.jpg)
Salient: An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 12, No. 7, July 13th, 1949.
On with the Halo
On with the Halo
A contributor using the pseudonym "Partisan" has written two articles masquerading as a Marxist interpretation of history. The first, published in your issue of March 16th, is a particular interpretation of the English Puritan Revolution of the 17th century; the second, of June 8th, is a report of an Historical Society symposium on Toynbee.
The article on the Puritan Revolution demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the character of Stuart government, and is more suited to an 18th century Whig historian than to an intelligent Marxist. Take this significant example: "Not only was he (Charles I), too, interested in aggrandisement, but he was willing to stoop to any low subterfuge to further this end." This is a gross caricature. It overlooks entirely the paternalistic elements in Stuart government. Charles I's period of personal government was a period of growing prosperity and improved administrative efficiency, the enclosure laws were more vigorously enforced, there was more adequate poor relief than ever before and after in English history, and corruption and bribery were suppressed, to a very successful degree stopped. "Partisan" will no doubt be surprised to learn that the Privy Council of the period frequently intervened to protect employees from wage deductions.
Your contributor misinterprets completely the viewpoint of most modern historians, "bourgeois" or otherwise. As an example, "the restoration of 1660 took us back, they argue, to 1640." No historian would make such a preposterous assertion—"Partisan" is sparring with shadows.
Partisan Pummelled
The report on the symposium on Toynbee is unfair to both Toynbee and the speakers. For instance "Partisan" says. "Thus we have the first concrete inference from Toyn-beeism for the present world—civilisation is doomed! Toynbeeism is therefore firstly the historical philosophy of pessimsim," but at the most what Toynbee is saying is that our civilisation is doomed. This is no more "the historical philosophy of pessimism" than is Marxism which asserts that our capitalist society is doomed.
Before attempting a Marxist interpretation of history, or for that matter, any other interpretation, a sound factual basis and understanding is necessary. It is unfortunate that '"Partisan" has used Marx's name and purports to write a Marxist interpretation without that understanding. He has built a house on sand.
Q.E.A. and K.L.G.