.2"/> a an Austrian economist and socialist <pause dur="0.6"/> # who himself ended up more of a Bernsteinian than a revolutionary <pause dur="0.8"/> but <pause dur="0.9"/> Hilferding <pause dur="0.2"/> as i've said like many others was interested in the question why hasn't there been a proletarian revolution <pause dur="0.9"/> and he argued that in fact what was

happening under capitalism <pause dur="0.6"/> was a massive development <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="0.7"/> # what he called finance capital that capitalism itself was beginning to change <pause dur="0.7"/> there were i mean today <pause dur="0.2"/> we see a capitalism of giant corporations bestriding the globe larger than nation states holding nation states to ransom <pause dur="0.8"/> hence # the need or the drive to do things like put <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> # the European Union together to try to combat this by uniting nation states to try to control some of these big corporations <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> he <pause dur="0.3"/> # argued that what had happened was that # <pause dur="0.5"/> capitalism had changed its nature in that in Marx's day <pause dur="0.5"/> the owners of capital were usually the direct investors of capital <pause dur="0.5"/> you invested your own money in what seemed to be profitable <pause dur="0.2"/> potential businesses <pause dur="0.7"/> by the end of the century according to Hilferding <pause dur="0.3"/> capitalism was now based not on individuals but on banks <pause dur="0.5"/> and other financial institutions which became gigantic pools <pause dur="0.3"/> lakes <pause dur="0.5"/> of anonymous capital <pause dur="0.7"/> # as they are today <pause dur="0.8"/> # you put your <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> you put your

money into the bank or i suppose <pause dur="0.3"/> probably your overdraft in most cases <pause dur="0.4"/> but your money goes into the bank <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> # what happens to it where does it go <pause dur="0.9"/> the bank lends people money whose money is it lending nobody knows it's a great anonymous pool of capital <pause dur="0.5"/> which is not controlled by individuals you don't control where that money goes still less if you <pause dur="0.5"/> have pension funds or <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> # other <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> financial <pause dur="0.2"/> # services and so on and so forth <pause dur="0.6"/> and that money is <pause dur="0.5"/> is allocated by professionals who don't own the money <pause dur="0.9"/> # by <pause dur="0.4"/> professional financial advisers <trunc>fina</trunc> financial managers for these institutions investment managers and so on and so forth <pause dur="0.7"/> and he argued that this growth of monopoly capitalism was changing the nature of capitalism that it wasn't this was one of the reasons why there were super profits being made <pause dur="0.5"/> # and so on and so forth <pause dur="0.5"/> but this was taken up by some of the revolutionaries because he also argued <pause dur="0.4"/> perhaps here <pause dur="0.6"/> echoing a bit of Bernstein that <trunc>capitalis</trunc> this meant capitalism itself was

becoming more organized this was a second concept he had organized capitalism <pause dur="0.7"/> for Marx capitalism was based on the anarchy of the market the in the <trunc>inpr</trunc> unpredictability of the market <pause dur="0.5"/> the market was a kind of <pause dur="0.2"/> # tempestuous ocean <pause dur="0.4"/> on which capitalist enterprises had to sink <pause dur="0.2"/> or swim <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> in order to protect themselves from this tempestuous sea <pause dur="0.4"/> capitalism is becoming more and more organized # <pause dur="0.2"/> finance capitalism is one way it's becoming more organized because this meant that there were links <pause dur="0.5"/> between big companies <pause dur="0.3"/> # and banks and heavy investors <pause dur="0.6"/> but also <pause dur="0.2"/> companies themselves were coming together into monopolies and cartels and and doing deals with each other to control the market <pause dur="0.7"/> the idea that capitalists like markets is laughable capitalists hate markets they like to control markets or don't like free markets they like to control markets <pause dur="0.7"/> and he was pointing to this as a way in which big capital had survived <pause dur="0.3"/> the predictions of Marx that it was changing its nature <pause dur="0.3"/> it was

turning into what we think of as monopoly capitalism <pause dur="0.5"/> now the points from the revolutionary's <trunc>poi</trunc> # view <pause dur="0.4"/> is that certain revolutionaries Lenin in the forefront <pause dur="0.3"/> seized on Hilferding's ideas <pause dur="0.5"/> as a justification for the potential for revolution <pause dur="0.3"/> in the face of Bernstein's criticism <pause dur="0.4"/> # and Bernstein's revisionism because <pause dur="0.5"/> the conclusion which <pause dur="0.3"/> Lenin drew from Hilferding's ideas <pause dur="0.4"/> of <trunc>organ</trunc> organized capitalism was that here was capitalism <pause dur="0.4"/> itself developing institutions <pause dur="0.4"/> which <pause dur="0.2"/> could be taken over <pause dur="0.7"/> by a future revolutionary state <pause dur="0.7"/> because instead of having a whole inchoate class of capital owners <pause dur="0.4"/> running the capitalist economy <pause dur="0.6"/> you now had these key <pause dur="0.3"/> financial managers <pause dur="0.4"/> who were working for banks for salaries <pause dur="0.6"/> if you decapitated capitalism <pause dur="0.6"/> # and that in a <trunc>se</trunc> # in in Lenin's view meant nationalizing the banks <pause dur="0.6"/> you'd be able to control capitalist society this was the this was Lenin's assumption at the turn of the century from these ideas <pause dur="0.5"/> so by nationalizing the banks <pause dur="0.3"/> you could then control <pause dur="0.4"/> # you could then

control <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> the evolution of capitalism control where investment went and you could control <pause dur="0.3"/> where <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> the priorities for society were <pause dur="0.5"/> and the fundamental problems of exploitation hopefully could be avoided by the state intervening and controlling this process and moving towards socialism so Lenin <pause dur="0.4"/> saw this as as <trunc>a</trunc> <trunc>a</trunc> as # monopoly capitalism as a step towards <pause dur="0.3"/> potential socialism because <trunc>sen</trunc> socialism is supposed to be a rational controlled organized society <pause dur="0.9"/> # one which was # in which <pause dur="0.6"/> human beings <pause dur="0.2"/> # called the tune and <pause dur="0.2"/> organized society the way they wanted it <pause dur="0.4"/> not one in which society called the tune <pause dur="0.3"/> and organized human beings in whatever was appropriate to the given <pause dur="0.3"/> economic # <pause dur="0.2"/> conditions of the day <pause dur="1.6"/> secondarily Lenin also looked at another phenomenon of the late nineteenth century as did Rosa Luxemburg and Nikolai Bukharin <pause dur="0.6"/> to argue that one of the reasons for the growth of these big monopolies and the expansion of capitalism was imperialism <pause dur="0.9"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> # where Marx might have thought

that capitalist <trunc>ec</trunc> capitalist # <pause dur="0.6"/> # <trunc>r</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> profit rates would fall because <trunc>ca</trunc> if capitalism was a kind of enclosed system once it became a global system the massive opportunities for <pause dur="0.4"/> what Lenin called super profits to be made <pause dur="0.3"/> by investing overseas and international trade and the monopoly companies were in the forefront of this <pause dur="0.7"/> and he argued that the <pause dur="0.4"/> most advanced workers of western Europe the <trunc>wor</trunc> the # <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> skilled workers of Germany and France and Britain <pause dur="0.4"/> were actually doing quite well out of capitalism as it was this is of course what Bernstein had also said <pause dur="0.3"/> because they were able to be paid by the super profits of imperialism <pause dur="0.6"/> so this was buying them off so to speak from their revolutionary potential <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> and Lenin also came to the conclusion <pause dur="0.4"/> that since imperialism is a global system you could have a revolution at any one point of it Bernstein # # Bukharin <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> was the first person to coin the phrase that capitalism could break at its weakest link <pause dur="0.6"/> # and Lenin's conception of capitalism was of of a

global system with Russia as one of its weakest links <pause dur="0.4"/> so while Russia was not a capitalist society at the time of the Russian Revolution <pause dur="0.4"/> Lenin thought he was breaking <pause dur="0.2"/> the world system of capitalism <pause dur="0.3"/> by # attacking it at this <pause dur="0.2"/> at this weak link <pause dur="0.3"/> and from there it would spread to where it should take place <pause dur="0.3"/> in Germany <pause dur="0.3"/> # in France in Britain in western Europe <pause dur="0.4"/> and eventually who knows even in North America <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> <trunc>s</trunc> but Lenin <pause dur="0.3"/> # and these thinkers were still <pause dur="0.4"/> fairly much <pause dur="0.2"/> in the tradition of the semi-positivistic # <pause dur="0.3"/> interpretation of Marx <pause dur="0.6"/> since the Russian Revolution particularly since many people <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> on the left criticized the Russian Revolution and the way it was developing from very early on inclusing including Rosa Luxemburg who was <pause dur="0.5"/> very worried about the dictatorial and anti-democractic tendencies of Lenin and the Russian Revolution in nineteen-seventeen and nineteen-eighteen very early on <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> many <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> thinkers began to look in different directions <pause dur="0.4"/> for <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> new inspiration about Marxist ideas and these are ones

which begin to feed in to <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> which begin to feed in to <pause dur="0.3"/> a new <pause dur="0.3"/> # way of looking at society <pause dur="0.4"/> # and these are ones which become particularly influential <pause dur="0.3"/> for twentieth century <pause dur="0.3"/> # Marxist <trunc>hi</trunc> and other historiography <pause dur="0.7"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> in particular <pause dur="1.2"/> a group of thinkers <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="4.8"/> began <pause dur="0.2"/> to move away from this # traditional <pause dur="0.5"/> as it were almost rule based <pause dur="0.2"/> # version <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="1.3"/> Marxism <pause dur="0.8"/> to drawing attention to quite different aspects of it <pause dur="0.8"/> to argue <pause dur="0.2"/> that <pause dur="0.8"/> the revolution had not occurred <pause dur="0.5"/> for <pause dur="0.2"/> amongst other things what we might think of in some way as cultural reasons <pause dur="0.6"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> they turned our attention towards the issue of consciousness <pause dur="0.6"/> the political awareness of a given individual or a <trunc>d</trunc> given group of individuals <pause dur="0.5"/> # what role does this play in history <pause dur="0.4"/> we can't say that the economic base simply determines what everybody thinks <pause dur="0.4"/> what they think and the struggle <pause dur="0.4"/> for them to develop their own ideas <pause dur="0.4"/> and for them to <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> become # part of a larger movement focused around particular ideas <pause dur="0.3"/> and to become aware of their situation in

society <pause dur="0.4"/> is one of the <trunc>reas</trunc> is one of the factors <pause dur="0.3"/> # why or or or the fact this hasn't happened is one of the reasons why <pause dur="0.3"/> society <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> why the revolution that Marx expected had not taken place <pause dur="0.4"/> and in <trunc>do</trunc> in in pursuing this area they began to open up a whole <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> whole range of issues <pause dur="0.4"/> # for social and historical exploration <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="1.3"/> in a sense the earliest of these although he's often forgotten <pause dur="0.4"/> is Antonio Labriola who was <pause dur="0.2"/> perhaps the first person to begin to break <pause dur="0.5"/> with <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> the more <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="1.8"/> positivistic interpretation of Marxism <pause dur="0.8"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> he <pause dur="0.9"/> pointed to the fact that <pause dur="1.9"/> what materialist theory represented for him <pause dur="0.6"/> was <pause dur="0.2"/> the first attempt to create <pause dur="0.5"/> a sort of <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> general science general social science <pause dur="0.4"/> unifying different historical processes <pause dur="0.7"/> # the materialist theory is the culminating point of this process <pause dur="0.6"/> what he meant was that <pause dur="0.2"/> in looking at history and the way it develops <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> materialism and the materialist theory is the first to break away from the compartmentalization of history into <pause dur="0.5"/> religious history history of politics <pause dur="0.4"/> # history of the

law constitutional history <pause dur="0.3"/> and so on and so forth <pause dur="0.4"/> and begin to look <pause dur="0.3"/> at human society as a whole and of course this has been <pause dur="0.5"/> # a massive <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> development <pause dur="0.2"/> in # twentieth century historical studies and twentieth century historical understanding <pause dur="0.5"/> that there is nothing these days <pause dur="0.3"/> which is <pause dur="0.2"/> separate from history <pause dur="0.5"/> and in particular <pause dur="0.3"/> # it's this <pause dur="0.2"/> # sort of holistic sense of history <pause dur="0.6"/> but Labriola's ideas # gave way to others which became <pause dur="0.3"/> # i think much more <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>e</trunc> effective <pause dur="0.9"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> in particular <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> i <pause dur="0.2"/> Georg Lukacs the Hungarian Marxist <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="2.3"/> and i've taken a couple of key <pause dur="0.4"/> # <trunc>s</trunc> # a couple of key <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> concepts from him <pause dur="0.8"/> # he developed the idea or <pause dur="0.3"/> this is present in Marx although # it's a technical point here that <pause dur="0.5"/> Marx's <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> philosophical ideas of the early <pause dur="0.5"/> # writings were not known <pause dur="0.6"/> # until the nineteen-thirties and the nineteen-forties because some of his key works had never been published <pause dur="0.5"/> until that time so in many ways Lukacs was <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> # # was was predicting # the # ideas of Marx which had not yet been # published and revealed <pause dur="0.8"/> and he emphasized the question <trunc>o</trunc> the

issues of alienation and reification and i include reification <pause dur="0.6"/> particularly because many people have seen this as being crucially relevant to modern consumer society <pause dur="0.8"/> alienation <pause dur="0.3"/> is a concept which is present in Marx and # particularly in those early writings <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> <trunc>s</trunc> as i say only a few of which had actually been published at the time Lukacs was writing <pause dur="0.6"/> by which Marx argued that human beings could create things <pause dur="0.5"/> which they didn't recognize as their creations and kind of bowed down to them as though they were what controlled human beings <pause dur="0.7"/> in other words human beings had a had a a tendency to create <pause dur="0.3"/> their own masters <pause dur="0.2"/> in various ways <pause dur="0.6"/> and by looking at # a number of these things as social conventions rather than as ruling forces <pause dur="0.4"/> you could then take a step towards <pause dur="0.2"/> # overcoming this alienation and controlling them <pause dur="0.6"/> there were a number of important <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> # examples of this <pause dur="0.6"/> let's take # <pause dur="0.3"/> a very philosophical example a <trunc>lo</trunc> # Marx's view on this arose from some <pause dur="0.4"/> theological interpretations by

Feuerbach whom i mentioned earlier <pause dur="0.6"/> about the idea of God <pause dur="0.6"/> Feuerbach argued that it wasn't God that created man it was man that created God <pause dur="0.6"/> because God was a human conception and a human construction so to speak <pause dur="0.5"/> and having created this <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> construction <pause dur="0.4"/> human beings then <pause dur="0.2"/> took it as a literal reality and began to obey <pause dur="0.4"/> # this # God which they themselves had created <pause dur="0.6"/> it seems a strange <pause dur="0.3"/> sort of theology i suppose to most of you but it has been quite influential amongst religious thinkers as well because <pause dur="0.5"/> it does point to the fact that <pause dur="0.2"/> knowledge of God as we or <pause dur="0.5"/> conceptions of God <pause dur="0.2"/> as we understand them are human creations there's no two ways about that <pause dur="0.4"/> # although that doesn't necessarily follow that God is a human creation in this sense <pause dur="0.3"/> but certainly the conceptions of God are <pause dur="0.7"/> and secondarily <pause dur="0.2"/> in more social terms <pause dur="0.6"/> # one could point to <pause dur="0.4"/> phenomena like <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> we have in foremost in our mind i suppose the market <pause dur="1.0"/> don't buck the market <pause dur="0.2"/> why not buck the market we made it it's our market it's supposed

to be there to do what we want <pause dur="0.6"/> that is what # # Lukacs would argue these are human creations there's nothing <trunc>s</trunc> nothing sacred about the market the market is a human convention <pause dur="0.6"/> money is a human convention <pause dur="0.7"/> all these things are created by people so why do we bow down and worship them as though they were ruling over us <pause dur="1.1"/> # so <pause dur="0.2"/> many Marxists began to argue that the first step towards revolutionary action was to <trunc>un</trunc> with this level of understanding this level of combating <pause dur="0.3"/> of what appeared to be the fundamental rules of society around us <pause dur="0.9"/> and a special form of alienation was this one # <pause dur="0.3"/> which # <trunc>w</trunc> this one <pause dur="0.7"/> usually referred to as reification <pause dur="0.6"/> which is # defined roughly speaking <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> as transforming human properties into properties of man-made things <pause dur="0.6"/> # this of course has opened up a lot of discourse about the nature of modern consumer society and advertising and things like that <pause dur="0.7"/> when you buy a commodity these days it's often associated with things which are way beyond that particular

commodity <pause dur="0.5"/> # you're buying fun you're buying happiness you're buying goodness knows what if you buy the right product <pause dur="0.6"/> if you can associate thirst with a can of Coca-cola you're winning aren't you <pause dur="0.6"/> # persuade people that they don't want a drink they want a Coke <pause dur="0.5"/> # you are moving towards # <pause dur="0.3"/> towards controlling or or or developing <pause dur="0.4"/> your own commercial interests over people <pause dur="0.4"/> and in a mass scale this idea that you can actually <pause dur="0.2"/> # # you you can actually influence people by <pause dur="0.4"/> # turning <pause dur="0.4"/> these human properties into commodities <pause dur="0.5"/> is <trunc>o</trunc> is referred to also as commodity fetishism i suppose we live in an age of commodity fetishism <pause dur="0.5"/> # as you're only too well aware i'm sure <pause dur="0.4"/> designer this designer that label this label that the right thing here the right thing there why are you buying those things <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> to be seen to be you to be to be with to to to to be buying the right things whatever it happens to be <pause dur="0.4"/> this is a form of reification it's not because you want them or <trunc>y</trunc> because you need them or because there's any particular <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> necessity to have a <pause dur="0.4"/> a pair of Calvin

Klein underpants or whatever it happens to be <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> but you made but you still go out and people still go out and buy them <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> and # <pause dur="0.4"/> this is # what Lukacs would think of as reification <pause dur="1.6"/> now associated with that also moving into the cultural area <pause dur="0.5"/> is another one of those that group of thinkers <pause dur="0.4"/> # Antonio Gramsci <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> and Gramsci <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> developed a number of ideas <pause dur="0.6"/> but he's most <pause dur="0.2"/> well known for <pause dur="0.3"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> concept of hegemony <pause dur="1.1"/> Gramsci spent most of his life in <pause dur="0.2"/> # or a large part of his life in <pause dur="0.2"/> Mussolini's prison system <pause dur="0.6"/> # and he had a great deal of time to reflect on these issues <pause dur="0.4"/> and perhaps not the greatest access to information but <pause dur="0.4"/> he argued <pause dur="0.2"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> the issue of consciousness was crucial <pause dur="0.6"/> because <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> the <pause dur="0.7"/> <trunc>socie</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> crucial element in society or a crucial element in society which Marx had not really # <pause dur="0.3"/> allowed for in this particular way <pause dur="0.4"/> was the cultural domination of a particular class <pause dur="0.3"/> the ideas and beliefs which <pause dur="0.4"/> are shared by a wide proportion of a society the assumptions of that particular society <pause dur="0.6"/> the web of beliefs as it

says here the institutional <pause dur="0.3"/> and social relations <pause dur="0.4"/> of a given society <pause dur="0.4"/> and through this through establishing a certain set of beliefs let's take <pause dur="0.2"/> the one one of those that i <pause dur="0.4"/> mentioned before <pause dur="0.5"/> if everybody believes in the market the people in whose interest the market operates of course <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> have succeeded in establishing that particular <pause dur="0.2"/> set of # concepts and beliefs <pause dur="0.3"/> in society <pause dur="0.3"/> and if people accept it that's fine for them maybe not quite so fine for the people who <pause dur="0.5"/> # do not # <pause dur="0.2"/> benefit so # <pause dur="0.2"/> thoroughly from the market <pause dur="0.8"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> # this intellectual hegemony this cultural hegemony <pause dur="0.3"/> was the work <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.3"/> intellectuals now <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="1.3"/> for Gramsci everybody is in part an intellectual intellectuals are not entirely a separate class <pause dur="0.5"/> every form of labour <pause dur="0.2"/> has a certain intellectual content to it according to him <pause dur="0.8"/> # it's a question of the proportionality <pause dur="0.5"/> but he divided <pause dur="0.2"/> intellectuals into two classes <pause dur="0.3"/> organic intellectuals and traditional intellectuals <pause dur="0.4"/> roughly speaking i suppose in as far as he was

concerned goodies and baddies <pause dur="0.4"/> traditional intellectuals those who established <pause dur="0.5"/> the hegemonic ideas of the time <pause dur="0.5"/> and organic intellectuals <pause dur="0.4"/> people who were associated with <pause dur="0.3"/> particular groups and classes in society <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>e</trunc> and <pause dur="0.2"/> enunciated and and developed <pause dur="0.2"/> the ideas characteristic of those particular classes <pause dur="0.5"/> so different classes would have their own organic intellectuals <pause dur="0.5"/> # the working class would have its intellectuals the middle class would have its intellectuals <pause dur="0.4"/> the aristocracy would have their intellectuals intellectuals were part of every other class <pause dur="0.3"/> and <trunc>int</trunc> intellectualism was a part of almost every human being's <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> part of every human being's <pause dur="0.4"/> # outlook on life although he obviously hadn't seen Do You Want to be a Millionaire <pause dur="0.7"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> the <pause dur="0.4"/> sphere in which this <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>e</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> evolves and which this battle takes place <pause dur="0.4"/> is another key concept which is talked about a great deal civil society <pause dur="0.7"/> because <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> one of the <pause dur="0.2"/> long term phenomena since the Middle Ages was the growth of <pause dur="0.4"/> # <trunc>o</trunc> of

society and of important # changes and important forces in society <pause dur="0.3"/> outside the state <pause dur="0.7"/> and civil society was the area in which intellectuals <pause dur="0.3"/> battled out their different conceptions <pause dur="0.5"/> and in fact would conduct a kind of intellectual class struggle <pause dur="0.3"/> through the media <pause dur="0.3"/> the press television <pause dur="0.4"/> # and all the rest of it and and that <pause dur="0.4"/> # this was an area of political activity major political activity <pause dur="0.4"/> moving away from the kind of traditional Marxist emphasis on workers' movements trade unions <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> strikes and that kind of thing which were still important <pause dur="0.5"/> but for Gramsci the the additional element which was required was to move <pause dur="0.2"/> into a <trunc>ch</trunc> challenge <pause dur="0.4"/> the ruling hegemonic ideas <pause dur="0.3"/> of a given # period and a given generation <pause dur="0.7"/> now <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> what has all this got to do with <pause dur="0.2"/> # historiography <pause dur="0.7"/> a lot of these ideas had important implications <pause dur="0.7"/> and i think i've got <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="1.7"/> two or three <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> two or three # <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> concepts here i think we've got time to do this <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> what is how how <pause dur="0.3"/> is are these ideas beginning to affect <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="5"/> how <pause dur="0.2"/> history is understood <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="1.9"/>

first of all <pause dur="0.2"/> it <trunc>i</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> it's implicit <pause dur="0.4"/> that <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> according to a number of these ideas <pause dur="0.8"/> and i <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> # and i suppose <pause dur="0.6"/> both the <pause dur="0.2"/> consciousness ideas to some extent <pause dur="0.5"/> but even more the vulgar Marxist ideas <pause dur="0.5"/> the idea i mean most Marxists would argue <pause dur="0.3"/> that history was structural <pause dur="0.8"/> that the role of individual <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> men and women <pause dur="0.5"/> was not crucial in history <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="1.6"/> human beings would be the object of history not its subject <pause dur="0.4"/> the whole point of revolution was to change this relationship to turn them into the subjective history so they controlled their own history <pause dur="0.9"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> historical explanation moves away from the idea of great individuals <pause dur="0.4"/> and moves more towards the idea of groups <pause dur="0.3"/> of classes <pause dur="0.3"/> of structural problems <pause dur="0.3"/> # and so on and so forth <pause dur="2.0"/> secondarily <pause dur="0.5"/> i suppose <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> from the mid-nineteenth century <pause dur="0.2"/> we tend to talk these days about historical change <pause dur="0.4"/> rather than about historical progress <pause dur="0.6"/> # historical progress is something <pause dur="0.3"/> which # people are <pause dur="0.4"/> much more sceptical about today and we use the much more neutral word change to <pause dur="0.4"/> describe how

the different conflicting forces we're talking about <pause dur="0.4"/> # impact on each other <pause dur="0.3"/> and create # a new situation <pause dur="0.7"/> it's also <pause dur="0.4"/> # and i've mentioned this already <pause dur="0.5"/> # has moved towards <pause dur="0.4"/> # history becoming more holistic <pause dur="0.5"/> so the history is not divided up into separate domains <pause dur="0.4"/> # it becomes <pause dur="0.2"/> # the object of the historian is to try to give <pause dur="0.3"/> much broader explanations <pause dur="0.3"/> touching on all aspects of of life <pause dur="0.5"/> # the the traditional fields in British historiography break up after the First World War <pause dur="0.5"/> # i've given a few examples down there <pause dur="0.5"/> and in the words of Gareth Stedman Jones before <pause dur="0.3"/> this happened <pause dur="0.2"/> <reading>no attempt was made to fuse this aggregate of specialist routines <pause dur="0.3"/> into a meaningful <pause dur="0.2"/> historical totality</reading> <pause dur="0.6"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> # that is partly # the way in which <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> which historiography <pause dur="0.5"/> # began to evolve under the pressure of these kind of ideas which have come from other quarters as well but <pause dur="0.4"/> this was a major challenging area <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> going beyond that <pause dur="4.7"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="5"/> # <pause dur="1.6"/> i haven't <pause dur="0.9"/> talked in any great detail about the subject of dialectics because # <pause dur="0.5"/> it's a

complex issue in itself <pause dur="0.7"/> but <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> having said that progress has given way to historical change <pause dur="0.7"/> # Marxist historians in particular <pause dur="0.5"/> tend to put stress on dialectical <trunc>iss</trunc> on on on <trunc>diale</trunc> the dialectical nature of historical struggles <pause dur="0.6"/> I-E that there are always conflicting forces <pause dur="0.4"/> that force A conflicts with B <pause dur="0.4"/> and very often this produces a synthesis of both those forces C which is different from either A or B <pause dur="0.7"/> and history moves <trunc>co</trunc> constantly dialectically because C then gives rise to its opposing idea D <pause dur="0.4"/> which produces E <pause dur="0.4"/> and <trunc>h</trunc> and this leads to an interpretation of history which is based on the constancy of change <pause dur="0.9"/> that there is no stability in history <pause dur="0.4"/> # nothing stays the same <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> that change is the normal condition of life rather than stability <pause dur="0.6"/> # we would probably <pause dur="0.3"/> not have <pause dur="0.2"/> a big problem <pause dur="0.2"/> # understanding that but conservatism <pause dur="0.5"/> with a small C is based on the opposite point of view that stability is normal and change is abnormal <pause dur="0.6"/> # and that # this # dialectical view of history <pause dur="0.5"/>

shows that change is the fundamental bedrock of history <pause dur="0.3"/> # rather than # any form of stability or stasis <pause dur="1.9"/> secondly <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> the <pause dur="0.6"/> particularly the the Western Marxists <pause dur="0.5"/> raised as i've said the problem of consciousness <pause dur="0.5"/> # and added to the more <pause dur="0.2"/> positivist structuralist interpretations <pause dur="0.5"/> the whole issue <pause dur="0.5"/> of it being far too crude to simply say that complex <pause dur="0.5"/> # cultural <pause dur="0.3"/> phenomena like law and religion <pause dur="0.4"/> can simply be crudely related to the economic base of a given society <pause dur="0.5"/> these are much more complex and they need much more detailed examination they need to be looked at <pause dur="0.3"/> much more carefully and much more closely <pause dur="0.5"/> # you can't simply say Jane Austen is a <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> is a mouthpiece <pause dur="0.4"/> of the British upper classes <pause dur="0.2"/> that sort of thing although many <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> crude Marxist literary historians have attempted to do things like that <pause dur="0.5"/> # Lenin himself said that Tolstoy was just <pause dur="0.5"/> # largely a mouthpiece of the Russian landowning gentry which seems the most inadequate description of Tolstoy <pause dur="0.4"/> imaginable to anybody who's read him <pause dur="1.1"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> thirdly <pause dur="0.3"/> # these

people <pause dur="0.2"/> drew attention to <pause dur="0.3"/> a whole new areas of historical subject matter <pause dur="0.7"/> obviously implicit in what i've been saying the development of capitalism itself <pause dur="0.6"/> # Marx analysed the capitalism of his day <pause dur="0.5"/> # the analysis of contemporary society and its evolution over the previous decades and centuries <pause dur="0.3"/> was absolutely crucial to this level of historical understanding <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> industrialization came into the picture <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> # agitations of the oppressed classes <pause dur="1.0"/> # the ideas <pause dur="0.4"/> of peasants workers <pause dur="0.3"/> peasants and workers were almost entirely absent from historiography <pause dur="0.4"/> except as occasional intruders in peasant revolts or <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> # <trunc>un</trunc> # untidy uprisings of various kinds in the past <pause dur="0.3"/> there was very little interest <pause dur="0.2"/> in these groupings <pause dur="0.5"/> # and there was very little interest in in in # in revolutions <pause dur="0.3"/> it was thought rather crudely <pause dur="0.5"/> that it wasn't going to be possible <pause dur="0.3"/> to write the history of ordinary people because they didn't leave any traces behind <pause dur="0.5"/> but essentially this is the kind of argument which has been levelled <pause dur="0.4"/>

at any # at many of the new phases of <pause dur="0.2"/> # historical interpretation <pause dur="0.6"/> it's not my job to bring this up to date but i can remember when gender history began to evolve <pause dur="0.6"/> # conservative historians again with a small C argued <pause dur="0.4"/> well there can't be any gender history we can't write the history of women because there can't be any evidence for it because if there had been we would have done it <pause dur="0.7"/> this idea that history is evidentially based and emerges <pause dur="0.3"/> # full blown out of the archives <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> in fact of course once people started asking questions about the history of women they went and found there was a whole new way of looking <pause dur="0.3"/> at <trunc>e</trunc> at at at at archives which already existed or material which already existed <pause dur="0.3"/> and whole <pause dur="0.2"/> swathes of material which had never been looked at the same had been done for peasants the same had been done for workers <pause dur="0.5"/> classes who had been <pause dur="0.4"/> # in the phrase hidden from history <pause dur="0.4"/> # it's a <trunc>ques</trunc> and and this points to the to the to to the <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> this points to the # fact that <pause dur="0.9"/> historians no longer <pause dur="0.2"/> saw themselves as

the subjects of historical enquiry <pause dur="0.5"/> # as or as outside it <pause dur="0.4"/> it led to the whole <pause dur="0.2"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> question of the role of the historian themself <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>i</trunc> if in the nineteenth century traditional idea <pause dur="0.3"/> the historian was above history <pause dur="0.5"/> # and simply <pause dur="1.3"/> related what had happened <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> these ideas led to historians becoming part <pause dur="0.5"/> of the <trunc>hi</trunc> of the social process <pause dur="0.5"/> historians themselves <pause dur="0.2"/> are <pause dur="0.4"/> organic or traditional intellectuals <pause dur="0.4"/> they are part of the intellectual struggle <pause dur="0.4"/> they are part of hegemony <pause dur="0.8"/> if conservative or dominant ideas suggest that <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> women should not be emancipated historians over the past hadn't even noticed that they were <pause dur="0.6"/> unemancipated <pause dur="0.4"/> and then suddenly when the <trunc>r</trunc> issue of women's emancipation arises <pause dur="0.3"/> historians begin to turn towards it as a new question a new <trunc>hish</trunc> issue <pause dur="0.6"/> similarly in the nineteenth century <pause dur="0.4"/> national historians turn towards the history of their own nationalities <pause dur="0.7"/> historians in other words <pause dur="0.2"/> increasingly become part of the intellectual struggle <pause dur="0.5"/> # and see themselves as part of the

intellectual struggle <pause dur="0.4"/> and in fact come to the conclusion that they cannot separate themselves <pause dur="0.2"/> from the society in which they exist <pause dur="0.5"/> this has led to <pause dur="0.2"/> # and again it's a territory that i don't want to jump into at this particular moment <pause dur="0.5"/> the sort of post-modernist extremes of this that <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> you go to so far that the <trunc>histor</trunc> that history <pause dur="0.4"/> at the end of the day doesn't tell you anything about the past because it's a construction of the historian <pause dur="0.7"/> # herself or himself <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> while most <pause dur="0.3"/> Marxist historians wouldn't go as far as that <pause dur="0.4"/> the the objectivity of history <pause dur="0.3"/> was undermined by this and the subjectivity of history <pause dur="0.4"/> was stressed <pause dur="0.5"/> that doesn't mean to <trunc>s</trunc> that doesn't mean to say one can necessarily conclude <pause dur="0.4"/> that one will need that that <trunc>w</trunc> one can go as far <pause dur="0.9"/> # as the post-modernists in saying that there's no such thing <pause dur="0.4"/> as <pause dur="0.3"/> history or we cannot know anything worth knowing about the past <pause dur="0.4"/> most historians would tend to disagree with that <pause dur="0.7"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="4"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> if just to summarize at the end <pause dur="0.5"/> # if we look at <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> a <pause dur="1.6"/> number of points

made by the Italian historian Momigliano <pause dur="0.7"/> quoted by Hobsbawm <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> arguing what had happened to history in the hundred years after Ranke <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> he stressed in particular two or three of the points that we've been looking at here <pause dur="0.6"/> a decline in political and religious history <pause dur="0.7"/> # national histories begin to look old-fashioned according to this <pause dur="0.5"/> # and instead of <pause dur="0.3"/> national and religious history history of the state <pause dur="0.5"/> # there's a major turn towards social and economic history <pause dur="0.6"/> # and the twentieth century has seen of course massive development in the late twentieth century massive development of social <pause dur="0.4"/> and economic history <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> it's no longer easy <pause dur="0.8"/> to use ideas as an explanation of history <pause dur="0.9"/> although ideas as i've been stressing have a role in history <pause dur="0.5"/> the concept that everything in history arises from <pause dur="0.4"/> ideas which had been prevalent <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> in certain schools of nineteenth century historiography <pause dur="0.4"/> # is much more difficult to sustain these days <pause dur="0.5"/> that ideas <pause dur="0.2"/> themselves are seen as <pause dur="0.2"/> socially <pause dur="0.9"/> i don't know whether to

say conditioned or determined perhaps the best word is to say socially shaped <pause dur="0.6"/> # they don't arise full-blown unobjectively <pause dur="0.4"/> # in people's heads they are themselves partly constructed socially <pause dur="0.6"/> # and ideas themselves are related to the society in which they evolve <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> and <pause dur="4.4"/> although we can then <pause dur="0.5"/> # move on from that <pause dur="0.5"/> and say that one can look at explanations in term of social forces <pause dur="0.5"/> it still doesn't necessarily solve that thorny issue <pause dur="0.3"/> of the precise relationship <pause dur="0.5"/> between <pause dur="0.2"/> # the explanation of historical events <pause dur="0.3"/> and the explanation of individual actions <pause dur="0.9"/> what is the relationship between these two this is something which constantly puzzles historians and constantly puzzles <pause dur="0.4"/> philosophers of history <pause dur="0.8"/> can we go totally structural and say individual actions mean nothing <pause dur="1.2"/> probably not <pause dur="0.6"/> because at certain stages individual actions can weigh very heavily <pause dur="1.1"/> if Stalin had not been Stalin there may not have been a terror <pause dur="0.4"/> if Lenin had not been Lenin there might not have been a Russian

revolution if Napoleon had not been Napoleon # the French Revolution might have turned out differently <pause dur="0.4"/> individual actions individuals may <trunc>un</trunc> certain under certain conditions be very effective <pause dur="0.8"/> but we can't go to the other extreme and say history is nothing but <pause dur="0.6"/> the accumulation of the action of individuals <pause dur="0.2"/> or dominated by the action of individuals <pause dur="0.6"/> because those individuals work in contradictory and sometimes complementary ways and it's what they do it's a resultant of what they all do together <pause dur="0.9"/> which in a sense changes history rather than what they do as individuals it's the <pause dur="0.3"/> resultant of of of of the collective actions of individuals very often which <pause dur="0.4"/> # which leads to social <trunc>pri</trunc> # issues so it hasn't actually solved this problem <pause dur="0.8"/> and finally as i've already mentioned <reading>it had become very much more difficult <pause dur="0.3"/> to speak of progress <pause dur="0.3"/> or of the meaningful development of events in a certain direction</reading> <pause dur="0.5"/> what is poshly known as a teleological view of history the idea that <pause dur="0.4"/> things are always moving towards some sort of

goal <pause dur="0.6"/> # usually for the better <pause dur="0.5"/> # progress in the liberal historiography in the mid-nineteenth century <pause dur="0.5"/> future socialist society and perhaps communism <pause dur="0.4"/> in the Marxist interpretation of history <pause dur="0.4"/> # Marxism is seen <pause dur="0.3"/> as a kind of teleological history <trunc>i</trunc> itself is a kind of teleological history <pause dur="0.5"/> because it does see <pause dur="0.2"/> society rising through different stages <pause dur="0.4"/> towards <pause dur="0.3"/> # some sort of <pause dur="0.4"/> ideal <pause dur="0.2"/> # utopian <pause dur="0.3"/> # future <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.4"/> this # vision <pause dur="0.2"/> # is is one which is shares # <trunc>i</trunc> well not the same vision but the # notion of that kind of progress is something which <pause dur="0.5"/> Marx shared with # many of his contemporaries who were liberals <pause dur="0.5"/> and one which is much more sceptically # looked upon today <pause dur="1.0"/> okay i want to stop there <pause dur="0.2"/> and # <pause dur="0.6"/> you should have a copy of a few items of bibliography which has been circulated <pause dur="0.5"/> # to add to what you've already got because <pause dur="0.3"/> these are quite interesting articles focused specifically on the issues i've been talking about <pause dur="0.5"/> Marxist interpretation of history <pause dur="0.4"/> and # Marxist interpretation of society <pause dur="0.5"/> okay