June 16, 2003

Oliver Kamm takes on Eric

Oliver Kamm takes on Eric Hobsbawm, historian, professor, Communist and author of this article originally published in Le Monde and excerpted in Saturday's Guardian.

Howbsbawm has some priceless quotable lines, like "theoretically the Americans do not aim to occupy the whole world," and "Iraq was a country that had been defeated by the Americans and refused to lie down." But Kamm wins, not least on the basis of this pointed and entirely fair observation:

The only acknowledgement I can find in the whole article that the US is not the root of all evil is the feeble and grudging assertion that:
There is a genuine case to be made that there are governments so bad that their disappearance will be a net gain for the world.

Quite so, Professor. And those of us who have read your recent memoir, Interesting Times, which depicts you political tergiversations over more than 50 years as a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain, will be aware that you have supported most of them.

Posted by Dr. Frank at June 16, 2003 07:38 AM | TrackBack
Comments

-Smack!-

Down, Comrade Professor! Isn't 50 years long enough to become aware of the existent reality of the matter? the truth of the matter? the insufficiency of communism? the bankruptcy of the USSR? the immorality of ANSWER?

No? -Smack!-

Posted by: Sharpshooter at June 16, 2003 02:07 PM

I heard that Hitchens got smacked down in a debate with this prof., actually.

Posted by: Aaron at June 17, 2003 08:43 AM

c'mon. maybe americans don't understand it but being a communist in great britain or italy or france it's not quite the same as being a communist in Cuba or in Russia. The parties are democratic and have nothing to do with "real" communism. Hobsbawm is a very respected historian and you should read a bit more than an interview to judge him and what he says, like the brilliant book "the 20th brief century"...

Posted by: quasimodo at June 18, 2003 05:47 PM

Sorry for taking H.'s name in vain, Quasimodo, but, respected though he may be, he was an apologist for, and a whitewasher of, Stalin and Soviet Communism right up till the end. A powerful intellect, perhaps, but one corrupted by ideology.

Posted by: Dr. Frank at June 18, 2003 06:23 PM