Marxist history

In India, Modernity and the Great Divergence, Kaveh Yazdani presents a compelling argument that with regard to certain technologies, agricultural productivity, financial systems and the rise of a merchant class, and even aspects of scientific culture, two regions of pre-colonial South Asia-Mysore and Gujarat-experienced what Yazdani terms 'middle modernity' (14 th to 18 th century) in a manner comparable to other Eurasian regions. However, because certain specific aspects of modernity were less highly evolved than in Europe, and because of colonial intervention, there was a divergence between (parts of) Europe and these South Asian regions. While lauding Yazdani's achievement, I argue that crucial aspects of the transition to capitalism as well as the Great Divergence are lacking in his, as in most studies: the significance of a capitalist ideology and the rise of consumerism.

For many historians the ‚linguistic turn’ has been quite frightening. Should all history now concentrate only on ‘discourse’? And should it from now on just be ‘literature’? In this book I advocate the anti-thesis. Since the paradigm shift from traditional political history to social and cultural history the issue of language - in the history of society as well as in the history of science - has received a new virulence. The concept of ‘discourse’, at least in Foucault’s coinage, has acted as a ‘door opener’. Language is more than just a medium of communication, it shapes all thinking, all mentalities, ideologies and discursive formations. Therefore the analysis of language and discourse doesn’t compete with social history, but opens up important new dimensions. Or as an American historian has said: “The facts have not dissolved into discourse, but they now look different.” (Robert Darnton)

Il presente contributo si propone di offrire uno sguardo di insieme sul modo in cui Marx guarda all’Oriente, più specificamente sulla sua posizione nei confronti dell’India e della Russia, al fine di cogliere una linea di sviluppo nel giudizio complessivo di Marx sull’Oriente.

È possibile ricostruire una storia sociale del matrimonio nel Mediterraneo tardoantico? Con quali fonti? Bisogna considerare solo la tipologia degli iusta matrimonia oppure volgere lo sguardo ad una sfera delle unioni più vasta e complessa, corrispondente alle varie relazioni non matrimoniali? A quali gruppi sociali e a quali ragioni sono riconducibili queste differenti unioni? In che modo questa storia disgregata testimonia una società segnata da antiche e nuove disuguaglianze? Quale ruolo ebbe la cristianizzazione dell’impero romano e quale invece l’inserimento delle strutture ecclesiastiche nel sistema imperiale negli sviluppi della sfera matrimoniale? Come interpretare i canoni conciliari dei secoli IV e V, specifica forma di testi normativi delle chiese cristiane? Quale rilievo occorre dare al rifiuto di sposarsi o ad un particolare nuovo divieto come quello fra cognati? 

Le trasformazioni e le continuità sociali durante la tarda antichità sono osservate nel volume mediante lo studio della sfera matrimoniale e dei testi normativi. Le fonti patristiche, conciliari e giuridiche, cercando di regolamentare il matrimonium e le altre forme di unioni allora conosciute, documentano i processi e i limiti della cristianizzazione nel Mediterraneo tardoromano.
Nella prima parte, mentre sono ripercorse le tappe della intensa vita conciliare delle chiese cristiane fra IV e inizi del V secolo, è condotta una riflessione sullo statuto documentario dei canoni, quindi sulle potenzialità e sui limiti di tale produzione in chiave storico-sociale, in un confronto con il coevo diritto imperiale e con le testimonianze patristiche.
Nella seconda parte, sono analizzate singole tematiche riguardanti la sfera matrimoniale. Tali sezioni trattano non solo della storia del matrimonio giuridicamente legittimo (iustae nuptiae) ma riguardano anche le sue alternative (rifiuto del matrimonio, concubinato, unioni servili) o i suoi divieti (nozze vietate come quelle fra cognati). Le tematiche consentono una visione più approfondita delle strutture sociali su cui le scritture normative cristiane e imperiali intervenivano.
Un contributo di uno storico meridionale ad una rinnovata storia sociale del mondo tardoantico.

This article examines the relationship between collective memory, historical interpretation and political identity. It focuses on the dissolution of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) and particularly on the effects of the collapse of the USSR on both the identity of its members, as constructed through collective narrative memory, and on Marxist interpretations of history.

The CPGB provides a powerful example of the interplay between history, memory and political identity. Marxism is particularly closely connected with the discipline of academic history: its political analysis being explicitly based on a theory of historical development. Moreover, the small size and intense commitment of the CPGB meant that it developed an unusually strong mnemonic culture. The divisions within both the party itself and the wider Marxist community, which stretched from 1956 right through until 1991, were often framed around questions of historical interpretation.

The events of 1989-91 created an historical and mnemonic crisis for CPGB members who struggled to reconcile their past identities with their present situation. Unlike the outward-facing revisionism of other political parties, this was an intensely personal affair. The solution for many was to emphasise the need to find new ways to progress socialist aims, without relying on a discredited grand narrative. In contrast, other Communist parties, such as the Communist Party of Britain, which had been established (or ‘re-established’) in 1988, fared rather better. By adhering to the international party line of renewal and continued struggle, the party was able to hold its narrative together, condemning the excesses of totalitarian regimes, while reaffirming the need for international class struggle.