On This Page
Description
Dividing the century into the Age of Catastrophe, 1914-1950, the Golden Age, 1950-1973, and the Landslide, 1973-1991, Hobsbawm marshals a vast array of data into a volume of unparalleled inclusiveness, vibrancy, and insight, a work that ranks with his classics The Age of Empire and The Age of Revolution. In the short century between 1914 and 1991, the world has been convulsed by two global wars that swept away millions of lives and entire systems of government. Communism became a messianic show more faith and then collapsed ignominiously. Peasants became city dwellers, housewives became workers-and, increasingly leaders. Populations became literate even as new technologies threatened to make print obsolete. And the driving forces of history swung from Europe to its former colonies. show lessTags
Recommendations
Member Reviews
This book in some ways shows the sheer greatness of Hobsbawm's approach but also its limits. It is another broad survey which stays somewhat chronological and places economic history as the driving force. The book, despite its longer length, is very succinct. Despite its length it truly could not have been shorter. Few historians had Hobsbawm's ability to pick themes and argue the causes and explanations of events and trends with such persuasion, encylopedic knowledge, and beauty. This book shows all of the intellectual bravery, bordering on arrogance, which defines the age of series.
Much has been made about this book's author and his supposed inability to properly distance himself and look objectively at the history of communism. I show more have been reading Hobsbawm's histories sequentially and this worried me before I read the final volume of the series. What I found was a historian who openly acknowledges and attempts to grapple with the horrific nature of Stalinism and its relationship to communist ideology, and someone who would have found himself well on the conservative side of the modern discourse regarding the causes of the soviet collapse.(ie it being primarily caused by the ultimate failure of the planned economy with the final nail in the coffin being Gorabachov's combination of glasnost and perestroika). This is an area where him and a conservative historian like Kotkin would agree. The supposed "deafening silence" people speak of seems more a product of the broad and survey-like nature of the book, or perhaps a certain cold war mentality that dominates all academic discussion of the history of the twentieth century, than Hobsbawm's actual judgments and exposition on the topics.
This was a longer book than the three previously volumes, less coherent in terms of developing its themes, and generally in some sense more conservative and tentative in its arguments than a book like Age of Capital or Empire. Nevertheless, for a nonexpert reader like myself it still contains the truly addictive and gorgeous writing style that makes these book such a joy.
Having finished all four books, I must say that the most beautiful passages from the series must be Hobsbawm's idea of "historical twilight" in the introduction to Age of Empire and the last few chapters looking toward the new millenium at the end of this book. Hobsbawm's history, although not a pure narrative or drama, has a deep soul and although Hobsbawm could not truly look at the period unemotionally, his honesty comes through in his attempt to look at it clearly. He will be remembereed as the Horodotus of modern industrial period, putting forward the broad arguments about the period that will continue to reverberate across time. He worked at a time in academia where the kind of boldness to put forth explanations allowed for such a herodotus like figure to exist. In addition, his judgments of the future, looking back from the present at the time period in which he wrote the book, have proven startlingly relevant. show less
Much has been made about this book's author and his supposed inability to properly distance himself and look objectively at the history of communism. I show more have been reading Hobsbawm's histories sequentially and this worried me before I read the final volume of the series. What I found was a historian who openly acknowledges and attempts to grapple with the horrific nature of Stalinism and its relationship to communist ideology, and someone who would have found himself well on the conservative side of the modern discourse regarding the causes of the soviet collapse.(ie it being primarily caused by the ultimate failure of the planned economy with the final nail in the coffin being Gorabachov's combination of glasnost and perestroika). This is an area where him and a conservative historian like Kotkin would agree. The supposed "deafening silence" people speak of seems more a product of the broad and survey-like nature of the book, or perhaps a certain cold war mentality that dominates all academic discussion of the history of the twentieth century, than Hobsbawm's actual judgments and exposition on the topics.
This was a longer book than the three previously volumes, less coherent in terms of developing its themes, and generally in some sense more conservative and tentative in its arguments than a book like Age of Capital or Empire. Nevertheless, for a nonexpert reader like myself it still contains the truly addictive and gorgeous writing style that makes these book such a joy.
Having finished all four books, I must say that the most beautiful passages from the series must be Hobsbawm's idea of "historical twilight" in the introduction to Age of Empire and the last few chapters looking toward the new millenium at the end of this book. Hobsbawm's history, although not a pure narrative or drama, has a deep soul and although Hobsbawm could not truly look at the period unemotionally, his honesty comes through in his attempt to look at it clearly. He will be remembereed as the Horodotus of modern industrial period, putting forward the broad arguments about the period that will continue to reverberate across time. He worked at a time in academia where the kind of boldness to put forth explanations allowed for such a herodotus like figure to exist. In addition, his judgments of the future, looking back from the present at the time period in which he wrote the book, have proven startlingly relevant. show less
This overview of the 20th century is relatively better than most histories that interpret human society as arising from innate cultural attributes or ideas of great thinkers. Rather, Hobsbawm mostly recognizes that material conditions and interests shape people's actions and ideas.
However, he does vacillate between the materialist and idealist views of history when he talks about abstract "democracy" as if it were independent from the class interests and the class struggle. Democracy is not so much a social organizing principle as it is an ideology used both by the oppressed to fight for political power or by the oppressors to legitimize their domination. The specific processes by which a state selects its representatives do not show more fundamentally alter the social relations. Rather, social relations, in particular, the balance of power between social classes, shape the extent to which exploited classes are able to maintain "democratic" freedoms.
Hobsbawm's understanding of the collapse of the Soviet Union and East Europe are weakened by this failure to recognize that it was not fundamentally due to an excess of centralization or lack of democracy. Rather, it was due to the political strength of international capital vs. the international proletariat that the Stalinist bureaucracy arose in the first place and why it fell.
Leon Trotsky's Revolution Betrayed provides a more scientific analysis of Stalinism that permits us to understand why this revolution was ultimately defeated.
Overall, Hobsbawm's series is well worth reading or listening to. show less
However, he does vacillate between the materialist and idealist views of history when he talks about abstract "democracy" as if it were independent from the class interests and the class struggle. Democracy is not so much a social organizing principle as it is an ideology used both by the oppressed to fight for political power or by the oppressors to legitimize their domination. The specific processes by which a state selects its representatives do not show more fundamentally alter the social relations. Rather, social relations, in particular, the balance of power between social classes, shape the extent to which exploited classes are able to maintain "democratic" freedoms.
Hobsbawm's understanding of the collapse of the Soviet Union and East Europe are weakened by this failure to recognize that it was not fundamentally due to an excess of centralization or lack of democracy. Rather, it was due to the political strength of international capital vs. the international proletariat that the Stalinist bureaucracy arose in the first place and why it fell.
Leon Trotsky's Revolution Betrayed provides a more scientific analysis of Stalinism that permits us to understand why this revolution was ultimately defeated.
Overall, Hobsbawm's series is well worth reading or listening to. show less
I started at the end, chronologically speaking with this addendum to Eric Hobsbawm's much admired "Age of" sequence. The book by its nature is more than just historical analysis, with personal observation and reflection informing its analysis.
On its own terms it is an excellent book for gaining an understanding of cause and effect in the twentieth century. It is not a narrative and those less familiar with the events would be better with Martin Gilbert or John Roberts' efforts. Hobsbawm certainly popularised the notion of the short twentieth century (1914 - 1991), a periodisation which is now widely used. Within that he discusses three sub periods: the age of catastrophe, the Golden age and the age of crisis.
This is not a light book. It show more is not necessarily hard to read but it is rich in content and thought. The paperback has almost 600 pages of densely packed ideas, and I often found myself re-reading paragraphs. Again not because they're not clear, just that there is a lot of thought to take in.
Because of Hobsbawm's Marxist background a lot of people immediately attack him, some quite venomously once he was safely in the grave (e.g. A N Wilson). The only word for that is cowardly. Actually reading this book on its own terms Hobsbawm clearly identifies the problems, flaws and cruelties in "really existing socialism" and the other totalitarian regimes of the age of catastrophe in the first half of the century. Stalin is described as "an autocrat of exceptional, some might say unique, ferocity, ruthlessness and lack of scruple". He describes Soviet collectivisation as a failure. He also gives a deft analysis of the fall of communism in the 1980s. He effectively describes "the weaknesses of the self-serving party bureaucracy of the Brezhnev era; a combination of incompetence and corruption" and is stinging about Maoism.
Make no mistake, Hobsbawm sees plenty of flaws in capitalism and doesn't believe it is sustainable. His discussion about growing inequality, climatic effects, globalisation and the challenges of population growth could have come out of yesterday's newspaper (the book was published in 1994). But to get the impression from a few critics that he is a rabid unapologetic Stalinist certainly will cause you to miss out on a lot of fascinating insights from this book.
He identifies key transformations through the century - diminishing Eurocentrism, globalisation and stronger transnational interconnections, and the disintegration of connections between individuals, a self-centredness. This book really got me thinking and reflecting and gives a good historical framework for understanding contemporary events. show less
On its own terms it is an excellent book for gaining an understanding of cause and effect in the twentieth century. It is not a narrative and those less familiar with the events would be better with Martin Gilbert or John Roberts' efforts. Hobsbawm certainly popularised the notion of the short twentieth century (1914 - 1991), a periodisation which is now widely used. Within that he discusses three sub periods: the age of catastrophe, the Golden age and the age of crisis.
This is not a light book. It show more is not necessarily hard to read but it is rich in content and thought. The paperback has almost 600 pages of densely packed ideas, and I often found myself re-reading paragraphs. Again not because they're not clear, just that there is a lot of thought to take in.
Because of Hobsbawm's Marxist background a lot of people immediately attack him, some quite venomously once he was safely in the grave (e.g. A N Wilson). The only word for that is cowardly. Actually reading this book on its own terms Hobsbawm clearly identifies the problems, flaws and cruelties in "really existing socialism" and the other totalitarian regimes of the age of catastrophe in the first half of the century. Stalin is described as "an autocrat of exceptional, some might say unique, ferocity, ruthlessness and lack of scruple". He describes Soviet collectivisation as a failure. He also gives a deft analysis of the fall of communism in the 1980s. He effectively describes "the weaknesses of the self-serving party bureaucracy of the Brezhnev era; a combination of incompetence and corruption" and is stinging about Maoism.
Make no mistake, Hobsbawm sees plenty of flaws in capitalism and doesn't believe it is sustainable. His discussion about growing inequality, climatic effects, globalisation and the challenges of population growth could have come out of yesterday's newspaper (the book was published in 1994). But to get the impression from a few critics that he is a rabid unapologetic Stalinist certainly will cause you to miss out on a lot of fascinating insights from this book.
He identifies key transformations through the century - diminishing Eurocentrism, globalisation and stronger transnational interconnections, and the disintegration of connections between individuals, a self-centredness. This book really got me thinking and reflecting and gives a good historical framework for understanding contemporary events. show less
Hobsbawn ambisce a compiere un impresa folle: raccontare un periodo storico che lui stesso non ha terminato di vivere. Quello che ottiene non è solo un racconto che un capolavoro lucido, preciso, documentato. Quello che ottiene è di lasciare stupito il lettore contemporaneo sopravvissuto al secolo breve, rispetto ai grandi sconvolgimenti già insiti nel racconto storico e che, solo adesso stiamo vivendo direttamente. Un testo fondamentale per orientarsi nel passato, nel presente e persino nell'immediato futuro.
Hobsbawm is a provocative guide to the "Short Twentieth Century." He is usually labeled a Marxist historian, but from reading his tetralogy, of which this is the final volume, I see him more as a writer not in thrall to capitalist triumphalism. He's certainly not a free marketeer, his loathing for economists is palpable, but neither is he an apologist for Stalin. His chapter on the last years of the USSR, analyzing what was gained and lost in its fall, is a masterpiece of historical perception, more remarkable in that it was penned only a few years after 1989.
This is a magnificent book and can best be described as a grand sweep of the 20th Century. Considering that we went through two world wars, this was indeed the age of extremes.
I'd like to quibble, as a good Asian, and say that he did not pay enough attention to the changes in Asia and Africa. He did mention these regions, but the weight given to them is low. Having said that, the western countries did dominate the age and, in the process, caused a lot of mayhem.
Eric Hobsbawm was an excellent historian and a man who could weave a tale together. Weaving the complex threads of the 20th century into a composite whole is a magnificent achievement.
I'd like to quibble, as a good Asian, and say that he did not pay enough attention to the changes in Asia and Africa. He did mention these regions, but the weight given to them is low. Having said that, the western countries did dominate the age and, in the process, caused a lot of mayhem.
Eric Hobsbawm was an excellent historian and a man who could weave a tale together. Weaving the complex threads of the 20th century into a composite whole is a magnificent achievement.
Fast paced and fun to read. He analyzes political movements and economic successes and disasters across the globe. It is an amazing tour de force and even if you think you know your history, you will find new insights here. It is worrisome to see the parallels between the economic collapse in the thirties and the rise of fascism with our own 'recession' and rising demagoguery, religious fundamentalism and ethnic estrangements.
Members
- Recently Added By
Lists
BEST BOOKS TO UNDERSTAND XX CENTURY'S HISTORY
63 works; 3 members
Fake Top 100 Nonfiction
79 works; 3 members
Política - Clásicos
164 works; 2 members
My List
302 works; 1 member
Books Cited in Wasteland by W. Scott Poole
120 works; 1 member
Books in the Bibliography of The Cold War by John Lewis Gaddis
192 works; 1 member
Author Information
161+ Works 18,794 Members
Eric Hobsbawm is a neo-Marxist historian of the Industrial Revolution who pays particular attention to the inequities toward the lower classes, especially in law and politics. (Bowker Author Biography)
Some Editions
Awards and Honors
Series
Belongs to Publisher Series
Work Relationships
Common Knowledge
- Canonical title
- The Age of Extremes : A History of the World, 1914-1991
- Original title
- The Age of Extremes : The Short Twentieth Century 1914-1991
- Original publication date
- 1994
- Important events*
- 20. secolo
- First words
- On the 28 June 1992 President Mitterrand of France made a sudden, unannounced and unexpected appearance in Sarajevo, already the centre of a Balkan war that was to cost many thousands of lives during the remainder of the year... (show all).
- Last words
- (Click to show. Warning: May contain spoilers.)If we try to build the third millennium on that basis, we shall fail. And the price of failure, that is to say, the alternative to a changed society, is darkness.
- Blurbers
- Heilbroner, Robert
- Original language
- English
- Disambiguation notice
- Full title (1994 UK edition): Age of extremes : the short twentieth century, 1914-1991 / Eric Hobsbawm; full title (1994 US edition): ... (show all)n.loc.gov/94028981" rel="nofollow" target="_new">The age of extremes : a history of the world, 1914-1991 / Eric Hobsbawm
*Some information comes from Common Knowledge in other languages. Click "Edit" for more information.
Classifications
Statistics
- Members
- 3,425
- Popularity
- 4,875
- Reviews
- 37
- Rating
- (4.09)
- Languages
- 21 — Chinese, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Korean, Lithuanian, Norwegian (Bokmål), Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish
- Media
- Paper, Audiobook, Ebook
- ISBNs
- 70
- ASINs
- 17