Registered user login:

Taking apart the west

Richard Seymour

Published 24 July 2008

A People's History of the World
Chris Harman
Verso, 386pp, £20

A People's History of the World is the first attempt to provide a single, accessible, grass-roots account of the development of human civilisation. The stories of civilisation that have become popular in the era of the "war on terror" usually come with an arid essentialism. We are told there is a discrete entity called "the west", whose ascent is, as the historian Eric Wolf sardonically put it, a "moral success story" in which the peerless west defeats all-comers by virtue of certain "values" that often prove to be the credenda of neocon servatism. The counterpart to such Spenglerian mysticism is the strident celebration of capitalism and the colonial system through which it spread. Niall Ferguson is an avatar of this tendency. Chris Harman's popular history is a vital antidote to these trends.

From the Neolithic revolution to Y2K, A People's History is a dizzying tale of change "from below", with political, economic and cultural narratives interwoven, and occasional pauses to point out intriguing theoretical vistas. Taking pains to upset received opinion, Harman asserts that class societies are neither natural nor a long-term feature of human history. The first such, he argues, emerged after prolonged struggle, after the agricultural revolution that took place in the Fertile Crescent 10,000 years ago. Describing the rise of the ancient world, Harman resists commonplace Eurocentrism, showing how similar environmental and technological pressures were at work in creating precocious civilisations in India, China, Greece and Rome. If the latter were novel, it was partly because of their unusual dependence on slave labour. He resists the fashionable temptation to exalt Roman civilisation, which he argues was largely parasitic on Greek technology and culture, and whose wealth and power derived from barbaric overland expansion.

Against the view that the feudal period was one of stasis, Harman emphasises its dynamism. On the Reformation, he properly highlights the social interests embodied in it rather than reducing it to a battle of ideas. And the Islamic contribution to Enlightenment thought is duly registered in a way that frustrates attempts to claim the Enlightenment for "the west". With the French Revolution, Harman assails the myths about its bloodthirstiness progenerated by historians such as Simon Schama and François Furet. And, rebutting colonial triumphalism, he notes that African societies were, before the locust years of slavery and colonies, at least on a par with European societies in literacy and social development. Similarly, Indian society was far from the stagnant behemoth supposed when it was colonised by Britain, whose early success owed more to its ability to win over local rulers than to economic or military superiority.

A People's History has an almost telescopic structure, devoting greater space to more recent periods as the pace of change increases. The past 150 years of human life, from Marx to the millennium, take up approximately half of the book, and it is by far the most provocative part. From the hopeful experiments of early working-class socialism to the horrific Götterdämmerung of the Second World War and the chilling nuclear stasis of the Cold War, there is much to subvert conventional expectations. Scathing about the effects of capitalism and colonialism, Harman holds no brief for the Stalinist dictatorship.

He shows that the USSR, far from being concerned with emancipatory politics, adopted a manipulative stance towards left-wing movements, encouraging loyal parties to limit their radicalism and to connive in pro-colonial policies. In fact, his principal diagnosis here is that the twin pincers of Stalinism and fascism crushed the tradition of "socialism from below" mid-century, and that this tradition was partially revived in the "New Left" movements of the 1960s. Thus, if the postwar strength of the USSR did not confirm the socialist case, Harman maintains, its collapse did not disprove it.

There are a number of points where engagement with recent scholarship might have altered Harman's account. On the subject of the First World War, for example, he in part accepts the idea that the German masses greeted the war enthusiastically, a view that has lately been demolished by the historian Jeffrey Verhey. And one could split hairs over some of the formulations. It is surprising to see Harman defend a version of Marx's conception of an "Asiatic Mode of Production". It is also surprising that he does not discuss the controversies over the origins of capitalism. Given the demands of concision, it is an understandable omission. Nevertheless, it might have been useful to give the general reader at least some indication that they exist.

These are minor quibbles, however, about such an ambitious and marvellously readable history. Harman has, with impressive narrative sweep, delivered a sophisticated attack on many prevailing assumptions, not least of which is the complacent faith in capitalism's durability.

Richard Seymour's book "The Liberal Defence of Murder" has just been published by Verso. His blog, Lenin's Tomb, can be found at http://leninology.blogspot.com

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

21 comments from readers

esperant
25 July 2008 at 23:38

I've got to say it's pretty ridiculous getting a member of the Socialist Workers Party to review a book by one of the leaders of that party.

RobG
25 July 2008 at 23:39

But isn't journalism (not least the New Statesmen), full of Labour party members writing about Labour politicians?

knave
26 July 2008 at 09:02

Why not ?

Nick Cohens's book was only revewed by his neo con mates.

FA
26 July 2008 at 11:55

I think Seymour needs to point out that Harman is on the committee of the the party they are both members of - the Socialist Workers Party. Harman is an extremist and I expect this book, rather than being a dispassionate historical anlaysis, reflects his extreme political views. The review does not reflect this.

gnuneo
26 July 2008 at 16:01

sounds pretty good all in all, certainly a change from the Eurocentric view of history is much needed in these neo-con days, where everything is portrayed in Victorian style 'clash of civilisations'.

"He resists the fashionable temptation to exalt Roman civilisation, which he argues was largely parasitic on Greek technology and culture, and whose wealth and power derived from barbaric overland expansion."

and this won me over completely. The only things ever to come out of Rome are Empire, genocide, rigid and racist hierarchies, xenophobia, and barbarism. Everything good they either stole from others, or it was a side-effect of expanding their control and plutocracy over ever more people and land.

"What have the Romans ever done for us?" They created the Dark Ages for a start, through their destruction of the stable, evolving and technologically sophisticated societies around their own.

if there really is a 'Doorway to Hell' (which i very much doubt, but its quite poetic ;) ), then its locus is firmly fixed upon this benighted city.

knave
26 July 2008 at 22:23

Richard you trot,

You've really upset Tory Nick.

Well done son

jimdenham
27 July 2008 at 00:27

It isn't the fact that Mr "lenny" Seymour is rviewing a book written by his party boss, Chris Harman, that upsets me: it's the fact that Lenny's puff-piece is simply made up of banalities like "Stalinism and Naziism destroyed socialism from below", as though these were major breakthroughs in theory. Did you actually pay Mr Seymour any real money for his banal musings and his sucking-up to his party boss?

Jonny Mac
28 July 2008 at 16:15

knave - your Cohen and Bright obsession is a bit spooky, mate. And don't you think "Tory Nick" as a nickname is just a bit - well, crap, really?

The irony, of course, is that, in a tiny little way, the more you flail at him and call him a Tory and a "neo-con", and all the rest of it, the more you prove the main point of "What's Left". Hey ho.

knave
28 July 2008 at 18:57

Well sorry Tory Jonny. A little like your obsession with Pilger. Perhaps we both need therapy

I'm not bovered if he is Tory and neocon, like yourself.

I just like political honesty.

Perhaps you need a little. .

knave
28 July 2008 at 19:19

As for crap names. Your probably right and as it upsets you I will stop.

You are a nice guy.

Could you suggest a new nickname.

So the fact that I and others think Cohen is a Tory, is the main point of his book, no wonder.the admirable Hari thought the book was crap.

I will make deal with you I will not comment on Cohen's article , if you do not on Pilgers.

Hence our obsession is cured.

See which one will the first to crack.

Can I ask you one last question. If Nick is not a Tory. Name one difference between Cohen and say Michael Gove.

Jonny Mac
29 July 2008 at 09:55

"A little like your obsession with Pilger." - ha, fair do's knave, you've got me bang to rights there, unfortunately.

And sadly I'm pretty sure I'd be the first to crack if I agreed to your deal...

Re Nick, my understanding from recent Observer articles and such like is that if you put the whole Islamist thing aside, he retains his interest in eg poverty, trade union rights, etc. If you can point me to articles where on non-foreign affairs, Islamic stuff he seems Tory - eg by promoting tax cuts - I'd be genuinely interested in seeing them.

knave
29 July 2008 at 12:58

A little like your obsession with Pilger." - ha, fair do's knave, you've got me bang to rights there, unfortunately.

Sorry Johnny. Oh you are been ironic.

And sadly I'm pretty sure I'd be the first to crack if I agreed to your deal...

Don’t, we can get through this together

Re Nick, my understanding from recent Observer articles and such like is that if you put the whole Islamist thing aside, he retains his interest in

eg poverty, trade union rights, etc.

Is that the same Nick who makes sneers at the miners, TUC and hasn’t said a word about the Iraqi trades unionists who were arrested for opposing the selling off their oil to US companies.

Also many Tories believe in relieving poverty. Johnny I can’t of a politician who isn’t.

If you can point me to articles where on non-foreign affairs, Islamic stuff he seems Tory - eg by promoting tax cuts - I'd be genuinely interested in seeing them.

Didn’t he in a 2006 article headlined 'We have to deport terrorist suspects whatever their fate', he criticizes the British government for its reluctance to deport terror suspects to states that are known to commit torture, saying they should prioritize "national interests."

Right out of the Littlejohn text book

As for tax

Didn’t he in a topic in January 2007 in the Evening Standard he argued that couples earning 100,000 GBP a year (the richest 2 percent) were finding it difficult to survive financially in London due to the pressures of school fees, house prices and council tax, and unless the governing Labour Party addressed their concerns it would lose the next general election. He has subsequently praised the Conservatives' tax proposals.

Hasn’t Cohen has praised the Conservative Party for, as he put it, having fairer and more progressive tax proposals than their opponents on the left. The headline to this article, reproduced on Cohen's own website, said he was "turning... into a Tory."

He also suggests in his book 'What's Left' that the prioritisation of single mothers for council housing "provides a perverse incentive for single motherhood" and says that "the liberal professionals of the welfare state were aggravating the poverty and racism they said they opposed".

Charles Murray stuff I would say

Also he is strong backer of the Tory Anthony Browne who believes strongly in the privatisation of the NHS, member of the migration watch and is strong follower of Mr Murray.

Yes he certainly isn’t a Tory.

Johnny if you can show me an article that could not have been written by Mr Gove or Browne I will be more than surprised.

knave
29 July 2008 at 13:20

Sorry an article by the name that should be not spoken that couldn't have been written by Mr Gove or Mr Browne

knave
30 July 2008 at 08:17

Johnnymac your friend also wrote in glowing terms about the odious Browne

This is a Browne insists that Asylum-seekers are not only scroungers and terrorists but plague carriers, like the rats that brought the Black Death.

Jonny Mac
30 July 2008 at 10:28

knave - thanks forr the examples. Interesting. I personally think it's morre a sign that the politics has got confused, and that it's largely meaningless at the moment to say that the Conservatives are more 'right wing' than this sorry excuse for a Labour government - but I take, to some extent at least, your point.

I do have to take issue with you re this though :

"He also suggests in his book 'What's Left' that the prioritisation of single mothers for council housing "provides a perverse incentive for single motherhood" and says that "the liberal professionals of the welfare state were aggravating the poverty and racism they said they opposed".

Charles Murray stuff I would say"

Whether it's Charles Murray stuff or not, or the kind of the thing the Conservatives are more likely to say than the labour party, don't you think the important thing is whether it's true? And if it is true, then the prioritisation of single mothers for council housing was not in any meaningful sense a 'left-wing' policy, was it? - if by left-wing we mean focussed on helping relieve poverty.

I think much of it comes down to Cohen looking at what the self-described left say, and says "hang on. This is nothing to do with leftwing or socialist thinking as I understand it." ie old left cf the"new left" of communalism and anti-Americanism, my enemy's enemy is my friend. A matter of definitions.

knave
30 July 2008 at 13:07

Jonnymac

Whether its Charles Murray stuff or not, or the kind of the thing the Conservatives are more likely to say than the labour party, do not you think the important thing is whether it's true? And if it is true, then the prioritisation of single mothers for council housing was not in any meaningful sense a 'left-wing' policy, was it? - if by left-wing we mean focussed on helping relieve poverty.

Johnny were are you going to put the single mothers, on the street as prostitutes. Perhaps the real problem was that when Thatcherites, like Cohen supported the selling off council homes, the money was not invested into building new ones. Is not Cohen like Murray blaming the victim not the cause.

As I said before Jonny , all parties from the extreme right to the communist want to stop poverty.

As a old Labourite Healyite I believe the best way is redistribution of wealth is through taxation and the state has a role in help sharing resources for all. For instance water is it a common resource for all. Or a resource to be owned by a few . He who should not be named believes in the Thatcherite Trickle down effect and every solution is through the market.

I accept that the Cohen , Thatcherites, liberal economics and perhaps I can put yourself in that group, have won the argument but I am too old and stubborn to change.

What I despise about Cohen and to a certain extent Bright is that they keep calling themselves left wing. When I cannot think of one conventional or new left wing view that they hold.

Also there is still a distinction between the left and right, even now.

Can you honestly say that Cohen believes in anything but a neo and socially conservative and economically liberal view of the world.

To be honest mate, can you honestly say you don't believe in the same things as Mrs T.

The funny thing is that Thatcherites, you and Cohen have won the arguments but I am too set in my ways to stop.

Also "he who should not be named" lumps every body who opposed the war in Iraq as anti American. I opposed the war and adore many things about America or Islamic fundamentalists.

knave
30 July 2008 at 13:09

Sorry the last sentence I meant to sya that Cohen always accuses anybody who disagrees with neo conservatives as Islamists or far lefties. I am neither

knave
30 July 2008 at 13:22

Also Jonnymac

The conservative party are lot more right wing than the current Labour Government, for all their faults.

There is no confusion about that

gnuneo
31 July 2008 at 19:39

""He also suggests in his book 'What's Left' that the prioritisation of single mothers for council housing "provides a perverse incentive for single motherhood" and says that "the liberal professionals of the welfare state were aggravating the poverty and racism they said they opposed".

Charles Murray stuff I would say"

Whether it's Charles Murray stuff or not, or the kind of the thing the Conservatives are more likely to say than the labour party, don't you think the important thing is whether it's true? And if it is true, then the prioritisation of single mothers for council housing was not in any meaningful sense a 'left-wing' policy, was it? - if by left-wing we mean focussed on helping relieve poverty. "

oh for the love of Gawd!

and cutting taxes on 'non-domiciles' makes being a non-domicile more attractive, cutting regulations on banking makes being a corrupt banker more attractive, restricting freedom-of-information over MPs accounts makes being a corrupt MP more attractive, deliberately under-valuing State assets before selling them off to multi-nationals made giving those ministers multi-million retirement handshakes by the same companies more attractive.

i dunno, personally i regard giving single mothers decent housing as being on a slightly higher moral plane than these other examples of 'incentivising', i find it more incredible (and revealing to the utmost degree), that the media tend to focus on the single mums, rather than high level political and corporate corruption.

sure, note it as a side-effect, but put it in the proper context, which is that ALL human actions have unintended as well as intended consequences, and then do the follow up - point out that the best way to ensure young women do not become 'single mums' to get housing, is to make affordable housing for ALL available, AND to ensure that young women have enough self-respect that they would not WANT to take this extremely hard path merely to be able to have decent housing.

a decent person would be horrified that a society has forced young women into this life of hardship (or do you imagine being a single mother is a life of roses?), and feel compassion for them, rather than bleat in a fascist fashion about unintended consequences, arguing for the ending of the absolute bottom social safety net!

and i simply cannot see how any SANE and RATIONAL person could argue therefore that cutting or ending benefits, such as this emergency net for single mothers, could possibly be a a method of "ending poverty", this is the kind of Randian Libertarianism that can only be followed once copious amounts of amphetamines have been ingested, to follow in the footsteps of Rand herself.

what kind of a cretin could possibly believe that ending benefits and dumping 2-3 MILLION people onto scavenging for low-paid work, could possibly end benefits and the 'poverty trap'?

there IS a problem with drugs in our societies, but it is fairly clear the worst aspect of it is not drunks on the streets, or happy ravers, but those over-paid snorters in various 'think-tanks' who can come up with this utter crap.

Jonny Mac
01 August 2008 at 10:03

Good rant, gnuneo. Quite how my point to knave re whether the more interesting and important question about Cohen's statement was whether it was true, rather than whether it was "tory" or "labour", is "fascist bleating" I'm not sure - you're certainly king of the straw men - but an entertaining rant nonetheless.

gnuneo
01 August 2008 at 22:00

i can see that logical structures deeper than one or two levels are far beyond you - not particularly surprising, considering your political position of choice.

to explain, i was re-contextualising Cohen's position, to give its wider implications - which are really quite simple, one can attack the policy of giving single mothers priority in housing as "incentives to become single mothers", as Cohen, this self-proclaimed 'leftist' claims, or one can see the failure of the society to provide decent, affordable housing for ALL as leading to this undesired outcome.

can you grasp that yet, or is it still too complicated for you? It is not a matter of "truth", but of perspective. Have you ever heard of a new-fangled philosophical position called "Post-Modernism", i realise its only been around for about a century, far too short a span for a neo-Victorian such as yourself, but perhaps you can drag yourself into the 20th century (..?), even though i realise the 21st is WAAAY beyond your capabilities, poor wee little fellow.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Is capitalism finished?