The Age of Revolution: 1789-1848

Modern History: The Four Ages #1

by Eric J. Hobsbawm

This magisterial volume follows the death of ancient traditions, the triumph of new classes, and the emergence of new technologies, sciences, and ideologies, with vast intellectual daring and aphoristic elegance. Part of Eric Hobsbawm's epic four-volume history of the modern world, along with The Age of Capitalism, The Age of Empire, and The Age of Extremes.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, European History, World History, Economics, 19th Century

413 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1962

About the author

Eric John Ernest Hobsbawm was a British historian of the rise of industrial capitalism, socialism and nationalism. His best-known works include his tetralogy about what he called the "long 19th century" (The Age of Revolution: Europe 1789–1848, The Age of Capital: 1848–1875 and The Age of Empire: 1875–1914) and the "short 20th century" (The Age of Extremes), and an edited volume that introduced the influential idea of "invented traditions". A life-long Marxist, his socio-political convictions influenced the character of his work.
Hobsbawm was born in Alexandria, Egypt, and spent his childhood mainly in Vienna and Berlin. Following the death of his parents and the rise to power of Adolf Hitler, Hobsbawm moved to London with his adoptive family. After serving in the Second World War, he obtained his PhD in history at the University of Cambridge. In 1998, he was appointed to the Order of the Companions of Honour. He was president of Birkbeck, University of London, from 2002 until his death. In 2003, he received the Balzan Prize for European History since 1900, "for his brilliant analysis of the troubled history of 20th century Europe and for his ability to combine in-depth historical research with great literary talent."

Reviews

[Luís · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Age of Revolutions 1789-1848 19th century

The British people developed the economy during the British Industrial Revolution, while the French Revolution influenced its politics and ideology. France initiated its revolutions and contributed its ideas, serving as the first example of nationalism by providing legal codes, technical and scientific organizational models, and metric measures for most countries.
This book was a product of the French Revolution, which was responsible for liquidating the Ancien Régime and consolidating the bourgeois order and the Capitalist System.

[Morgan Blackledge · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing:

Hobsbawm deconstructs the ‘great man’ hypotheses of history by redirecting the focus of his historical analysis on to the important underlying material and sociological processes.

In other words:

Rather than telling history from the lens of nation states, war and the important individuals who ‘made a difference’.

He follows the money, power, science, technology, politics, means of production and geopolitical dynamics.

More (or less) succinctly:

He renders the history of 1789-1848 in terms of:

- advances in science and technology
- industrialization
- migrations of the poor from rural to urban living
- subsequent popular uprisings
- the transition from feudalism to capitalism
- the transition from monarchy to socialism
- the race to colonialism

The big bullet points were:

- England industrialized first
- France revolted and invented total war
- America expanded
- German philosophy flourished
- Romanticism inspired
- India, Africa and China got mad exploited
- science and engineering progressed
- God died (unless you were poor)
- a lot of poor people starved
- and the WAY worse was yet to come

Hobsbawm is a Marxist.

But he’s an English Marxist.

So he’s more analytical and class conscious than dogmatic and politically pragmatic.

Like a good BBC period drama (e.g. Belgravia).

Hobsbawm expertly tells the intertwined story of the rural peasantry, urban poor, working class, aspiring middle class and monied gentry.

All interdependent, and all simultaneously gripped in a multi layered, three dimensional, bloody, exhausting, excruciating, king of the hill style existential competition, told at both the local and global level.

Why read this now?

I don’t 100% know.

But there is something super timely about all of it.

We are currently living in an age of perpetual innovation, novelty, disruption and savage high stakes competition.

In other words, revolution.

Instead of industrialization.

We are living in an informational economy now.

But working people are getting displaced and big money and power are changing hands none the less.

Instead of conservative aristocratic elites facing mobs of starving farmers and factory workers, we have liberal costal elites, rust belt wreckage, Jesus land gun cult militias, throngs of unemployed Uber drivers, Airbnb bourgeoisie, and a racially determined permanent urban underclass.

But people are rioting all them same.

Instead of handbills and manifestos we have twitter and Readit, but anyway you slice it, it’s all headless agitprop.

We need a bigger picture.

American political discourse is dysfunctional.

Let’s hope we can learn from history.

Otherwise.....

We’re stuck on this cranky carousel to hell 🎠.

[AC · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having read this first in 2011, I decided to read it again. I've learned a fair bit about the period since then, and so better appreciate the virtues and limits of this volume.

It contains a great deal of condensed analysis - hence it is rich, but often dry. It is also very British -- not only in its writing, but in its focus and biases. For all his Marxism, Hobsbawm was very much a bourgeois Brit.

There is also the business of Hobsbawm's defense of Stalinism. This is a very interesting clip - an interview with Michael Ignatieff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnd2P...

To rate it now is to give it 4-stars.

(Hard to imagine a better, more thoughtful, more thoroughly digested and original survey of a period which I wanted and needed to know much more about.)

[Julio The Fox · Rating 4 out of 5]

DEAR FRIENDS: I'M GOING ON HIATUS RATHER THAN SUBMIT MY REVIEWS FOR APPROVAL. THANKS FOR A THOUSAND GREAT MEMORIES. AU REVOIR! In this generation, nothing less than the future was at stake. Europeans from France to Hungary took it upon themselves to cast away the old and moldy, monarchies, religions, even language itself, and build new nations based on popular sovereignty. Eric Hobsbawm writes like a dream, has read the pertinent literature on the subject in all the European languages, and feels unrestrained enthusiasm for his topic. The French Revolutions remains the single most important event in modern history. The National Assembly over time adopted a republican form of government, separated church and state, abolished feudalism, granted religious liberty to Jews, Protestants and other minorities, ended the slave trade and slavery itself in the French Caribbean, and made all Frenchmen and women, regardless of station, religion or race, equal citizens before the law. Is it any wonder the revolutionary fever swept through Europe, and that all the old monarchies conspired to bury the Revolution in the cradle? 1848 was a replay of 1789, with the concatenation of revolutions from Italy to Hungary to Prussia; only Czarist Russia and the parliamentary democracy in England were spared. THE AGE OF REVOLUTION is a powerful start to Hobsbawm's tetralogy of volumes on Europe in flames from 1789 to 1991.

[Will · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is, I'm sure, an informative introduction to the interesting period between the first and second French Revolutions. But it reads like a lecture, which is to say, it goes for narrative at the expense of detail. The narrative is an interesting one, and Hobsbawm is evidently jumping-up-and-down thrilled to be sharing it with us, but I had hoped to learn more specifics.

For instance, there is a section on the arts in which the author asserts that artists of the early 18th century were typically committed to revolutionary politics, noting such examples as Beethoven, Goethe, and Percy Shelley (he might have included Stendhal as well). But he ignores the reactionary politics of others like Chateaubriand and Flaubert, and fails to tell us that these political commitments were often of a temporary nature. Most damningly, we read that Dostoyevski was incarcerated for his involvement. That's true enough, but it seems rather more important to me that the mature Dostoyevski denounced his earlier activities and wrote books denouncing revolutionaries as dangerous dreamers. This is the way in which Hobsbawm's "big picture" approach can distort the facts in order to fit them into the story.

Another disappointment is that the narrative largely ignores radical reformers prior to Marx and Engels. Mary Wollstonecraft, William Godwin, Thomas Paine, Olympe de Gouge, William Thompson, Thomas Hodgeskin, John Francis Bray, Goodwyn Barmby, and Ludwig Feuerbach receive no mention (though the Saint-Simonists and the utopians do receive their due). In eliding these figures from the account, the author misses the fascinating story of how the ideas of Locke, Rousseau, and the early economists developed, within decades of the French Revolution, into nearly all the critiques of social conditions that remain relevant to this day.

Another issue is that the account of the French Revolution does not dwell enough on the value of the Assignat during the turmoil, and the crucial role that this issue had in sustaining support for the Terror.

But I'm being insufficiently complimentary, probably -- I can only complain so much that Hobsbawm did not write the book that I would have written. He has nonetheless assembled a lot of information, and dispenses it ably. The book is a useful introduction to the subject.

[W.D. Clarke · Rating 5 out of 5]

Unsurpassed erudition and magisterial prose from an Olympian height herein commingle, and often, as in later chapters (see below), superpose to make for most uncommon reading.

He doesn't stoop to explain key concepts, does EJH (Chartism, Sans Culotte-ism, Garabaldinism, ...&c), or get into the weeds of key events or (thankfully) battles. The emphasis here is on the larger sweep of capital-H history, of wider social, political, economic, and cultural correlations which arise from our twinned revolutions, political and commercial, French and English—though he is most careful to appreciate and probe some of the nuances and ambiguities and even contradictions of those correlations than draw strict lines of causation, no "vulgar" Marxist he.

This is what the Man hath said:
history and culture
should as entwined be read

[...] outside the most obviously social sciences, it is unwise to put too much weight on such external influences. The world of thought is to some extent autonomous : its movements are, as it were, on the same historical wave-length as those outside, but they are not mere echoes of them [...] If developments in the field of the sciences parallel
those elsewhere, it is not because each of them can be hooked on to a corresponding aspect of economic or political ones in any simple way [...]

What determines the flowering or wilting of the arts at any period is still very obscure. However, there is no doubt that between 1789 and 1848 the answer must be sought first and foremost in the impact of the dual revolution. If a single misleading sentence is to sum up the relations of artist and society in this era, we might say that the French Revo­lution inspired him by its example, the Industrial Revolution by its horror, and the bourgeois society, which emerged from both, transformed his very existence and modes of creation.

I shall end by providing some admittedly lengthy examples of Hobsbawm at his most eloquent, some extended passages on Romanticism as well as what might be proleptically called 'Dickensian' England of the (vulgar) Utilitarians.

In fact, though I've had occasion in the past to read somewhat extensively in the critical literatures concerning the latter, I've never seen that ersatz-but-all-too-influential utilitarian (specifically Gradgrindian) spirit set down in print with such economy and verve before.

A posthumous bravo to the master, though he wants it not.
___________________________________

Here's EJH on the futility of that triumph of a certain Utility:
(GR making it small? Look here instead:https://i.imgur.com/vRv6gAr.jpg.jpg)


Here he is on Romanticism:
(https://i.imgur.com/k8fH1Vh.jpg)


And finally, it turns out the poets kinda sorta really are our unacknowledged something-ators, after all:

[Nikos Tsentemeidis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Εξαιρετικός ο Hobsbawm. Ειδικά για κάποιον που δεν έχει σπουδάσει ιστορία, μαθαίνει πολλά. Μια πολύ καλή περιληπτική εικόνα της εποχής 1789-1848, της Γαλλικής και της Βιομηχανικής επανάστασης, των πολέμων, της ειρήνης, της εκβιομηχάνισης, των γραμμάτων, των τεχνών, της κοινωνικής προόδου κτλ. Σπουδαίο βιβλίο, το πρώτο της τετραλογίας. Έχω διαβάσει και το δεύτερο της σειράς, Η εποχή του κεφαλαίου και τα θεωρώ απαραίτητη γνώση για όλους.

[tara bomp · Rating 4 out of 5]

The preface/introduction explicitly says that it's going to be a Eurocentric book focusing on France and Britain. Which is fair enough, although the title is a little dishonest - he only has limited space to cover an era of massive change and even though it's very disappointing not to see much about the rest of the world it's not surprising and at least it covers some stuff more in depth.

However, there's no excuse for stuff like this:

"There is much to be said for the enlightened and systematic despotism of the utilitarian bureaucrats who built the British raj in this period. They brought peace, much development of public services, administrative efficiency, reliable law, and incorrupt government at the higher levels. But economically they failed in the most sensational manner. Of all the territories under the administration of European governments, or governments of the European type, even including Tsarist Russia, India continued to be haunted by the most gigantic and murderous famines; perhaps—though statistics are lacking for the earlier period—increasingly so as the century wore on."

Praise for the British Raj in such terms is bad enough from a Marxist historian, but to put the praise and the fact of the atrocious famines they oversaw together makes it baffling. Surely this'd be a chance to point out the way the famines and the government were part of Britain profiting off Indian exploitation? But he doesn't go further. Kind of disconcerting.

However, I've rated 4 stars because 1) i feel this sort of thing is very hard to avoid in history books, and there's very little other unpleasant opinion in the book 2) keeping in mine the above biases, it's a really good overview of the period. Tries to cover general political history, scientific history, art history, economic history - obviously it does none comprehensively but it gives you a really good idea of where Europe particularly was at in the period and what sort of forces and ideas were involved in the changes that happened and makes me really want to learn more. Also seques perfectly into his next book, heh.

ooh also he wears his Marxism on his sleeve but there's no political polemic, it's just clear which biases inform his views

one small annoyance: quoting French, German etc without a translation. kind of useless for a lot of people

oh also someone just pointed out how little he talks about the haitian revolution, which is kind of a big thing to miss out - his Eurocentricism is really noticeable with stuff like that

[George · Rating 5 out of 5]

Μια φανταστική σειρά βιβλίων ιστορίας! Η περίοδος αυτή στο μυαλό μου ήταν λίγο πολύ άγνωστη εκτός από τα 2 βασικά γεγονότα της εποχής. Ο Hobsbawm αναλύει την Γαλλική επανάσταση, την βιομηχανική επανάσταση τις εξελίξεις τους και τα αποτελέσματα τους. Είναι φανταστική η επιρροή της Γαλλίας στην επαναστατική νοοτροπία αλλά και η επιρροή της Αγγλίας στις οικονομίες όλου του κόσμου θετικά αλλά και αρνητικά.

Ένα είναι βέβαιο, αυτή η περίοδος αλλαξε την ροή της ιστορίας και την εξέλιξη της.

[Maziyar Yf · Rating 2 out of 5]

عصر انقلاب اروپا نوشته اریک هابسپام اولین کتاب از سه گانه او ، عصر امپراتوری و عصر سرمایه هست که بیشتر وقایع قرن نوزدهم را بررسی می کند .
کتاب به دو انقلاب بسیار مهم قرن هیجدهم و نوزدهم یعنی انقلاب کبیر فرانسه و انقلاب صنعتی در انگلستان پرداخته که هر کدام جهان را به گونه متفاوت ولی بسیار اثرگذاری تغییر داده اند و شاید اثرات این دو انقلاب را امروز هم بتوان دید .
شاید پایه این کتاب فصل سوم یعنی انقلاب فرانسه باشد ، نویسنده از این فصل کمک می گیرد و مباحث بسیار زیادی از کتاب را بر مبنای ای فصل بیان می کند ، مانند برآمدن ناپلئون ، اصلاحات او ، جنگهای زمان او و سپس صلحهایی که به دلیل اجتناب از جنگ توسط قدرتهای اروپایی بسته شدند ، مثلا کشاورزانی که دیگر رعیت نبودند و خواستار تقسیم زمین اشراف شده بودند ، به موازات این حقوق اجتماعی و سیاسی و شاید حتی حقوق بشر ، نویسنده به انگلستان و لندن هم سری می زند و زندگی صنعتی شده و اثرات زندگی صنعتی را شرح می دهد ، عصری که نماد آن ماشین بخار است درست است که توان صنعتی و نظامی و قدرت حمل و نقل و شبکه راه آهن انگلستان را به شدت تقویت کرده اما زندگی کارگران را بسیار سخت تر هم کرده ، و کارخانه ها کارگران را به شدت استثمار می کنند ، خیابان های کثیف ، مه گرفته و بدون فاضلاب شهرهای انگلستان مانند لندن و منچستر شاهدی بر این عصر استثمار هستند و کتاب هایی مانند اولیور تویست و یا بینوایان کمی از زندگی فقرا را که عملا از طبقه کارگر بودند را شرح می دهد .
کتاب هم چنین به طور مفصل به تقویت اندیشه سکولاریسم در اروپا و محدود شدن مذهب به کلیسا پرداخته ، همین طور انقلابی که در هنرو انواع مختلف از نقاشی تا موسیقی و اپرا و نویسندگی به وجود آمده و همین طور انقلاب علمی که به مرکزیت انگلستان و فرانسه و سپس آلمان و ایتالیا و اثرات آن از جمله افزایش جمعیت و بالا بردن امید به زندگی و درمان بیماری های مختلف می پردازد .
کتاب در کل اثر نسبتا سنگینی هست و نوع نگاه نویسنده یک نگاه معمولی ، مثلا از نوع و جنس تاریخ نیست ، نویسنده بیشتر به اثرات پدیده ها می پردازد تا جایی که خواننده بتواند متوجه بشود که مثلا نحوه زندگی سکولار امروزه اروپا از کجا آمده است .
اما ترجمه فارسی کتاب هم به نوبه خود سخت است و کمک چندانی در فهم کتاب نکرده ، جاهایی ممکن است به نظر برسد که مترجمان لغت به لغت آنرا ترجمه کرده باشند و جملات کتاب مثلا به هم ارتباط یا هم بستگی معنایی نداشته باشند .

[Callum's Column · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Long Nineteenth Century started with dual revolutions: the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. French ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity swept through Europe and colonies in the Americas. It was both popularly and militarily driven. The power of the nation was contagious, and the wealth of nations required commerce. The Industrial Revolution fuelled this. Agrarian populations migrated to cities and often worked in destitute factories immortalised in Dickensian prose. However, inspired by French ideals, revolutions would erupt once more in 1848, the year that the "Communist Manifesto" was published.

"The Age of Revolution, 1789-1848" is a classic of historiography and the first volume in Hobsbawm's trilogy of the Long Nineteenth Century (1789-1914). Published in 1962, Hobsbawm employs a Marxian analytical framework. This bucked historical traditionalism of focusing on great men, and illuminated the working class and its pivotal role in shaping the modern era. Hobsbawm's prose is exquisite, and his analysis is rich. There is no doubt that I will revisit this book—and likely the entire trilogy—in the coming years. I have already read "The Age of Extremes, 1914-1991" and plan to read the rest in the coming months.

I write this at the conclusion of a chapter in a contemporary revolution: the Arab Spring. al-Assad's regime in Syria has fallen after 13 years of civil war. However, I do not think a stable nation state modelled on the dual revolutions is forthcoming. Turkey and Israel control Syrian territory, the Kurds control the North-East, the US has troops there, and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham—the militant group that toppled al-Assad—is a designated terrorist group by the United Nations. A new phase of the Syrian Civil War is likely. One tyranny appears about to be replaced with another, and the great game of international politics continues.

[Sense of History]

A real classic, without any doubt. I read this ages ago, so I'm not entitled anymore to make a substantive review on this one. All I remember is that it was an enticing read about a fascinating period in world history. But I guess it wouldn't hold up anymore, being published in 1962, as the first in the great series of Hobsbawm on the 19th Century. For nostalgia's sake, still 3 stars.

[Maura Gancitano · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un capolavoro, aiuta a comprendere cosa è accaduto dalla Rivoluzione Francese ai moti del ‘48 e a collegare fatti, scoperte, opere. Un libro preziosissimo.

[Hesam]

متاسفانه ترجمه جوریه که امکان به اتمام رساندن کتاب رو ناممکن کرده...

[Kuszma · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hjaj, de szeretem én az ilyen könyveket. Amelyek képesek bemutatni egy korszakot, mintha az a Történelem Köldöke lenne, események és eszmék kevercse, amelyből a XXI. század úgy szökkent szárba, mint egy virág, egy krumpli vagy egy parlagfű. (A kívánt rész aláhúzandó.) Hobsbawm kötete pont ilyen: okos, sokrétegű, inspiráló elemzés az 1789 és 1848 közötti időszakról, amely a szerző értelmezésében felszámolta mindazt, ami addig volt, és új lapot nyitott. Persze mi magyarok talán úgy vagyunk vele, hogy '48-at elbuktuk, jött Haynau, a hiéna, no és a Szent Szövetség, szóval olyan nagyot nem profitáltunk a dologból, de nincs igazunk: bár a reakció ideiglenesen eltaposta a parazsat, valójában veszített, csak még nem vette észre. Mert a változások a felszín alatt visszafordíthatatlanok voltak.



Hobsbawm a „kettős forradalom” elméletéből indul ki. Az egyik Angliában formálódott, és ipari forradalom a böcsületes neve. Ez a folyamat teljesen átalakította a gazdaságot, nem csak a technikai fejlődés tekintetében, hanem gyakorlatilag minden szinten – beleértve az emberi gondolkodást is. Fajunk ugyanis fennállása óta tulajdonképpen először érezhette úgy, hogy a határ a csillagos ég, a természet pedig nem ura, hanem szolgája. A hihetetlen ipari fejlődés hihetetlen pénzbőséget eredményezett, felbontotta az arisztokrácia és a klérus monopóliumát, új, addig nem is létező osztályok számára nyitotta meg az érvényesülés útját. Persze ahogy Schumpeter is mondta, teremtés nincs rombolás nélkül, szóval volt, aki ráfaragott. Az ipari fejlődés ugyanis Angliában csak azért lehetett lehetséges, mert a lakosság zömét alkotó agrárnépességnek baromi rosszul ment a sora, és az éhhalál szélén tántorgott. Ezért volt hajlamos arra, hogy szerencsét próbáljon a gyárakban, soha ki nem fogyó munkaerőt biztosítva az iparnak*. Ez pedig egyfelől azzal járt, hogy a tradicionális életformák erodálódtak, ráadásul a munkásság a városokban olyan körülmények közé került, amely – meglehet – sokkal rosszabb (részben mert gy��kértelenebb) volt, mint apái élete. Amiről elég Dickenst megkérdezni.


(Ez is füstöl. Csak máshogy.)

De most ugorjunk át a franciákra. Mert ha London vállalta a forradalom ipari részét, hát Párizs tett róla, hogy legyen a dolgoknak politikai vetülete is. Az 1789-es események elképzelhetetlenek lettek volna az ipari forradalom nélkül, ám valamilyen szinten kiteljesítették azt: megmutatták, hogy az a homályos, körvonalazatlan aktor, akit „népnek” nevezünk, nagyon is valóságos, és akarattal bír. És ha ennek az akaratnak a királyok az útjába állnak, akkor nagyon durci tud lenni. A Bastille elfoglalásától Napóleon bukásáig terjedő mozgalmas huszonegynéhány év földcsuszamlásszerű politikai változásokat hozott: bebizonyította, hogy az ún. „uralkodó osztályok” nem törvényszerűen, Isten rendeléséből azok, akik, hanem bizony behelyettesíthetők másokkal. Ez pedig olyan tapasztalatnak bizonyult, ami kitörölhetetlenül beleégett a társadalom tudatába, és idővel megszülte a demokráciát**. Mégpedig pont azért, mert sikeressége tagadhatatlan volt: ahogy Napóleon mozgósítani tudta egy eszme segítségével egész Franciaországot, gyakorlatilag elsöpörve az ócska, agg európai monarchiákat, jelezte, van mit tanulni tőle. Mert aki nem tanul, az bizony lemarad. És bár végül a Császárt legyűrték, de amíg ő Szent Ilonán nyaralt, vívmányai (a Polgári Törvénykönyv éppúgy, mint az általános sorozás rendszere) egyre több államban teret nyertek.

A kötet nagy erénye, hogy a két eseményt egymással folyamatos kölcsönhatásban lévő entitásként mutatja be, amelyek folyton folyvást megtermékenyítették egymást, így szülve újabb és újabb világformáló ideákat. Marx például ugyanúgy merített a francia forradalomból, mint az ipari forradalom liberális gurujának, Ricardónak a munkaérték-elméletéből – a kettő elegye pedig a Kommunista Kiáltvány lett. Vagy beszélhetünk a mi Pefőfinkről is, aki ugyanúgy el volt ájulva a vasúttól (az ipari forradalom eme zászlóshajójától), mint attól, hogy „Lamberg szívében kés, Latour nyakán kötél”. Persze hogy mindezek után hatalmas kezdett-e végre lenni a nép, azon lehet vitatkozni. Mindenesetre én azt mondom, hogy amikor Kövér László visszasírja a francia forradalom előtti időszakot, akkor valószínűleg azt vizionálja, hogy ő valami nemesi kúriában terpeszkedett volna csibukozva, a zacsiját vakarva (pont mint most), nem pedig jobbágyként a földet túrja, látástól vakulásig. Pedig hát statisztikailag sanszos, hogy utóbbit dobta volna neki a gép. Ahogy valószínűleg nekünk is.

* Jellemző, hogy ahol ahol a parasztság relatíve jól élt (pl. Franciaországban), ott az ipar nem tudott olyan jól teljesíteni. Ami részben megmagyarázza, miért is maradtak le a gallok az angolokkal folytatott ipari versenyfutásban - azzal együtt, hogy feltalálóik semmivel sem voltak alábbvalóak a szigetország lángelméinél. És – némileg kitekintve – azt is érdemes megjegyezni, hogy a mezőgazdaságból élők nyomora kivándorlók millióit űzte el otthonról, ami meg is ágyazott az amerikai sikertörténetnek.
** És megszült számtalan más eszmét is: a nacionalizmust éppúgy, mint a szocializmust, a romantikát éppúgy, mint a biedermeiert. Amelyekről Hobsbawm nagy kedvvel beszél.

[Kaelan Ratcliffe ▪ كايِلان راتكِليف]

Toward an Industrial World

I feel I have to explain the lack of a star rating for this review. Skip to the fourth paragraph if you dont want to read about goodread users review framework.

I've seen far too many reviews on goodreads of books in which the reviewers make a statement of how they "didn't like this novel; the author divulged too much" or, "I found it to be overally dull and difficult to read". In other words, the reviewer has chosen to place their personal opinion over and above engaging their mental faculties to ascertain whether what they have just read will be useful to others. The reason I make mention of this is because it creates bombastic review sections on goodreads (something I take seriously when looking to see whether a new book I'm going to read has a decent review average), in which individuals have entirely refused to look introspectivly at whether it was perhaps their own reading environment, and experience, that affected their overall opinion. The sheer amount of books I've looked at with a five star review, followed by a one star review, followed by a five star review, followed by a___ It's simply stupifying to behold.

A thought. Did the reader expect the book to be easier when going in? Was the subject matter different to what was originally anticipated? Was their background knowledge of the topic in a dissatisfactory place to begin reading this book? Were they unable to find time to read it properly, and subsequently was the book left for a long period of time only to be picked up again a month later (which, of course, would result in a further schism in said readers positive reading experience of said book)? Was the book actually an 'in-between' book that was meant to be read quite quickly to make room for other reads (and subsequently overstayed it's welcome as a result)?

Every single point made above happened during my reading experience with this book. Was this Hobsbawms fault? To a large extent the answer is no. However, the list above is far from exhaustable, and many reviewers may choose to rate a book lowly as a result of their poor reading experience. And perhaps they're correct. Maybe whatever they're reviewing really is a universally poorly written piece of work. Or maybe - more likely - said book (and this applies SO heavily to non-fiction / historical based work) just wasn't the right fit for the reader, and despite a rough read, the reviewer could think of a few other people who might like said books particular style more than the reviewer themselves. As I read more and more, I find less and less reasons to rate a book lowly. Unless a text has proven to be full of lies, or awfully written in general, there may be something worth passing on to others, despite a person's own distaste of a work. Sharing of knowledge is more important than our own little nags, and you'd be surprised how much your own environment and state of mind affects your reading process. Case and point: my experience reading this book. My outside environmental issues became such an impediment to my enjoyment of this work, that I simply feel my bias is too overwhelming, and a star review too subjective. It's of course impossible to omit bias entirely, but checking them should be of the utmost importance. I certainly know I failed to do it in some of my previous reviews, and this book - if it's given me anything it's this - has been a lesson in bias checking.

However, I digress; on to the review. As mentioned above, I had a rough ride with this book. The process went as follows:

1. Read in intense 30 minute confused bursts, not feeling like I was taking anything in.
2. Come away from said session feeling intellectually stimulated in a weird way, feeling as though reading more will yield a better result.
3. Forget 95% of what was just read the next day.
4. Repeat.

There's no way to describe this work considering my difficulty with it was so impeding. The best thing I can do is make some points below for people who I think WOULD like this book:

- Data nerds. Love data and history? Go nuts with this. The chapter on "Land" is a real treat.
- Like nuance? This book has an abundance of it. People couldn't quite feel one way, yet neither the other way in the 19th century according to Hobsbawm. It was mildly frustrating to me but I know other readers will enjoy the devilish details.*
- Like well defined chapters that compress history? Hobsbawms done the work. Each chapter is divided very precisely into different aspects of the world at the time, and Hobsbawms done all the rough research so you don't have to.
- Left leaning history. It's most certianly not right-leaning, and the vast majority of the book is dedicated to talking about the proto-prolitariat in various ways.

The only thing I will say is that I had a similar vibe reading this as I did with Hannah Arendts Origins of Totalitarianism. I feel Hobsbawm was trying to weave together a picture of history that injected the thoughts and feelings of Europe at the time into the pages of this book. As such, this automatically makes it a difficult read. Not to mention his scholarly writing style and tone. On the topic of him being a die hard communist, (even with the knowledge of Stalin's atrocities), I found I didn't mind that so much as I did his obvious sitting in society when penning this book out. The man was a socialist but he writes like a moderate liberal of his time. Other reviews on here will give you a good idea of this, and I won't copy and paste what I agree with here.

I still find myself confused as to what makes this stand out from other historical novels. It's clearly up my street seeing as I love history from a birds eye, wide view. Yet, I can't pin it's purpose. Hobsbawm doesn't just account the events in The Age of Revolution chronologically, and neither does he make a book with a strong opinion on whether the world was better or worse at the time (oh god, I'm starting to sound like him now), he remains balanced, yet distastefully distant from those who he talks of in the middle and upper classes of the years 1789-1845, and he seems to reserve true negativity for individuals rather than whole movements (apart from the "primitive man" movement) which baffled me in some places. It truly was a confusing read for me. Perhaps a second read when I'm older will reveal this to me like aged wine.

Yet, I do feel I will finish the remaining three of this series at some point. There's a uniqueness to Mr. Hobsbawms style that I find myself mildly addicted to. Perhaps you'll find this too if you decide to pick this up. . .

*Something I actually thinks missing from the world today more than ever, and something I support for being in books for the most part. But there's a balance. Sometimes there's such a thing as too much nuance if that even makes sense.

[Jonfaith · Rating 4 out of 5]

The gods and kings of the past were powerless before the businessmen and steam-engines of the present.

Hobsbawm's survey of these twin explosions (French revolution, Industrial revolution) is a much more melodious affair than I had imagined. The material is addressed in an almost symphonic manner: capitalism and its counterpoint. The teetering aristocracy sees France go bankrupt defending our wee American democracy. The involvement of moderates is crucial as they alone weren't burdened with the legacies of the French Revoluitonary excesses: all subsequent revolutions pause at this point, considering the penchant for Terror. Discontent and technological advances chart a new course and the question soon enough becomes, what to do with the surplus population? This largely the story of Britain and France. Greater Europe becomes central to the text with the arrival of Napoleon. Asia and the USA don't feature much and the rest of world hardly at all.

[Omar Kassem · Rating 4 out of 5]

بيبلّش من فكرتين أساسيتين: الثورة الفرنسية يلي فجّرت الوضع السياسي بأوروبا، والثورة الصناعية يلي قلبت البنية الاقتصادية والاجتماعية من تحت لفوق. بس الزلمة ما عم يشوفهن كحادثين منفصلين، هو شايفهن كـ"توأم"، اشتغلوا سوا، وغيّروا كل شي: كيف الناس بتعيش، كيف بتفكر، شو بتشتغل، كيف بتشوف حالها والعالم.

يعني من الآخر، الثورة ما كانت بس بالشارع، كانت جوّا كل بيت، بكل مصنع، بكل عقل.

اللي بيميز هالكتاب عن غيره، إنك ما بتحس حالك عم تقرأ شي متحجّر أو جامد. لا، هوبزباوم بيحكيك كأنك شريك بالنقاش، وبيفصّللك كيف تغيّرت أوروبا خطوة بخطوة: من زمن الملوك والفلاحين، لزمن المصانع والمدن والطبقات. بيورجيك كيف الناس لأول مرة صار عندها شي اسمه "هوية وطنية"، كيف صاروا يحكوا عن "الأمة"، وعن "الحقوق"، وعن "الشعب"، وكأن هالمفاهيم كانت نايمة وصحيت فجأة.

الشي الحلو كمان إنه ما بيحكي عن السياسة والاقتصاد بس، لا، بيفوت على الفن، على الموسيقى، على اللبس، على طريقة التفكير. يعني، لما يشرح كيف المصانع غيّرت وقت الناس، بتصير تفهم ليش حتى المدارس صار إلها نظام صارم، وليش الحياة صارت تنقاس بالدقايق والساعات مش بالفصول والمواسم متل قبل.

واللي لازم ينذكر، إنو مع إنو هوبزباوم مركز على أوروبا، بس بتحس بأثر كل هالتغيرات على باقي العالم. يعني هو ما قالك شو صار بالوطن العربي أو آسيا، بس فيك تشوف بين السطور إنو هالعالم كله كان عم ينطبخ بهالمرحلة، وكل شي صار بعدين من استعمار، وحركات تحرر، وولادة دول، إله جذور بهالسنين اللي بيحكي عنها الكتاب.

واللغة تبعو، يعني... بسيطة بس مو سطحية. تقيلة بس مو مملة. جُمَله فيها نَفَس، والأفكار ماشية بسلاسة، بتحس حالك عم تقرا نص فكري ممتع مو مجرد كتاب تاريخ.

[Memduh Er · Rating 5 out of 5]

Benim için "Yılın kitabı!"

Kitaba da Hobsbawn'a da hayran olmamak mümkün değil!

Belki daha detaylı bir şeyler yazarım daha sonra, ama şimdi okuduklarımın tadını çıkarmakla meşgulüm :)

Sadece şunu söyleyebilirim, kitap kesinlikle (benim sinir olduğum ama) genellikle "Tarih okumayı severim" dendiğinde bahsi geçen tarih kitaplarından değil. Neredeyse hiç veri yok, yani şu savaş şu tarihte oldu, şununla şunun arasında oldu, sonuçta şu anlaşma imzalandı, buna göre şu devlet şu kadar toprak kaybetti, şu kadar tazminat ödedi, vs vs gibi şeyler bekliyorsanız, öyle bir tarih kitabı değil.

Bunları zaten bildiğini, en azından öneminden haberdar olduğunu varsayıyor Hobsbawn. Onun yaptığı daha çok 1789 - 1848 arasında (belki biraz da öncesinde) var olan siyasi, dini, askeri, ekonomik, ideolojik, sosyal, vb durumları, bu durumların aralarındaki  ilişkileri, tarihsel evrimlerini ve etkilerini de gözden kaçırmadan yorumlamak.

Bu nedenle de dönemle daha önce bir ilginiz olmadıysa çok anlamlı olmayabilir. (Benzer durum ilk denememde, ki bundan neredeyse 20 yıl öncesinden bahsediyorum, benim başıma geldi ve kitabı, daha ilk bölümlerinde bırakmış oldum) Öte yandan, özellikle 19. yüzyıl felsefesiyle, bilimiyle, sosyal hareketleriyle, ideolojileriyle çok ilgili biri olmama rağmen, kitabı çok mu iyi anladım şimdi? Alakası yok! Ama anladığım kadarı bile öyle bir aydınlattı ki yolumu, daha fazlasını isteyeni çarpar Allah :)) Ayrıca 10 sene sonra tekrar okumamı engelleyen bir şey olmadığın düşündükçe de seviniyor insan.

Ez cümle, çok da gözünüz korkmasın, en kötü okudukça gider bakar, sonra devam edersiniz.

Muhteşem bir eser! Sakın kaçırmayın!

[Tanabrus · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un libro diviso in due parti, che erroneamente potrebbe far pensare a una parte dedicata alla Rivoluzione Francese e una a quella industriale.
Invece la divisione è tra ciò che accadde in quegli anni (la situazione di partenza, la rivoluzione francese e le onde che si propagarono in tutta Europa, la rivoluzione industriale e i cambiamenti che ha portato nel mondo) e le conseguenze di tutto ciò, ovvero la situazione globale alla fine del cinquantennio in oggetto. Situazione a livello politico, economico, filosofico, sociale, tecnologico...

Delle due parti ho apprezzato maggiormente la seconda, più focalizzata rispetto alla prima che però, a onor del vero, era anche la più problematica: non era un'impresa facile raccontare quei decenni con i due tipi differenti di rivoluzione che si sono verificati nel contempo, in ambiti differenti e influenzando pressoché tutto ciò che esisteva.

La cosa che però non mi ha entusiasmato della prima parte è stato il dare per scontata una notevole conoscenza pregressa di tutti gli avvenimenti storici trattati: le fasi e i personaggi della Rivoluzione Francese, i moti europei, le campagne napoleoniche, la politica britannica... diciamo che questa lettura mi ha messo la voglia di approfondire certe cose, pur comunque riuscendo nel suo intento di dare un quadro generale e di mostrare come la contemporanea azione delle due rivoluzioni abbia modificato il mondo e gettato le basi per gli sconvolgimenti futuri.

[Shane · Rating 5 out of 5]

This three part series by Eric Hobsbawm is indispensable for understanding the modern world. After having read these three books, and this one in particular, I see my former self as so innocent and provincial. How could I have gone through life without understanding the industrial revolution and its interplay with the French Revolution, or European reaction, or the Napoleonic wars, or the revolutions throughout the first part of the 19th century, or the onset of imperialism, or how all of those things impacted art and science? Hobsbawm can have a be a bit too much of a Marxist view of history for me at times, but overall, I'd say these three books are the most important history books I've ever read.

[Sotiris Karaiskos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Άλλη μία από τις αναγνωστικές παραλείψεις μου αυτό εδώ το βιβλίο. Ήθελα, βέβαια, να το διαβάσω αλλά λίγο δίσταζα φοβούμενος μήπως πρόκειται για κάτι "βαρύ" που απευθύνεται περισσότερο σε ειδικούς. Τελικά αφού το διάβασα διαπίστωσα ότι αν και δεν είναι ένα συμβατικό ιστορικό έργο και σίγουρα είναι αρκετά περίπλοκο και απαιτεί ο αναγνώστης να έχει κάποιες βασικές γνώσεις, στην πραγματικότητα είναι κάτι αρκετά κατανοητό που αναλύει με σαφή τρόπο από πολιτική σκοπιά όλα αυτά που συνέβησαν σε αυτήν τη χρονική περίοδο με την οποία ασχολείται. Μπορώ, δηλαδή, να επιβεβαιώσω αυτό που πιστεύουν πολλοί ότι πρόκειται για ένα από τα σπουδαιότερα ιστορικά βιβλία που γράφτηκαν ποτέ.

[Jorge · Rating 4 out of 5]

A veces la única forma de asimilar todo cuanto sucede o todo cuanto haya sucedido en el mundo sólo se puede dar cuando lo vemos plasmado “blanco sobre negro”, es decir, sobre un papel donde una sabia pluma actúa como guía y es solamente entonces cuando lo procesamos y asimilamos en toda su dimensión. Sin duda para mí este ha sido el caso al leer este libro.

El análisis que hace Eric Hobsbawm acerca de la génesis y consecuencias que trajo consigo la “doble revolución”, refiriéndose con este término a la Revolución Francesa y a la Industrial, me ha proporcionado una nueva visión de lo que es el mundo actualmente o más bien he podido comprender un poco más los caminos que ha tomado la humanidad para llegar al estado de cosas actual.

Sin duda se trata de un libro muy valioso, escrito por un reconocido intelectual e historiador inglés contemporáneo quien murió recientemente en el año 2012. Sin embargo pienso que el análisis que hace está destinado a un grupo de lectores con ciertos conocimientos del tema o por lo menos con un grado de familiaridad sobre algunos términos y hechos que el autor trae a la palestra una y otra vez con gran soltura. Aunado a lo anterior, considero que su estilo de redacción es letrado, incluso erudito, caracterizado por frases largas, muy largas que desparraman ideas y conocimientos brillantes aquí y allá y que a veces se nos vienen como un torbellino.

El tema principal del libro es expuesto por Hobsbawm a través de sus vastos conocimientos en la materia mismos que desarrolla brillantemente durante su exposición de cómo la Revolución Francesa y la Revolución Industrial marcaron el destino de la civilización actual. A partir de entonces y de manera exponencial el mundo observa una dinámica totalmente diferente en todos sentidos cuyo embrión y fuerza fueron estos acontecimientos.

Las ideas que expone el autor son densas y profundas, desarrolladas prolijamente a lo largo y ancho de cada página, lo que hace que de entrada visualmente se haga pesada la lectura al no haber divisiones de párrafos o separaciones importantes que nos permitan un descanso a nuestro atribulado entendimiento que se esfuerza de manera titánica por asimilar todos los asertos que nos proporcionan los amplísimos conocimientos de Eric Hobsbawm.

El libro por momentos se vuelve pesado y hasta extenuante y nos requiere un esfuerzo mental constante. Creo que no fue un libro para mí, sin embargo reconozco en todo lo que vale los conocimientos del autor de los cuales pude aprender algo y llegar a comprender un poquito más el desarrollo del mundo hasta nuestra época actual. Me permitió entender ciertos eventos y valorar sus consecuencias. Se trata de un análisis lleno de congruencia, cohesión y minuciosidad que seguramente lo disfrutarán aún más los iniciados en el tema.

En un sólo párrafo el autor te puede hacer viajar de Francia a Inglaterra y de ahí a Bélgica, para pasar de inmediato a Brasil o Serbia, tocando temas casi simultáneamente de política, economía, producción textil, artes, geología, religión y otros. Todo esto adosado y sustentado con cifras y citas.

Su documentado y prolijo análisis nos provee de innumerables datos y minuciosos detalles que, en mi caso, al no conocer el contexto en su totalidad no me permitió contrastarlos adecuadamente, lo que finalmente me llevó a no poder dimensionar en su real valía el libro. Esta obra forma parte de un todo conformado por 4 tomos que analiza la historia del mundo hasta el siglo XX. Este volumen comprende del año 1789 al 1848.

Como reflexión podemos mencionar, no sin que se nos contraiga el corazón, que la historia nos reitera cuál es la estrella que gobierna los destinos del ser humano en lo individual y por lo tanto en la sociedad: el interés personal. Y más aún se nos contrae el corazón al reflexionar sobre los arduos y azarosos caminos que ha recorrido la humanidad para tratar de allanar el camino en favor de una mayor igualdad, situación que no sólo no se ha logrado sino que ha profundizado las brechas de inequidad. Esos caminos están llenos de dolor, explotación y humillación para los oprimidos.

Por otra parte el autor analiza cómo de esos caminos surgió una clase capitalista que explota al proletariado de manera inhumana y que además, esa clase capitalista, se arroga el derecho de gobernar al mundo. Parece ser algo inevitable; o es la Monarquía o son los grandes capitalistas, o los líderes socialistas y su grupo quienes serán los opresores de la humanidad. La forma de oprimir al pueblo cambia de forma y de nombre.

Los grandes excedentes de dinero producidos por las ganancias de la industrialización crearon una clase capitalista que a su vez tuvo su contrapartida en una población pobre y cada vez más hambrienta y en mayor número.

Pero en fin, el libro no nos habla únicamente de economía y política ya que Eric Hobsbawm abarca espléndidamente todos los campos del conocimiento y actividad humana, así como su desarrollo y consecuencias para la humanidad en artes, ciencias, religión, movimientos obreros, agricultura, etc.

Una de Las grandes lecciones que me llevo de esta colosal obra es que sin duda la historia es una sucesión lógica de hechos, factores y consecuencias, tan lógica en su materialización que no somos capaces de advertirla con algo de anticipación.

[Makmild · Rating 5 out of 5]

เป็นเล่มที่บอกตรงๆ เลยว่า อ่านยากสัดๆ คือ ไม่ได้อ่านยากในแง่อ่านไม่รู้เรื่อง แต่เป็นการอ่านยากเพราะเล่าหลายเรื่องแล้วกระโดดไปกระโดดมา แต่ก็เข้าใจได้ เพราะในเล่มกำลังอธิบายสิ่งที่ "อาจจะเป็นต้นตอ" ของความเปลี่ยนแปลงมหาศาลต่อมนุษย์ในอนาคต และจากอุบัติครั้งนี้ก็ได้ส่งผลสืบเนื่องมาจนถึงปัจจุบันนี้ สิ่งนั้นจะเป็นอะไรไปได้ ถ้าไม่ใช่ทุนนิยม

"ทุนนิยม" ไม่ได้มีตัวตนแน่ชัดก่อนศตวรรษที่ 18 (แต่จำไม่ได้แน่ๆ ว่าคำว่า Capitalism มีความหมายแบบที่ว่ามาตั้งแต่เมื่อไร มันอาจจะไม่ได้มีวันที่กำหนดแน่ชัด เหมือนที่เราก็ยังจำกัดความ "ทุนนิยม" ได้อย่างไม่ชัดเจนนัก) แต่ในช่วงเวลา 1789-1848 นั้นเกิดเหตุการณ์หลายอย่างที่ส่งให้เกิดผลอีกล้านอย่างขึ้นมา ทั้งการเมืองที่เปลี่ยนไป ทั้งเศรษฐกิจที่เปลี่ยนแปลง เทคโนโลยีต่างๆ ที่มีการพัฒนา เมื่อสิ่งเหล่านี้ถูกผลิตขึ้นมา สังคมเองก็ถูกเปลี่ยนหน้าไปตามสิ่งที่เกิดขึ้น หรือเราจะพูดได้ว่า สังคมเป็นคนเปลี่ยนหน้ายุคสมัย บางทีมันอาจจะเกิดขึ้นพร้อมๆ กัน และนั่นทำให้มันยากต่อการอธิบายถึงสิ่งต่างๆ เพราะมันคือเรื่องของมนุษย์

หนังสือแบ่งออกเป็นสองส่วนใหญ่ๆ บทแรกคือ "เหตุ" บทที่สองคือ "ผล" โดยแต่ละบทใหญ่ก็มีบทแยกย่อยลงไปอีก เราได้รู้เรื่องประวัติศาสตร์ใหม่ๆ ค่อนข้างเยอะ เช่นอย่างเรื่อง Great Irish Famine ที่เป็นภัยพิบัติคร่าชีวิตมนุษย์ใหญ่ที่สุดในประวัติศาสตร์ยุโรป (เฉพาะช่วงที่ศึกษา ไม่ได้นับรวมสงครามต่างๆ ที่ตามมาจากนั้น) ซึ่งสิ่งที่เขียนในหนังสือเล่มนี้มันเป็น fact จนเราจินตนาการยุคสมัยนั้นไม่ออกว่าเป็นยังไง จนต้องโน้ตไว้ว่าต้องไปหานิยายในช่วงเวลานี้มาอ่านว่ามันเกิดอะไรขึ้น และคนยุคนั้นเป็นยังไงกันแน่ ซึ่งในส่งบทหลังคือ "ผล" ก็มีเขียนบอกเอาไว้ว่าศิลปิน นักเขียนในยุคนั้นคือใครบ้าง และได้รับอิทธิพลต่อเหตุการณ์ต่างๆ ที่เกิดขึ้นอย่างไรอีกด้วย

น่าเสียดายสำหรับเราที่อ่านแล้วไม่ได้ทำสรุปแต่ละบทเอาไว้ (มันเหนื่อยน่ะ แค่อ่านก็เหนื่อยแล้ว) เพราะพออ่านบทหลังๆ ก็ลืมบทแรกๆ แล้วว่าว่ายังไงบ้าง จริงๆ แล้วเราอาจจะไม่ได้เข้าใจสิ่งที่หนังสือบอกอะไรมากนักก็ได้ แค่อ่านๆ ไป จริงเริ่มอ่านก็เพราะรู้สึกว่ายุคสมัยที่เราอยู่ในปัจจุบัน (2023) มันกำลังเกิดการเปลี่ยนแปลงครั้งใหญ่ที่เราก็ไม่รู้อนาคตว่ามันจะเปลี่ยนไปในรูปแบบไหนเหมือนกันเลยอ่านหนังสือที่ว่าด้วยความเปลี่ยนแปลงแบบนี้ ซึ่งมันก็ดีแปลกประหลาดอย่างย้อนแย้ง

ความย้อนแย้งที่เราเห็นคือ ในช่วงปี 1789-1848 เป็นช่วงที่มีอัตราการเกิดสูง เทคโนโลยีเกิดใหม่เยอะ ทิศทางการเมืองเปลี่ยนแปลง (จากระบบฟิลดัลไปสู่ยุคอุตสาหกรรม) และระบบทุนนิยมกำลังก่อร่างสร้างตัว ส่วนในช่วงปี 2010-2023 (หรืออาจจะก่อนหน้า 2010 ไม่ได้ดูสถิติแน่ชัดมา) อัตราการเกิดของประชาชนกำลังลดน้อยถอยลง เทคโนโลยี ที่ใหม่แบ��โอโห เหมือนยุคศตวรรษที่ 18 อาจจะไม่ได้เกิดขึ้น แต่เป็นการต่อยอดจากอดีตเพื่อพัฒนาสิ่งต่างๆ (แต่เราก็ไม่มั่นใจอีก เพราะไม่ได้อยู่ในแวดวงเทคโนโลยี) การเมืองการปกครองแบบประชาธิปไตยโดนสั่นคลอน ไม่ต้องพูดถึงเศรษฐกิจที่เป็นทุนนิยมสุดขั้ว แต่อัตราการเติบโตของเศรษฐกิจกำลังชะงักงัน (ตัวเลข gdp หลายประเทศไม่เติบโตมาหลายปีแล้ว) เราคิดเอาเองว่าตอนนี้เรากำลังอยู่ในช่วงเปลี่ยนผ่านอะไรสักอย่าง แต่ไม่รู้ว่ามันจะเปลี่ยนผ่านอะไรไปสู่อะไร และการอ่านอดีตอาจจะไม่ได้ช่วยอะไรให้เรารู้อนาคตขึ้น แต่อย่างน้อยก็ได้เข้าใจว่าปัจจุบันมันดำเนินมาถึงจุดนี้อย่างไร

[Hadrian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reread.

Hobsbawm is an engaging historian. I've heard him described as a Marxist or a small-c Communist, but at least in this overview, his look at the late 18th and early 19th century, I see more of a close reading of historical sources, a broad command of factual evidence, and clearly laying out of what he believes - inviting challenges or historical debate. If I had to make a comparison, he'd be more of the French Annales school - he looks at societies and institutions, but in a longer view. Maybe it's because I haven't gotten to his work on the 20th century yet that his biases have not become overpowering.

Still has its missing links - the work has its gaps outside of Europe and I did find some major factual errors on China, but this was still an enjoyable overview.

[Caroline]

Listened to the Tantor audio version, just recorded in 2020. Workmanlike reading, adequate but not impelling. But Hobsbawm himself is very worthwhile. The first third or so, covering the broad political events, was pretty much a rehash of known events for me. The thematic chapters that follow (arts, science, etc) are much more useful.

[Juan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was both challenging and very interesting, not only because it deals with an immensely dense and troublesome era, but because of the way it is dealt with: in an structured manner and with the sensible rigorousness only a great historian like E. Hobsbawn is able to achieve.
You should know upfront that this is not an easy book, mainly because it is about things that are definitely not easy, but especially because writing history is not an easy thing. Listing facts is easy, but working out the relations between them and laying them out for the reader is hard. The process involves a lot of going back and forward, and that’s where the structure of the book is really helpful, for it makes it easier to focus and draw relations for the reader. This book is really well structured, and that is a plus, a big one. On the other hand, the narration of the book is far from great. I wouldn’t say it is bad, but it definitely could be better. Long and sometimes complicated sentences are the main problem.
I must warn the reader that some previous knowledge (not too much, but definitely some) is required, otherwise the long sentences will be intolerable and you may find yourself constantly stopping your reading to search for a term or a name; a terrible reading experience. Even if you already know more than a thing about the theme you will most certainly feel the necessity to find out more about an opera, a book or an author cited in the book.
This book is more about the how than the what; it will show you the bigger picture of the 1789 – 1848 era in the light of the French and the Industrial revolutions. It is a challenging image and you will see as much as you really want to see.

[Esther · Rating 4 out of 5]

I feel like I’ve been looking for her for so long and here she is! A commie account of the turn of the 19th century in Western Europe. I didn’t take any modern European history classes in college so this really filled in gaps in my knowledge. Honestly five stars for quality but four stars for my reading experience. He packed so much into 300 pages so this gal was DENSE. The kinda book in which I had to pay close attention to every sentence and if I spaced for a paragraph I was completely lost. But I feel like I have so much context now for the rise of democracy, nationalism, and labor movements and so much more, I’m very siked to keep reading his works!

[Reid tries to read · Rating 5 out of 5]

Intro
The complete remaking of the world which took place between 1789 to 1848 is exemplified by these English words which were invented or popularized during that time period: ‘industry’, ‘factory’, ‘middle class’, ‘liberal’, ‘conservative’, ‘nationality’, ‘scientist’, ‘ engineer’, ‘statistics’, ‘sociology’, ‘ideology’, ‘proletariat’, ‘strike’, and ‘economic crisis’. What took place during this time was a vast upheaval of a world that, up to this point, was relatively sparsely populated, rural, and undiscovered (except for the maps and trails made by explorers and traders). Europeans, thanks to their diets, were vastly different physically than they are today; for example, 72% of recruits off Italy’s Ligurian coast were 5 feet 2 inches tall! Land transport at the time, which was governed by the horse and mule, was vastly inferior to sea transport, which made moving men and goods faster, cheaper, and easier by sea than by land. Therefore, port cities like London were more connected to cities abroad than towns nearer by. Most people were born, lived out their lives, and died in the counties they were born in. The vast majority of these people were illiterate (newspapers were almost nonexistent) and received news from traveling traders, merchants, journeymen, and of course the church and state.

With almost everyone living a rural agrarian existence, it is no surprise the main problem of the age was the agrarian question: what should be done with the contradictions between those who farm the fields and cultivate the land versus those who owned the land? The typical landlord owned massive quantities of land, whether they be quasi-feudal estates, haciendas, or large slave plantations. The size of these estates cannot be overestimated; for example, Catherine the Great would routinely give away 50,000 serfs as favors, a single man in Ukraine owned 3 million acres of land, and estates of 100,000 laborers across the European continent were relatively common. The average laborer was a forced laborer like the enslaved American Indians or Africans, a serf, or on rare occasions a small peasant tenant or sharecropper. They were usually unfree and devoted massive portions of their time to forcibly laboring for the lord, or on the lord’s land. The economy that resulted from these quasi-feudal estates was geared toward producing for regional demands. The “free” peasants that existed could be tenants that paid rents/shares of their crop to lords; they could be a freeholder who lived off subsistence agriculture, although most still had to pay taxes, tithes to churches, and even underwent duties of forced labor at times; or they could be part of the minority of wealthy peasants who had a permanent surplus which they would sell to local towns and urban markets. At its core, this system of European agriculture was extremely inefficient.

There were global trade networks which were directly related to colonialism. Slaves were bought with ‘European’ goods that had really been directly appropriated from the East indies. These slaves were then sent to the plantations of the Americas, where they then exported sugar and cotton to Europe. Industry was in a rudimentary state, where most products were made by at-home handscraftsmen. These goods, along with the surplus produced by peasant farmers, were sold at markets by merchants, making the merchants the key piece of this decentralized network of trades. The future industrialists (the term hadn’t even been invented yet) were still in an embryonic stage. The Enlightenment, with its drive for progress in human knowledge, wealth, and control over nature, was a direct outgrowth of the progress of production and trade that took place during this period. The Enlightenment’s flag bearers were the classes most involved in this advancement in production and trade, whether it be the merchants, the landlords, the financiers, the administrators, the middle class, the entrepreneurs, and eventually the manufacturers. Their beliefs would become summed up in the slogan “liberty, equality, and fraternity”, and this mainly middle class ideology assumed that progress would be the direct outgrowth of a ‘free’ capitalist society.

All European states at the start of this period were ruled by absolute monarchies (besides England thanks to the Glorious Revolution) whose inherent right to rule had been bestowed upon them by grace of God and, therefore, the church. Europe at this point was by no means the dominant global force it was to become. China’s Manchu dynasty, Islamic powers, and Africa’s mainland all remained immune to European domination. This would all be changed by the dual revolutions.

The Industrial Revolution
The industrial revolution is up there with the so-called agricultural revolution as the most impactful event in human history. The actual technological innovations of the revolution - things like the spinning jenny, the flying shuttle, and the mule - were in no way beyond the scope of the average artisan or carpenter. But, only the right conditions were able to transform these innovations from at-home equipment into a ‘factory system’, and only Britain had these preconditions. Thanks to the beheading of their king, the pursuit of profit usurped monarchism as the dominant force governing Britain's policies. This led to the Enclosure Acts, monopolizing the land into the hands of a few landlords who geared agricultural production for the market. This meant agriculture was ready to carry out 3 fundamental functions for industrialization:
1. It increased production/productivity in order to feed the rapidly rising non-agricultural population (who had been thrown off their lands thanks to enclosures)
2. The rapidly growing non-agricultural population then provided recruits for cities/industries
3. Agricultural surplus could be used to secure capital which would be put towards mechanization/industrialization

This process was not instant. Manufacturers needed a global mass market to sell to, and to do this it needed products that people wanted to buy. The mass consumption market that Britain would exploit would be the textile industry, and their Indian slave plantations would provide the majority of Britain's cotton it needed to create textile exports. Between 1750-1769 British cotton exports increased by 10 times. However, industrialization doesn’t happen in isolation either. Other nations could see what Britain was doing and the innovations they were making and steal the processes for themselves. The skills of the British could be copied, and the equipment and capital Britain used could be imported, but the markets Britain sold to could not be exploited, for Britain would use its military force to capture markets from competitors. Britain could not only force its colonies to grow cotton for the empire, it could then sell the textiles made from the cotton back to them at marked-up prices. By 1814 for every 7 yards of cotton produced by the empire, 4 yards were exported abroad while 3 were used in the British metropole; by 1850 it had ballooned to 13 yards sold abroad for every 8 at home. Those who “accepted” these imports were forced to at the barrel of a gun. By 1840 Latin America was entirely dependent on British cotton after it was cut off from Portugal and Spain, while the subcontinent of India was systematically deindustrialized to make it a massive market for British cotton; overall in that year Europe took in 200 million yards of cotton, while the (intentionally) ‘underdeveloped’ parts of the world imported 529 million yards. For the first time in world history, the East imported more from Europe than it exported, and as the need for cotton grew so did the need for slaves to cheaply produce it.

Cotton is therefore the commodity which birthed the British industrial revolution. The demand it created for more industrial infrastructure, for more efficient chemical improvements, for machines, for shipping, etc. accounts for most of Britain's economic growth into the 1830s. In fact, between 1816-1848 cotton accounted for 40-50% of all British export value; from 1785-1850 the quantity of cotton imported into Britain grew from 11 million lbs to 588 million lbs, while the cloth the island exported grew from 40 million to 2,025 million yards. Soon the capitalists had gained so much money that they had nowhere left to really expend and invest it in. They began speculating, and the most important absorption of this speculation was railways. These railways soon would revolutionize transportation which vastly increased the speed of communication and the movement of goods and people (this wasn’t localized solely in Britain, but expanded across the world. For example, in France by 1848 ⅓ of the capital invested in railroads was British). Coal power too would become a major innovation of the revolution; since Britain lacked timber for fuel, coal took its place to power the rapidly growing cities, and by 1800 Britain began producing 90% of the world’s coal. The new railways would transport this heavy coal from the mines to the ports to the rest of the planet.

If this revolution was an otherworldly triumph for the rich, it was a hellish defeat for the laboring masses. Before labor could be redeployed from agricultural to industrial sectors, the ability for agriculture to feed more people more efficiently had to precede this change. Thanks to Britain's colonies Britain could steal their crops for their laborers to consume at home. At the same time, subsistence farmers were legally kicked off their land to make way for larger more efficient farms. Kicking peasants off their land had an added benefit of leaving them in a state of destitution which could only be overcome by selling their labor power to industrialists. Economic pain was the prod that pushed these poor souls into the open arms of the factories (along with laws specifically designed to make life for the landless peasant completely intolerable such as ’The Poor Law’ of 1834). These men, women, and children (over half of all workers were women, girls, and boys under 18) were then trained to be the most efficient workers possible . They were transformed from farmers who only had to seasonally till and harvest the land into proletariats whose line-of-work required them to labor within the factory daily. Instead of subsisting off of their harvests, these former peasants had to learn how to live off of wages handed down to them from their bosses. These wages did not come easy, and employers intentionally paid their workers so little that they would have to work all week just to make enough money to continue their miserable subsistence. If a laborer still did not work hard enough in the eyes of the employer, fines could be levied or the lawkeepers could be called in to deliver state-sanctioned punishments through the ‘Master and Servant code’. It was through the blood, sweat, toil, and premature deaths of these workers that Britain became known as the first workshop of the world.

The French Revolution
Britain’s industrial revolution tore apart the preexisting economic and social structures with its railways and factories, building new foundations which our current mode of production is paved over. Across the English Channel a very different revolution was taking place in France, one which was to be the midwife of the modern world as it birthed a whole new set of ideas and ideologies that we still live with today. As Hobsbawm perfectly puts it, “The American revolution has remained a crucial event in American history, but it has left few major traces elsewhere. The French Revolution is a landmark in all countries.” (p. 76).

At the time of France’s revolution the country was ruled under an absolute Monarchy alongside an upper class of around 400,000 nobles out of a total population of 23 million people. These nobles enjoyed certain privileges, like tax exemptions, while acquiring their wealth through their estate’s feudal dues (they were legally barred from engaging in trade or having a profession). However, they were also burdened with expenses related to their noble status, and these expenses were rising (for example, inflation tended to lessen the value of the rents they parasitically sucked in). The nobles combated their declining incomes in 2 ways:
1. They used the inherent privileges of their noble status to acquire official posts which would have been better suited to more technically competent middle-class men. By stealing these posts for themselves, the nobility managed to aggravate the middle class while filling important positions with people who were as incompetent as they were arrogant.
2. They raised taxes on the already struggling peasantry. They therefore managed to anger both the middle and peasant classes.

The situation of the peasantry had grown dire in the 2 decades preceding the revolution; taxes, tithes, and various feudal dues were rising at the same time that inflation was raising prices. Then, in 1776, the French Monarchy bankrupted itself supporting the American Revolution against France’s rival England. The nobility refused to pay this war debt without extension of their privileges. The middle class bourgeois, the dominant force within the so-called ‘Third Estate’, would not back down and acquiesce to the nobility. They longed for a form of government that, through a constitution, would consecrate the rights of private property. A crisis broke out, which probably would have been limited to the bourgeoisie fighting for more voting rights if it hadn’t coincided with earth-shaking economic and social crises that united the middle and laboring classes together in a struggle against the nobility. Bad harvests and harsh winters had hurt the peasantry and the urban poor, who struggled to even nourish themselves. An industrial depression arose as the countryside, now impoverished without much harvest to sell, could no longer function as a market for the manufacturing taking place in the urban centers. The desperate poor in the countryside turned to banditry, while the urban-poor began being laid-off at the same time that prices were inflating. Their struggles meshed with the bourgeois' struggles who, through a mass decentralized campaign of propaganda and agitation, spoke of ‘liberating’ themselves from the oppression of the monarchy.

The masses mobilized and captured the state prison, the Bastille, on July 14th; this became an important world-wide symbol of the liberating power of revolution against tyranny and despotism. This symbolic victory also helped spread the revolution to France’s rural peasantry, and within just 3 weeks the load-bearing structures of the monarchical state laid in ruins. The middle classes quickly abolished feudalism, and a universal structure for revolution had been laid out for the entirety of the world to see: the middle-classes would mobilize the masses, under the thumb of the bourgeoisie, for revolution. This would sprout its own contradiction, as what was to happen when the masses inevitably pushed for changes beyond those desired by the middle classes? The result would be that, across the globe time and time again, the bourgeoisie would split into two camps: the right-wing conservatives who would ally with reactionaries so that they could oppose the lower-classes when they aimed too high, and left-wingers who supported the revolutionary goals of the lower-classes. In future bourgeois revolutions most of the bourgeoisie were to move into the conservative camp or oppose revolution at the outset for fear of the consequences of the organized and agitated masses (instead preferring to make compromises with the monarchy). In the French Revolution itself the laboring masses did not function independently of their bourgeois agitators. When the bourgeois class finally came into power it acted in interests antithetical to the laboring and peasant classes: the peasants were rewarded with the enclosures of common lands, the proletariat was rewarded with the banning of labor unions, and the petty-owner was rewarded with the closing of guilds.

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

Nothing quite fries my biscuit like reading books by self-proclaimed champions of the common man that contain untranslated French, German, and Latin.

In the Preface (page ix), Hobsbawm claims that this book's ideal reader is “that theoretical construct, the intelligent and educated citizen”, but I put it to you that Hobsbawm's real ideal reader is someone who had the exact same life experience that Eric Hobsbawm did, yet managed not to come to the same conclusions, and now wishes to have this situation rectified.

I read this book because the Long Suffering Wife (LSW) told me she had read a different book by EH about how nations and nationalisms that claim dignified heritages of hundreds or thousands of years in length are actually recent creations of those seeking to grab and manipulate the levers of power. I believe the relevance of this idea to the lamentable circumstances abroad in the world is clear, and my desire to inform myself more thoroughly on this point, so as to be better equipped to verbally thrash nationalists (if only in my mind) to a quivering jelly-like mass, is understandable. Perhaps, you might very reasonably point out, if I wished to achieve this end, I should have read the same book that the LSW did and not this one, but, well, this was the one lying around the house.

In any event, the intelligent and educated citizen as imagined by EH seemingly knows what a coureurs-de-bois (p. 7) is, who Gracchus Babeuf (p. 11) was, and what “klephtic” (p. 141) means, but I didn't because, although I pride myself (perhaps incorrectly) of having labored more than the average clam to inform myself about the state of the world, I did not apparently read the same books, attend the same lectures, participate in the same arguments as EH. I guess it's pretty obvious that I think this inability to abandon specialized jargon is a pretty serious failing by the author in his attempt to address a potentially sympathetic audience of non-historians.

At the beginning of the book, near the reference to the ideal reader above, EH says he will not burden his narrative excessively with footnotes. Yet footnotes there are, although probably much fewer than in particularly dense academic histories. When footnotes appear, they often refer to the untranslated titles of books published in foreign languages decades previously, and therefore practically impossible for the intended reader to check him- or herself, should the motivation arise. What is the point of including such information?

On the other hand, when, on page 190 of my paperback addition, EH makes the claim that families of this era generally preferred to have their children become a man of the cloth, or a teacher, or a government bureaucrat, or perhaps even in some cases a lawyer or doctor, than to have their children go into commerce, footnotes are conspicuous by their absence, probably because – although possible – there is little or no documentary evidence that the claim is true, other than the author's hope that it is true.

I am perhaps reacting with inappropriate asperity to EH's stylistic eccentricities because, given the sad state of world today, I am in the market, metaphorically speaking, for a compelling narrative to counter the alarming rise of blood-and-soil nationalism. Occasionally, the ghostly outlines of such a narrative appears, but then vanishes again in a haze of references obscure to the average reader, if not to Marxist historians. Still, certain sentences of power and clarity stand out.

In the history of our period this massive apathy plays a much larger part than is often supposed. It is no accident that the least skilled, least educated, least organized and therefore least hopeful of the poor, then as later, were the most apathetic: ... (p. 204, paperback edition)

Summary: Good enough to wish it were better.