The blog has interviewed Eric Hobsbawm, one of the greatest living historians with a Marxist training. The interview took place on his 94th birthday for the launch of his latest book called "Come cambiare il mondo. perché riscoprire l'eredità del marxismo" {How to Change the World - Why rediscover the inheritance of Marxism}. Hobsbawm looks at the possibility of a shift towards the Right in the next few years in Europe for reasons that are connected to the economic depression and the search for safety and a stagnation of the EU, appesantita by getting continuously bigger and bigger and by the lack of a common political vision. Furthermore, the campaign groups are developing more in the areas where there is a higher percentage of young people, thus is North Africa and in the developing countries. But, above all, Hobsbawm who is keen to point out that he is a historian and not a futurologist, tells us what Marxism has become today and what its effects are.

Interview with Eric Hobsbawm

Marxism today:
Eric Hobsbawm: I'm Eric Hobsbawm. I'm a very old historian. As it so happens you are telephoning me on my 94th birthday. I have been writing mostly on the history of social movements and on the general history of Europe and the world in the 19th and 20th centuries. I think all my books are available in Italian and some have been quite successful.
Blog: The first question is relative to your book. Marxism is considered a post ideological phenomena, could you explain the reason why and which will be the consequences of this change?
Eric Hobsbawm: I don't actually use the word "post ideological phenomenon" for Marxism, but it is true that Marxism has ceased at the moment to be system of belief associated with large, mass political movements anywhere in Europe, I think, although there's still some small movements of this kind. So to that extent there's been a major change in the political role of Marxism in politics in Europe. There are still some parts of the world in which this is not the case, for instance Latin America.The consequence of this change, I think, is that we can concentrate much more on the permanent achievements of Marxism. These would be, I think, the following: Marx introduced something which was regarded as novel and is still not sufficiently realized, namely the belief that the present economic system is not permanent or destined to be permanent, but is a phase in historical development which is come into being and which will go out of existence and turn into something else in the course of time, that's important. Secondly, I think Marx concentrated on the analysis of the specific modus operandi, the way in which the system operated and developed. In particular on the curious, discontinuous way in which the system grew, developed contradictions, which then produced major crises. The major advantage of the analysis of Marxism is that it sees capitalism as a system which periodically generates its own internal contradictions which leads to periodic crises of different kinds and these crises have to be overcome by a basic transformation or lesser modification system. It is this discontinuity, this assumption that capitalism operates not as a system tending to stabilize itself, but to be constantly unstable and eventually, therefore, to require major transformation. That is the main element that survives in Marxism. The third element that I think is the relic of what you might call the ideological phenomena, Marxism is based, for most Marxists, on a profound sense of the social injustice of social inequality and the difference between the poor and the rich and powerful. Finally, I think perhaps we should also add an element which Marx would probably not have recognized, but it was there, namely a utopian element. The belief that somehow or other the new society which would come into being would be a better and more human society than the one in which we live at the moment. OK?

Is Europe moving towards the Right?
Blog: Second question. In Northern Africa and some European countries as Spain, Greece, and Ireland, some youth movements born online and having used nets, example Twitter and Facebook, are approaching politics. These movements are demanding more involvement and a radical change in social choices. Meanwhile, however, Spain is shifting to the right, Denmark has closed Schengen borders in Hungary and Finland and even in France with Marie Le Pen, ultra right wing nationalistic parties arising. Isn't this a contradiction?
Eric Hobsbawm: I don't think so. I think these are different phenomena. I think we have, in most Western countries today, youth occupies a position of being a politically active minority, largely because of the way in which education is constructed. For instance, students have been, for centuries, an activist element. At the same time, these educated youth are also more familiar with modern technology of information which has transformed transnational agitation and transnational political mobilization. However, there is a difference between these youth movements, educated youth movements in the Western countries where on the whole youth is a minority phenomenon, and similar youth movements in countries like the Islamic countries and elsewhere in which the majority of the population is below the age of 25 or 30. Therefore, youth movements are politically far more massive and capable of making an impact on the politics. There, I think, the impact does in Western and Eastern countries. The additional impact in radicalizing youth movements is that youth today in this period of economic crisis is disproportionately subject to unemployment and, therefore, disproportionately discontented. Now where that will shift to, we don't know. On the whole, the movements of these educated youth are, politically speaking, not on the right. But by themselves, they are not capable of determining the shape of the national politics and future. We shall, I think, see this in the Arab countries in the next two months. They start off major revolutions, but they do not necessarily determine the general direction in which they go. These directions of course will depend on the country and the region. They will obviously be very much more different in Islamic countries than they are in Europe or, for that matter, North America. It is true, however, that of course in Europe and probably in North America there has been a shift to the right in politics. But that I think takes us perhaps to the next question.
Blog: Yes, the next question is about the economic crisis that we have had since 2008. The one we had in '29, '33, it strengthened and brought fascism to power. Do you foresee any risk of the crisis running now as what happened in '28, '29, '33?
Eric Hobsbawm: Well, there's no doubt that the crisis, the economic crisis since 2008, has definitely led to a shift to the right in Europe. I think at present only about four countries in Europe, in the European Union, are under a center or center left government. Some of these are likely to lose. Spain is likely to go right as well. That I think is true. I don't think this means that there will be a danger of fascism as in the 1930s. The danger of fascism in the 1930s was largely a function of the conversion to fascism of one single country at the turn, decisively, politically decisive country, namely Germany under Hitler. There is no sign of anything like this happening today. None of the important countries are likely, it seems to me, to switch in a major direction like that. Even in the United States where the danger of a right wing movement is strong, it doesn't follow that it will win. Nor indeed do the ultra right wing parties and movements in European countries. Though they are strong, they have so far always remained a strong minority without much chance of becoming a majority. But I think it is very likely that in the next few years most European countries will be run by right wing governments of one kind or another. Remember that the long term effects of the economic crisis in the 1930s were that Europe on the whole turned Democratic and left in a way that it had previously not done. But it took some time to do. So there is a risk, but I don't think that the risk is similar to the one in the 1930s. The risk is rather that not enough will be done to deal with the basic problems, which the capitalism of the past 40 years has thrown up, and which the revival of interest in Marxism has emphasized.

Europe is immobile
Blog: which is your opinion on EU and on its outcome for so far? Will the EU consolidate to get back to a simple gathering of the states?
Eric Hobsbawm: I think the hope of turning the EU into something more than an alliance of states and a free trade area will have to be given up. It will not go much further than it has gone so far, but I don't think it can be destroyed. I think what has been established, a degree of free trade, a degree much more important of a common jurisprudence and common law will remain. The main weakness I think of the EU, the reason for its failure has been, it seems to me, the conflict between the economic and social basis of the EU. Which was that of trying to eliminate war between France and Germany and unifying the economically developing parts and rich parts of Europe. That was one aim, which was achieved. It was then mixed up with a political aim associated with the Cold War and the development since the end of the Cold War, namely the aim to extend the borders of Europe to the entire continent and even beyond. In doing so, it has divided Europe into parts, which are no longer easily coordinated. Both economically, the great crises are very likely in the new acquisitions to the European Union since the 1970s in Greece, in Portugal, in Ireland, for instance. Even politically, the differences between the former Communist states and the former non Communist states of Europe, all these I think have weakened the capacity of Europe to develop further. Whether Europe will be able to maintain itself the way it is, I don't know. But I don't believe that it will go out of existence and I think that we should still live in a more coordinated Europe than we have done since, well, World War II. But if I may say so, you are asking me questions as an historian about the future. Unfortunately, historians are no better at predicting the future than anybody else, so these forecasts cannot be based on any special qualifications that I have for looking into the future.