Note to myself:
around page 88 he talks about how the grundissre has a more idealist conception of history related to its acceptance of the category of political economy and its presentation of capitalism as the idea taking over society without historical movement. The teleological view of history is presented as idealist. It contrasts with his own views of history. I guess what I find interesting is how to separate the idealism and materialism - if conciousness affects the "material" (being as it is part of the material) then it's not always obvious what the idealist part is. If we attribute actions to "capitalism" are we denying that this idea can only work via the actions of human beings. I was thinking about this w/r/t some post structuralist stuff I've seen, which goes completely into attributing all actions to "power" or w/e which basically seems a stand-in for structures or "ideology" and it seems highly idealistic by denying any human action, which of course conflicts with actual experience. the tough thing is being careful when talking about capitalism not to present it as completely autonomous, with capitalism in the material simply being the acting out of the logic of capitalism the idea

I dunno this is 100% incoherent but I wanted to note it down so I remember to go back and re-read this bit.

p119 - he leads up to something that he suggests is a good way of reconciling human agency with structural determinants and then just leaves it there just when you expect him to describe it. Ironically one of his criticisms of Althusser is that he does the same. Which is sort of my frustration with this book - like so far it's had quite a lot of interesting spots but it never really develops them into a really coherent description of his ideas on historical materialism while the quotes from Althusser are often spotty so it doesn't offer a good critique of Althusser either (although it gives some good ideas) and I can't shake the feeling that a lot of his criticism is only vaguely accurate because we don't get a good look at Althusser's ideas. It's also sometimes tough going and I think ironically this is due to the same sort of thing he criticises Marx for - he tries to criticise Althusser within his own sort of terms and gets entangled.

That's not to say I regret reading this book or anything, it's just got a lot of problems, (and I feel Thompson would probably agree on this) mostly due to it trying to be a critique and polemic and explanation of his views on historical materialism. It's tough to fit everything together and give them all their dues. It also solidifies my feelings that most critiques are better using that as a jumping off point and then being 90% just their own views because it avoids the problem of presenting views that are boring to read about and muddled.

p126: i'm pausing this here because it's completely unbearable. Thompson's writing is sometimes a little confusing but I get what he's driving at and it's about things that are tough to explain and that I don't have experience in. Althusser's writing... it's like trudging through tar. Thompson has started quoting him at length and it's like i've read 20 paragraphs all saying "everything is connected" in the most obnoxious, baffling way possible. I can't deal with it. Maybe I'll come back to it when I understand Althusser a bit more. I'll try and read other stuff Thompson has written (his shorter essays and which come with the Monthly Review printing seem really interesting) but for now I'm pausing this. ( )

I guess I will quip, since no one else has, that a post-structuralist is someone who tries to take the "human" out of the humanities, and thus isn't left with much. While it's a pleasure to read E.P. Thompson, it's a melancholy one. Structuralism and post-structuralism overran academics in capitalist societies like a scourge for the next 30 years after the titular essay was written, all the while actually existing socialism was decaying and collapsing under relentless assault from without and within. So Thompson's humane faith in the historical process as something which is open-ended, evolving and made consciously by actual human beings is like hearing a voice speaking from the grave. ( )

"The Poverty of Theory" is a collection of essays by E.P. Thompson, the famous British socialist historian. It contains four essays, of which the first one, for which the collection is named, spans about half the book.

This essay, "The Poverty of Theory: Or an Orrery of Errors", is a 200-ish page demolishing of Althusser and the Althusserian tendency within socialist theory. With excellent wit, insight and a clear writing style Thompson shows how Althusser has fallen into every possible idealist trap while trying to maintain a Marxism of the kind that Marx himself constantly warned against. The theses and claims of Althusser, with all their philosophical posturing and word-games, are revealed as being mostly meaningless and if not that, quite dangerously wrong. Especially Althusser's total failure to understand the procedures of historical science is brilliantly demonstrated. This essay should be required reading for any Marxist interested in philosophy and in particular those sympathetic to structuralism.

The second essay is called "Outside the Whale", and is a general critique of the conservative, apathetic political stance of intellectuals in the 1940s and 1950s, ranging from Orwell to Kingsley Amis. Thompson uses the likes of Wordsworth and Blake to defend the possibility of progress and the importance of being politically engaged. This essay is short, but effective, and contains many memorable phrases.

Next comes "The Peculiarities of the English", which is, despite what one would expect from an essay with that title, not a discussion of the peculiarities of the English but a rebuttal of Perry Anderson and Tom Nairn. These had, in different articles, denigrated British history and the British classes as not conforming to their expectations of societal progress. Thompson both refutes this and criticizes the 'platonist' tendency to use concepts like "the Revolution" and "the Bourgeoisie" as models to which real history should aspire and conform. This essay has been used now and then to accuse E.P. Thompson of petty nationalism for Britain, but considering the real content that makes one wonder whether those accusers have actually read it. In any case the debate between Thompson and Anderson is a little passé now, but it may be of some interest to Marxist historians and historiographers.

The last essay is probably the most famous, and infamous, one Thompson has written: his "Open Letter to Leszek Kolakowski". The 'letter' is a response to Kolakowski's justified anger at socialists and their stance towards Soviet society, published as "Responsibility and History" in the literary magazine Nowa Kultura. E.P. Thompson agrees fully with Kolakowski's polemics against the Soviet state and society, but tries at the same time to defend socialism in general and Marxism in particular as an intellectual 'approach', one that should not in his view be permanently tainted with the blood of Stalin's (and others') victims. The essay itself is difficult to judge on its merits, so the reader had better decide for herself. In any case Kolakowski was not at all pleased with it and wrote an angry rebuttal, to which Thompson never responded, saying that he felt it did not address what he had meant. The debate between the two has had some renewed interest recently, with Tony Judt writing about it in the New York Review of Books (because of the new one-volume edition of Kolakowski's "Main Currents of Marxism") of last month, obviously supporting Kolakowski. Judt's article is quite silly but may be a good introduction to this essay for the novice.

Altogether, this essay collection is very worthwhile, both because of its content and because of the highly entertaining and stimulating writing style of the author. A must-have for socialists. ( )