Changes

<i>What Might Have Been: Imaginary History from 12 Leading Historians</i> Why is the flourishing genre of ‘what if?’ [[histories]] the preserve of [[conservative]] [[historians]]? edThe introduction to such volumes typically begins with an attack on [[Marxists]], who allegedly believe in [[historical determinism]]. Take this latest instalment, edited by Andrew Roberts, who has himself contributed an essay on the bright prospects that would have faced [[Russia]] in the 20th century had [[Lenin]] been shot on arriving at the Finland Station. One of Roberts’s arguments in favour of this kind of history is that ‘anything that has been condemned by Carr, Thompson and Hobsbawm must have something to recommend it.’ He believes that the ideals of [[liberté]], [[égalité]], [[fraternité]] ‘have time and again been shown to be completely mutually exclusive’. ‘If,’ he continues, ‘we accept that there is no such thing as historical inevitability and that nothing is preordained, political lethargy – one of the scourges of our day – should be banished, since it means that in human affairs anything is possible.’

Why This is [[empirically]] not the flourishing genre of ‘what if?’ histories case. Roberts ignores the preserve central [[ideological]] [[paradox]] of conservative historians? The introduction to such volumes typically begins with an attack on Marxists[[modern]] [[history]], who allegedly believe as formulated by [[Max Weber]] in historical determinism<em>[[The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism]]. Take this latest instalment</em> In contrast to [[Catholicism]], edited by Andrew Robertswhich conceived of human redemption as being dependent on good deeds, who has himself contributed an essay [[Protestantism]] insisted on [[predestination]]: why then did [[Protestantism]] function as the bright prospects [[ideology]] of early [[capitalism]]? Why did [[people]]’s [[belief]] that would have faced Russia in the 20th century their redemption had Lenin been shot on arriving at the Finland Station. One of Roberts’s arguments decided in favour of this kind of history is that ‘anything that has been condemned by Carr, Thompson and Hobsbawm must have something advance not only not lead to recommend it.’ He believes that the ideals of libertélethargy, égalité, fraternité ‘have time and again been shown to be completely mutually exclusive’. ‘If,’ he continues, ‘we accept that there is no such thing as historical inevitability and that nothing is preordained, political lethargy – one of but sustain the scourges most powerful mobilisation of our day – should be banished, since it means that in human affairs anything is possible.’resources ever experienced?

This is empirically not The [[conservative]] sympathies of the ‘what if?’ volumes become clear as soon as you look at their contents pages. The topics tend to concern how much better history would have been if some revolutionary or ‘radical’ event had been avoided (if Charles I had won the Civil War; if the English had won the war against the American colonies; if the Confederacy had won the American Civil War; if Germany had won the caseGreat War) or, less often, how much worse history would have been if it had taken a more progressive turn. Roberts ignores There are two examples of the latter in Roberts’s volume: had Thatcher been killed in the central ideological paradox Brighton bombing of modern history1984; had Gore been president on 9/11 (in this last essay, as formulated written by Max Weber the neo-con David Frum, any pretence to serious history is abandoned in favour of political propaganda masked as satire). No wonder Roberts refers approvingly to Kingsley Amis’s novel <em>The Protestant Ethic Russian Hide-and the Spirit of Capitalism.-Seek</em> In contrast to Catholicism, which conceived of human redemption as being dependent on good deeds, Protestantism insisted on predestination: why then did Protestantism function as the ideology of early capitalism? Why did people’s belief that their redemption had been decided is set in advance not only not lead to lethargy, but sustain the most powerful mobilisation of human resources ever experienced?a Soviet-occupied Britain.

The conservative sympathies of So what should the ‘what if[[Marxist]]’s answer be?’ volumes become clear as soon as you look at their contents pages. The topics tend Definitely not to concern how much better rehash [[Georgi Plekhanov]]’s dreary thoughts about the ‘[[role of the individual in history would have been if some revolutionary or ‘radical’ event ]]’ (had [[Napoleon]] never been avoided (if Charles I had won the Civil War; if the English had won the war against the American colonies; if the Confederacy had won the American Civil War; if Germany had won the Great War) orborn, less often, how much worse history someone else would have been if it had taken to play a more progressive turn. There are two examples of the latter in Roberts’s volume: had Thatcher been killed in the Brighton bombing of 1984; had Gore been president on 9/11 (in this last essaysimilar role, written by because the neo-con David Frum, any pretence deeper [[historical necessity]] called for a passage to serious history is abandoned in favour of political propaganda masked as satire[[Bonapartism]]). No wonder Roberts refers approvingly to Kingsley Amis’s novel <em>Russian Hide- I would rather question the premise that [[Marxist]]s (and-Seek</em>, which is set [[left]]ists in a Soviet-occupied Britaingeneral) are dumb [[determinist]]s who can’t entertain alternative scenarios.

So what should the Marxist’s answer beThe first thing to note is that ‘what if? Definitely not ’ [[history]] is part of a more general trend, one which takes issue with linear [[narrative]] and sees life as a multiform flow. The ‘hard’ [[science]]s seem to rehash Georgi Plekhanov’s dreary thoughts about be haunted by the randomness of life and possible alternative versions of [[reality]]: as [[Stephen Jay Gould]] put it, ‘wind back the ‘role [[film]] of life and play it again. The [[history]] of [[evolution]] will be totally different.’ This [[perception]] of our [[reality]] as only one of the individual in history’ (had Napoleon never been bornpossible outcomes of an ‘open’ situation, someone else would have had the notion that other possible outcomes continue to play a similar rolehaunt our ‘true’ [[reality]], conferring on it an extreme fragility and [[contingency]], because the deeper historical necessity called for a passage is by no means alien to Bonapartism)[[Marxism]]. I would rather question Indeed, the felt urgency of the premise that Marxists (and leftists in general) are dumb determinists who can’t entertain alternative scenarios[[revolution]]ary [[act]] relies on it.

The first thing to note Since the non-occurrence of the [[October Revolution]] is that a favourite topic of ‘what if?’ history is part of a more general trendhistorians, one which takes issue with linear narrative and sees life it’s worth looking at how [[Lenin]] himself related to counterfactuality. He was as far as a multiform flowhe could be from any reliance on ‘[[historical necessity]]’. The ‘hard’ sciences seem to be haunted by On the contrary, it was his [[Menshevik]] opponents who emphasised the randomness [[impossibility]] of life and possible alternative versions omitting one of realitythe stages prescribed by [[historical determinism]]: as Stephen Jay Gould put itfirst [[bourgeois]]-[[democratic]], ‘wind back the film of life and play it again. The history of evolution will be totally differentthen [[proletarian]] [[revolution]]. When, in his ‘[[April Theses]]’ This perception of our reality as only one of 1917, [[Lenin]] claimed that this was the possible outcomes of an ‘open’ situation<em>[[Augenblick]]</em>, the notion that other possible outcomes continue unique opportunity to haunt our ‘true’ realitystart a [[revolution]], conferring on it an extreme fragility and contingency, is his proposal was at first met with stupefaction or contempt by no means alien to Marxisma large majority of his party colleagues. Indeed But he had understood that the opportunity was provided by a unique combination of circumstances: if the moment wasn’t seized, the felt urgency chance would be forfeited, perhaps for decades. [[Lenin]] was entertaining an alternative scenario: what if we don’t act now? It was precisely his awareness of the revolutionary catastrophic consequences of not acting that impelled him to act relies on it.

Since There is a much deeper commitment to alternative histories in the non-occurrence of radical [[Marxist]] view. For a radical Marxist, the October Revolution actual [[history]] that we live is a favourite topic itself the realisation of ‘what if?’ historiansan alternative history: we have to live in it because, in the past, it’s worth looking at how Lenin himself related we failed to counterfactualityseize the moment. He was as far as he could be from any reliance In an outstanding reading of [[Walter Benjamin]]’s ‘[[Theses on ‘historical necessity’. On the contraryPhilosophy of History]]’ (which [[Benjamin]] never published), it was his Menshevik opponents who emphasised [[Eric Santner]] elaborated the impossibility of omitting one of notion that a present [[revolution]]ary intervention [[repeats]]/redeems failed attempts in the stages prescribed by historical determinism: first bourgeois-democratic, then proletarian revolutionpast. When These attempts count as ‘[[symptom]]s’, in his ‘April Theses’ and can be retroactively redeemed through the ‘[[miracle]]’ of 1917the [[revolutionary]] [[act]]. They are ‘not so much forgotten deeds, Lenin claimed that this was the but rather forgotten <em>Augenblick[[failures]]</em>to act, failures to <em>[[suspend]]</em> the unique opportunity to start a revolution, his proposal was at first met with stupefaction or contempt by a large majority force of his party colleagues. But he had understood that the opportunity was provided by a unique combination social bonds inhibiting acts of circumstances: if the moment wasn’t seized, the chance would be forfeited, perhaps for decades. Lenin was entertaining an alternative scenario[[solidarity]] with [[society]]’s “[[other]]s”’: what if we don’t act now? It was precisely his awareness of the catastrophic consequences of not acting that impelled him to act.

There is a much deeper commitment <blockquote>[[Symptom]]s register not only past [[failed]] [[revolutionary]] attempts but, more modestly, past <em>failures to respond</em> to alternative histories in the radical Marxist view. For a radical Marxist, the actual history that we live is itself the realisation calls for action or even for empathy on behalf of an alternative history: we have to live in it because, those whose suffering in the past, we failed some sense belongs to seize the moment. In an outstanding reading form of Walter Benjamin’s ‘Theses on the Philosophy life of History’ (which Benjamin never published), Eric Santner elaborated the notion that one is a present revolutionary intervention repeats/redeems failed attempts in the pastpart. These attempts count as ‘symptoms’, and can be retroactively redeemed through They hold the ‘miracle’ place of the revolutionary act. They are ‘not so much forgotten deeds, but rather forgotten something that is <em>failuresthere</em> to act, failures to that <em>suspendinsists</em> in our life, though it has never achieved full ontological consistency. Symptoms are thus in some sense the force virtual archives of social bonds inhibiting acts of solidarity with society’s “others”’:voids – or, perhaps better, defences against voids – that persist in historical experience.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Symptoms register not only past failed revolutionary attempts butFor [[Santner]], more modestlythese [[symptom]]s can also take the form of perturbations of ‘normal’ social life: participation, past <em>failures to respond</em> to calls for action or even for empathy on behalf of those whose suffering example, in some sense belongs to the form [[obscene]] [[ritual]]s of life a reigning [[ideology]]. In this way of which one is thinking, [[Kristallnacht]] – a part. They hold the place half-organised, half-spontaneous outburst of something that is <em>there</em>[[violent]] attacks on homes, synagogues, that <em>insists</em> in our lifebusinesses and individuals – becomes a [[Bakhtin]]ian [[carnival]], though a [[symptom]] whose fury and [[violence]] revealed it has never achieved full ontological consistencyas an attempt at ‘[[defence-formation]]’, a covering up of a previous failure to intervene effectively in [[Germany]]’s social crisis. Symptoms are thus in some sense In other words, the very [[violence]] of the [[pogrom]]s was proof of the virtual archives possibility of voids – oran authentic [[proletarian]] [[revolution]], perhaps betterits excessive energy marking the reaction to an ([[unconscious]]) awareness of the missed opportunity. And is not the ultimate source of [[Ostalgie]] ([[nostalgia]] for the [[Communist]] past) among many intellectuals (and ordinary people) from the defunct [[German Democratic Republic]] also a longing not so much for the [[Communist]] past, defences against voids – but rather for what that persist in historical experience.</blockquote>past might have been, for the missed opportunity of creating an alternative [[Germany]]?

For Santner, these symptoms The post-[[Communist]] outbreaks of [[neo-Nazi]] [[violence]] can also take the form be understood as [[symptom]]atic outbursts of perturbations rage, displaying an awareness of ‘normal’ social missed opportunities. A parallel can be drawn with the [[psychic]] lifeof the [[individual]]: participation, for example, in just the obscene rituals of a reigning ideology. In this same way as the awareness of thinking, Kristallnacht – a half-organised, half-spontaneous outburst missed private opportunity (of violent attacks on homes, synagogues, businesses and individuals – becomes a Bakhtinian carnivalfulfilling [[love]] affair, a symptom whose fury and violence revealed it as an attempt at ‘defence-formation’, a covering up of a previous failure to intervene effectively perhaps) often leaves its traces in Germany’s social crisis. In other words, the very violence form of the pogroms was proof [[irrational]] [[anxieties]], headaches and fits of the possibility of an authentic proletarian revolutionrage, its excessive energy marking the reaction to an (unconscious) awareness of the missed opportunity. And is not so the ultimate source [[void]] of Ostalgie (nostalgia for the Communist past) among many intellectuals (and ordinary people) from the defunct German Democratic Republic also a longing not so much for the Communist past, but rather for what that past might have been, for the missed [[revolution]]ary opportunity can result in [[irrational]] fits of creating an alternative Germany?[[destruction]].

The post-Communist outbreaks ‘what if?’ dimension goes to the core of neo-Nazi violence can also be understood as symptomatic outbursts the [[Marxist]] [[revolutionary]] project. In his ironic comments on the [[French Revolution]], [[Marx]] opposed revolutionary enthusiasm and the sobering ‘[[morning after]]’: the actual outcome of ragethe [[sublime]] revolutionary explosion which promised [[liberté]], [[égalité]], displaying an awareness [[fraternité]] is the miserable [[utilitarian]]/[[egotistical]] universe of [[market]] calculation. (This gap was even wider in the case of missed opportunitiesthe [[October Revolution]]. A parallel can ) [[Marx]]’s point, however, is not the commonsensical one, that the vulgar [[reality]] of commerce turns out to be drawn with the psychic life ‘[[truth]] of the individual: in just theatre of revolutionary enthusiasm’ – what all the same way as fuss was about. In the awareness of a missed private opportunity (revolutionary explosion, another [[utopian]] dimension shines through, that of a fulfilling love affair[[universal emancipation]], perhaps) often leaves its traces which is in fact the ‘[[excess]]’ betrayed by the [[market]] [[reality]] that takes over on the form of irrational anxieties[[morning after]]. This [[excess]] is not simply abolished or dismissed as irrelevant, but is, headaches and fits of rageas it were, so transposed into the void of [[virtual]] state, as a missed revolutionary opportunity can result in irrational fits of destruction[[dream]] waiting to be realised.

The ‘what if?’ dimension goes to the core of the ==See Also==* [[Marxism]]* [[Marxist revolutionary project. In his ironic comments on the French Revolution, theory]]* [[revolution]]* [[left]]* [[universality]]* [[capitalism]]* [[Karl Marx opposed revolutionary enthusiasm and the sobering ‘morning after’: the actual outcome of the sublime revolutionary explosion which promised liberté, égalité, fraternité is the miserable utilitarian/egotistical universe of market calculation. (This gap was even wider in the case of the October Revolution.) Marx’s point, however, is not the commonsensical one, that the vulgar reality of commerce turns out to be the ‘truth of the theatre of revolutionary enthusiasm’ – what all the fuss was about. In the revolutionary explosion, another utopian dimension shines through, that of universal emancipation, which is in fact the ‘excess’ betrayed by the market reality that takes over on the morning after. This ]]* [[excess is not simply abolished or dismissed as irrelevant, but is, as it were, transposed into the virtual state, as a dream waiting to be realised.]]* [[violence]]* [[communism]]* [[soviet Union]]* [[historical necessity]]* [[determinism]]* [[religion]]* [[protestantism]]* [[predestination]]* [[conservative]]* [[Eric Santner]]* [[Augenblick]]* [[symptom]]* [[Max Weber]]* [[Lenin]]