Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Chris Harman dies in Cairo

Didn't think that Chris Harman was the most dynamic speaker always, but own and enjoyed quite a few of his books. He wrote in a very clear, sharp, accessible and straightforward way (which unfortunately many socialists don't). For example, his useful articles on how socialists should relate to the growth of political Islam 'The Prophet & The Proletariate', also had an old pamphlet on Gramsci that I remember finding useful.

'The Lost Revolution' is a good account of the German revolutions in 1919 and 21. 'The Fire Last Time' on 1968 is a little reductive and doesn't capture the cultural explosion, poetry, spontaneity and excitement of the times, but is one of the only decent theoretical books on 68 (in my opinion) that tries to give some critique and discussion of tactics and strategy, and a balance sheet on the movement, rather than gossip and adulation. Also unlike many books actual talks about the working class upsurge in those years. A book I often return to - a very good book.

I remember when I was an SWP member going to a very interesting day school on historical materialism - talk #1 Historical Materialism talk #2 Why did capitalism take-off in the West and not China (very interesting and stimulating line of though) talk #3 The transition from feudalism & capitalism

I asked one of the speakers to recommend me some good books on these topics and he mentioned Leo Huberman 'A Man's Worldly Goods', written in the 30s and published by Left Book Club (alongside AL Morton's 'A People's History of Britain' also still worth checking out) this is the most enjoyable and easy to read book on the development of feudalism and transition to capitalism, in my opinion (a friend of mine studying history couldn't get to grips with feudalism at all, until I lent a copy of this book and the scales fell from the eyes) & he also mentioned Harman's 'A People's History of the World' which I ended up purchasing from the WH Smith in my local railway station sometime later.

It's a good introduction to world history and a good overview. The early chapters on the neolithic revolution particularly enjoyable and illuminating, so to byzantium. I found particularly useful the chapters on the French Revolution and jacobins abroad as a prelude to researching those epochal events. Like many simpletons I had got lost reading histories talking about this and that faction, Harman simply explains the underlying logic behind the different parties and the Terror & it all became clear.
 
'The Lost Revolution' is a good account of the German revolutions in 1919 and 21. 'The Fire Last Time' on 1968 is a little reductive and doesn't capture the cultural explosion, poetry, spontaneity and excitement of the times, but is one of the only decent theoretical books on 68 (in my opinion) that tries to give some critique and discussion of tactics and strategy, and a balance sheet on the movement, rather than gossip and adulation. Also unlike many books actual talks about the working class upsurge in those years. A book I often return to - a very good book.

It reduces that spontaneity to the formal positions and programs of parties, bascially to make a wider argument against any form of spontaneity or activity outside of the party form. That's pretty much the only strategy and tactics it recognises. Perfectly orthodox for someone coming from the tradition Harman does - but not much use to anyone else. (that's aside from the factual errors - i spotted many just flicking through the section on Italy last night).
 
i thought the chapter on italy made some good points, trying to grapple with why a militant left was derailed, but i'd have to pick up the book and re-read the chapter and get back on that. it also gives some sense to the strange paradox of organisations veering between ultra-leftism into reformism (as some of the groupscules in italy did, by the mid-seventies lining up behind the historic compromise and electoralism, or the black movement in the states moving towards electoralism)

much of the same line of thought is found in this 79 article on the 'Crisis of the European Left' - http://chrisharman.blogspot.com/2009/11/crisis-of-european-revolutionary-left.html
 
Andy Wilson at the Commune "Along with many others of my generation I learned much of my Marxism from Chris Harman. Anyone who has ever been encouraged and informed by him – whether through his books, his articles in various party papers and journals, or through hearing him speak at meetings and conferences – will be sad at the passing of such a tremendously inspiring figure. He was not only an organic revolutionary intellectual, but a brilliant one, who lived a life dedicated entirely to rebuilding the tradition of ’socialism from below’. We are much the worse off for his tragic, untimely death."

http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/obituary-of-chris-harman/
 
A damning line:

Along with many others of my generation I learned much of my Marxism from Chris Harman.

Yes, i'm aware that people might think that i'm crossing the line here, but it does back up my earlier totally non-sectarian posts)
 
A damning line:



Yes, i'm aware that people might think that i'm crossing the line here, but it does back up my earlier totally non-sectarian posts)
i think that's unfair. andy has a greater knowledge of marx than obtained purely from harman, though he's not going to say it in a tribute thing like that. i'm sure he had some massive disagreements with him but that is hardly the place to air them.
 
i think that's unfair. andy has a greater knowledge of marx than obtained purely from harman, though he's not going to say it in a tribute thing like that. i'm sure he had some massive disagreements with him but that is hardly the place to air them.
Tell me why it's unfair then. The last thing Harman would have wanted would be this prissy pussyfooting around. I used the blokes own words and i agreed with them.
 
Tell me why it's unfair then. The last thing Harman would have wanted would be this prissy pussyfooting around. I used the blokes own words and i agreed with them.
i'm not even sure what you were saying. who/what is the line damning?

i don't think it's fair as the quote is from someone who has posted on a tribute thread and, whilst sincerely meant, is probably not that accurate.
 
So you can judge the accuracy of a quote on another thread on this thread, but i can't? Why? Sorry, that obit backed up my earlier respectful look at Harman's work, so i'm going to use it.
 
So you can judge the accuracy of a quote on another thread on this thread, but i can't? Why? Sorry, that obit backed up my earlier respectful look at Harman's work, so i'm going to use it.
fair enough.


i disagree on your theory that widespread knowledge of marx (even a mechanical knowledge), is a bad thing. most people move on from there as they read further.
 
A damning line:



Yes, i'm aware that people might think that i'm crossing the line here, but it does back up my earlier totally non-sectarian posts)
You're right you are crossing a line. And it's a wee bit disappointing. We all know you think classical marxism is mechanical and in return us classical marxists think you're preferred economists/historians are idealists and impressionistic. But is this really the place to have that debate?

The poor dead fecker did more than anyone else (including cliff) in the last fifty odd years in this country to make classical marxist ideas current. To a whole layer of people, some current swp members, some lapsed and some downright anti his articles/books gave us the grounding to speak confidently froma marxist standpoint. I'd have hoped you'd respect him for that if not -obviously - agree with him.
 
The poor dead fecker did more than anyone else (including cliff) in the last fifty odd years in this country to make classical marxist ideas current. To a whole layer of people, some current swp members, some lapsed and some downright anti his articles/books gave us the grounding to speak confidently froma marxist standpoint. I'd have hoped you'd respect him for that if not -obviously - agree with him.

Tributes to Chris on the SW site:

http://socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=19503

I doubt very much that people will be making tributes like this to any of us on these boards when we die.
 
You're right you are crossing a line. And it's a wee bit disappointing. We all know you think classical marxism is mechanical and in return us classical marxists think you're preferred economists/historians are idealists and impressionistic. But is this really the place to have that debate?

The poor dead fecker did more than anyone else (including cliff) in the last fifty odd years in this country to make classical marxist ideas current. To a whole layer of people, some current swp members, some lapsed and some downright anti his articles/books gave us the grounding to speak confidently froma marxist standpoint. I'd have hoped you'd respect him for that if not -obviously - agree with him.

Oh please, if you want to retreat into or try and beat me with false sentimentality do it on your own, i'm not interested. Harman certainly wouldn't have been either. I said repeatdly that i totally respected his comittment but i disagreed fundamentally with his politics. I've been totally respectful of the man and his life, to the extent of taking his ideas seriously and trying to get some critical discussion going on them, and without ever going near the the easy sectarianism such debates can fall into. That's far more productive and respectful of the mans life and works IMO than trying to slap down anyone who doesn't say exactly what you want to hear right now.
 
That's rather an ambitious claim.
It is. And I stand by it wholeheartedly.

I have no idea what he was like personally as unlike more than a few leading cardes he wasn't interested in holding court to younger comrades after meetings and though I chaired a few of his meetings I never shared more than a few sentences with him. But I feel as if I somehow knew him more than any other marxist I can think of; his writing and to a lesser extent speaking did that much to educate me as a marxist. And judging by the tributes more than a few others.

The next comparison is stupid but I can't help making it. Somehow this death seems more like the end of an era than that of Cliff/Hallas or Foot. Maybe that's just a generational thing.
 
Oh please, if you want to retreat into or try and beat me with false sentimentality do it on your own, i'm not interested. Harman certainly wouldn't have been either. I said repeatdly that i totally respected his comittment but i disagreed fundamentally with his politics.
You clueless idiot. There's no false sentimentality at work here. I couldn't care less about your admiration for his commitment and right now I'm not really interested in debating the merits of your particular and peculiar mish mash of anarchism vs marxism. What is at issue is whether he made a huge contribution to that classical marxist tradition despite your finding numerous factual errors in his articles. Pathetic.
 
This is precisely the sort of stuff that doesn't deserve to be on this thread. Not my contributions. I'm not going to engage with it.
 
It is. And I stand by it wholeheartedly.

I have no idea what he was like personally as unlike more than a few leading cardes he wasn't interested in holding court to younger comrades after meetings and though I chaired a few of his meetings I never shared more than a few sentences with him. But I feel as if I somehow knew him more than any other marxist I can think of; his writing and to a lesser extent speaking did that much to educate me as a marxist. And judging by the tributes more than a few others.

The next comparison is stupid but I can't help making it. Somehow this death seems more like the end of an era than that of Cliff/Hallas or Foot. Maybe that's just a generational thing.

Then put it in a different thread it doesn't belong here as it's likely to end up in a debate and an you've already had a hissy fit at butchers for his own opinion on the person under discussion.
 
It is. And I stand by it wholeheartedly.

I have no idea what he was like personally as unlike more than a few leading cardes he wasn't interested in holding court to younger comrades after meetings and though I chaired a few of his meetings I never shared more than a few sentences with him. But I feel as if I somehow knew him more than any other marxist I can think of; his writing and to a lesser extent speaking did that much to educate me as a marxist. And judging by the tributes more than a few others.

The next comparison is stupid but I can't help making it. Somehow this death seems more like the end of an era than that of Cliff/Hallas or Foot. Maybe that's just a generational thing.
What an odd thing to say. You do know that harman joined the organisation (then the socialist review group) long before foot.
 
Not read this yet, just posting it:
The working class intellectual and the apparat

edit: quick skim, reads as if it was written by a jaded 5 year old.

It's also riddled with sloppy inaccuracies that could have been spotted by 5 minutes googling.

You lot as as bad as the Leftists you lamely critisise... stoking each others ego's, caught within the obsessive, 'I/we are right we are' old left arrogant crap. You will never be any use till you get beyond that illusion.

Also, I think you are being unfair to the author (again). I really cannot see the worth in spouting off at every obituary as if was politically important, it is sad leftism.
 
You're right you are crossing a line. And it's a wee bit disappointing. We all know you think classical marxism is mechanical and in return us classical marxists think you're preferred economists/historians are idealists and impressionistic. But is this really the place to have that debate?

The poor dead fecker did more than anyone else (including cliff) in the last fifty odd years in this country to make classical marxist ideas current. To a whole layer of people, some current swp members, some lapsed and some downright anti his articles/books gave us the grounding to speak confidently froma marxist standpoint. I'd have hoped you'd respect him for that if not -obviously - agree with him.

Actually Hallas made a far greater contribution, there was a man who who could reach a working class audience . Marxism made simple and relevant. In both London and Manchester he was the chap who you brought people at work or contacts to listen to.And he would still discuss issues raised in the bar.
 
Actually Hallas made a far greater contribution, there was a man who who could reach a working class audience . Marxism made simple and relevant. In both London and Manchester he was the chap who you brought people at work or contacts to listen to.And he would still discuss issues raised in the bar.
he was fucking brilliant. having a drink with him and frank henderson at marxism was a joy.
 
Back
Top Bottom