Eric Hobsbawm, a British historian, categorizes the historians of the late nineteenth century into two groups. He is firm in his categorization to an extent that other historians refer to him as the leading light in a group of historians. There are those he says stick to their ideas.
Of course, the debate is on what foundation the modern states were build. Another issue relates to states adopting either communistic or capitalistic ideologies. One group avers that politics forms the key to truths and myths that are to be uncovered and stated. One group is revolutionary and the other is reactionary. The latter is the one that looks backward with nostalgia while the former looks forward for explanations of the present and the future.
Hobsbawm belongs to the revolutionary group. It should be noted that he is a staunch crusader of the Marxist ideas. He even served in the world war, but claimed to have done nothing of importance. In fact, he regrets taking part in it. He is pro Stalin and Russian communist ideologies, though he represented Britain in the war.
He believes in socialism and as much as it failed, he died holding onto the same. In his articles, he is wittily selective in his statistics. He mainly focuses on people with whom he shared opinions. In criticizing capitalism for example, he ponders why there is economic expansion that leads to massive unemployment. The expansions resulted from the technological innovations.
This is very ironical from an economist’s perspective. With every available opportunity, he praised leaders with communist ideas, including O’Connell. He commends artists of the time who were fully committed to revolutionary politics. Though temporary, he gave them much coverage. At the same time, he avoided mentioning the reactionary artists. Any other radical reformers who criticized socialism were on his receiving end.
Eric Hobsbawm clearly illustrates that the socioeconomic structure of Europe was very different in both halves of the nineteenth century. The two halves followed two different paths, but shared one common factor. They were both developed through capitalism and were centered on bourgeois liberalism. These processes were influenced by what he refers to as dual revolution. This is the French revolution and the British industrial revolution.
Britain took the first step towards industrialization. This was directed by its political system that leaned towards individuals profiting from an expanded economy. Britain had moved from peasant agrarianism where among other structures land was jointly cultivated. This implies that commercial agriculture was practiced. The growth of industries pushed the economy to transcend into capitalism late in the century, which was around 1799.
The technological advancement played a great role in this transformation. As much as this economic transition led to increased profitability among investors, it did not do any good to employees. The labor market was still oppressed with excessive working conditions and too much overworking. Overtime was not duly accounted for in terms of rewards. In short, the labor force was not paid adequately. This would later lead to the rise of activism.
In France, the French revolution, according to Hobsbawm, was a struggle among and the peasants, aristocrats and the middle class. The development of the revolution in different stages was a manifestation of a struggle between liberalism and socialism. The attempt by the aristocrats to recapture the state quickly degenerated into the urge to create a socialist economic state.
He underlines that Napoleon had instituted measures and structures that led to the bourgeois taking control, with its concomitants taking and giving loans. This type of an economy had the characteristics resembling those of a modern economy.
To him, the bourgeois liberalism prevailed. Its success developed along with elements of subversion. Dual revolution modeled middle class liberals and created a few successful bourgeois. The radical ideas within states and societies created masterminded their collapse.
Eric Hobsbawm looked at the political developments in Europe between 1870 and 1914, as politically opposite times. He observes that the hope that had already been achieved turned into trepidation. A period of unchallenged peace, dangerously giving way and the full rise of civil activism emerged.
As this period progressed, fear griped the bourgeois. The increased actions of labor movements that rejected capitalism and the effects of the rising middle class resulted to a crisis. The competing interests among members of the social class did not serve any good. This was because there was still too much force to be dealt with outside the state. The first political class was built on very small bodies that were generally weak. Europe was also on the verge of dominating the world, though without confidence.
The individual states had hidden competing interests. At the very end in 1914, the revolutionary political terrorists went on to start the First World War. Before the First World War, peace in Europe prevailed because of the balance of power. Each state had accumulated enough weapons in readiness for a large-scale war. This means that states were assured of mutual destruction.