What do you think?
Rate this book
Protest and Survival
- GenresPolitics
432 pages, Hardcover
First published December 1, 1993
1 person is currently reading
22 people want to read
About the author
E.P. Thompson
84 books231 followersEdward Palmer Thompson was an English historian, writer, marxist and peace campaigner. He is probably best known today for his historical work on the radical movements in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, in particular The Making of the English Working Class (1963). He also published influential biographies of William Morris (1955) and (posthumously) William Blake (1993) and was a prolific journalist and essayist. He also published the novel The Sykaos Papers and a collection of poetry.
Thompson was one of the principal intellectuals of the Communist Party in Great Britain. Although he left the party in 1956 over the Soviet invasion of Hungary, he nevertheless remained a "historian in the Marxist tradition," calling for a rebellion against Stalinism as a prerequisite for the restoration of communists' "confidence in our own revolutionary perspectives". Thompson played a key role in the first New Left in Britain in the late 1950s. He was a vociferous left-wing socialist critic of the Labour governments of 1964–70 and 1974–79, and during the 1980s, he was the leading intellectual light of the movement against nuclear weapons in Europe.
Thompson was one of the principal intellectuals of the Communist Party in Great Britain. Although he left the party in 1956 over the Soviet invasion of Hungary, he nevertheless remained a "historian in the Marxist tradition," calling for a rebellion against Stalinism as a prerequisite for the restoration of communists' "confidence in our own revolutionary perspectives". Thompson played a key role in the first New Left in Britain in the late 1950s. He was a vociferous left-wing socialist critic of the Labour governments of 1964–70 and 1974–79, and during the 1980s, he was the leading intellectual light of the movement against nuclear weapons in Europe.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 7, 2022
Published back in 1980 I dipped into this to see whether the critique of Nato's so-called nuclear deterrence policies developed back in the days when cruise missiles were being introduced into Europe has got anything to help critique the alliance of today, with the Russian intervention into Ukraine just over a week old.
Thompson developed his argument at the point where the idea of deterrence, or the mutually assured destruction of the MAD ideology was breaking down and strategist were beginning to plan for the possibility of strategic, limited nuclear war. He picks this idea apart, primarily on two grounds: the first, that strategy nuclear warfare could not be contained at the level of taking our the enemy's military assets and limiting civilian casualties to 'acceptable' levels. The degree of impression in picking targets would result in the deaths of millions. The second objection is that the reality of a first strike would lead to the political and military leaderships from taking a step back before they hit the button to launch their IBMs. Thompson had no confidence that rational judgment would reappear in quick succession to its vanishing in order to launch a limited strike.
How is this relevant today? The old Cold War has been reconfigured as a contest, not between capitalism and socialist, but as friction between power blocs vying for old-fashioned imperial domination over their backyards. If anything this has led to a reduction of whatever rationality was once in play back in the days of the USA v the SU on the grounds that the class fractions that govern the successor states are more unstable and fractious than the 'good old days' prior to 1989. Putin's monstrous invasion of Ukraine is evidence of that.
This increased instability of the powers that lie behind Nato means that it can have no useful role to play in the defence of democracy which is urgently required if Ukraine is not to vanish from the map. Even a sub-nuclear role in the warfare now underway, as it being demanded by supporters of a no-fly zone, risks sudden escalation into a full-scale nuclear confrontation. Yet some sort of war fighting capacity is needed if Kyiv is to be defended as the capital of an independent, self-determining nation. Forget Nato, whether in this conflict or the one's that might have to be waged in the future in the Baltic states or the Balkans. The defence of democracy has gone back to being a cause that will have to be waged by 'the people' and for 'the people'. And not before time.
Thompson developed his argument at the point where the idea of deterrence, or the mutually assured destruction of the MAD ideology was breaking down and strategist were beginning to plan for the possibility of strategic, limited nuclear war. He picks this idea apart, primarily on two grounds: the first, that strategy nuclear warfare could not be contained at the level of taking our the enemy's military assets and limiting civilian casualties to 'acceptable' levels. The degree of impression in picking targets would result in the deaths of millions. The second objection is that the reality of a first strike would lead to the political and military leaderships from taking a step back before they hit the button to launch their IBMs. Thompson had no confidence that rational judgment would reappear in quick succession to its vanishing in order to launch a limited strike.
How is this relevant today? The old Cold War has been reconfigured as a contest, not between capitalism and socialist, but as friction between power blocs vying for old-fashioned imperial domination over their backyards. If anything this has led to a reduction of whatever rationality was once in play back in the days of the USA v the SU on the grounds that the class fractions that govern the successor states are more unstable and fractious than the 'good old days' prior to 1989. Putin's monstrous invasion of Ukraine is evidence of that.
This increased instability of the powers that lie behind Nato means that it can have no useful role to play in the defence of democracy which is urgently required if Ukraine is not to vanish from the map. Even a sub-nuclear role in the warfare now underway, as it being demanded by supporters of a no-fly zone, risks sudden escalation into a full-scale nuclear confrontation. Yet some sort of war fighting capacity is needed if Kyiv is to be defended as the capital of an independent, self-determining nation. Forget Nato, whether in this conflict or the one's that might have to be waged in the future in the Baltic states or the Balkans. The defence of democracy has gone back to being a cause that will have to be waged by 'the people' and for 'the people'. And not before time.
Displaying 1 of 1 review