The New Left and the Origins of the Cold War

1977 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Whittle Johnston ◽  
Robert James Maddox
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
New Left ◽  
1973 ◽  
Vol 1 (9) ◽  
pp. 196-197
Author(s):  
Richard H. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
New Left ◽  

2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 479-493
Author(s):  
Kaitlyn Tucker Sorenson

Abstract This article explores and analyses several remarkable parallels between two unique cultural spaces, namely, that of the Korčula Summer School and that of the Kurorte – the Grand Spas of Central Europe. Though distinct from one another with respect to their historical as well as topographical locations within Europe, it is as cultural spaces that the two share their least apparent – but perhaps most significant – points of affinity. Just as Baden-Baden had served as the ‘summer capital of Europe’ for one set of cultural elites across political, linguistic and national boundaries, so did Korčula offer a space for cultural and intellectual exchange for philosophers from both sides of the Cold War. The article demonstrates how both of these spaces were marked by their shared internationalism, their political engagement, their privilege, their respective distance from daily social orders, and their intellectual intensity. Thus, it is suggested that Central-European Kurort culture – commonly considered a belle-époque phenomenon – did indeed survive the Great Wars, and found new expressions in a post-war, socialist context.


1973 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 623
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Smith ◽  
Robert James Maddox
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
New Left ◽  

1973 ◽  
Vol 1 (8) ◽  
pp. 175-176
Author(s):  
Thomas V. DiBacco
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
New Left ◽  

1985 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 39-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen Ross

The debate over the British labor aristocracy has been, since Eric Hobsbawm's “Labour Aristocracy in Nineteenth-Century Britain,” a litmus test of changes in the political assumptions of successive cohorts of labor historians. Hobsbawm, writing as a Marxist in the cold war era, was (and remains) convinced that “membership” in this privileged stratum was mainly a question of wages, skill, and degree of unionization. In the 1970s, under New Left impetus, working-class culture more generally began to excite more interest; scholars began to look beyond the workplace for evidence of the kinds of divisions between workers—captured in the term respectability—which Hobsbawm pointed to in work-related spheres. Earlier concerns with occupational hierarchies, wages, and workplace associations have been supplemented by studies of friendly society membership, intermarriage between occupational groups, residential patterns, thrift, recreation, and so on.


1986 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Kubalkova ◽  
A. A. Cruickshank

In the historiography of the Cold War a small but active group of American historians influenced by New Left radicalism rejected the view prevailing in the USA at the time in regard to the assignation of responsibility for the beginning and continuation of the Cold War.1 Although their reasoning took them along different routes and via different perceptions as to key dates and events, there were certain features all US revisionists had in common (some more generally recognized than others). Heavily involved as they were in the analysis of the US socio-economic system, the Soviet Union was largely left out of their concerns and it was the United States who had been found the ‘guilty’ party. The revisionists, of course inadvertently, corroborated Soviet conclusions, a fact gratefully acknowledged by Soviet writers.2


2016 ◽  
Vol 82 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Harker

Abstract Posterity has not been kind to the Australian-born polymath Jack Lindsay (1900–1990), a self-confessed ‘odd man out’ who published over one hundred and seventy books across a range of genres. This article asks what Lindsay wrote, why it has been forgotten and why we should care. It restores to view Lindsay's politico-cultural trajectory from his conversion to Marxism in 1936. It argues that Lindsay's searching and sceptical Marxism was a source of his prolific creativity and that he evolved a distinct and sometimes eccentric Marxist theoretical framework – a system with the concept of alienation at its core – within which his individual works are most legible. It argues that Lindsay's theoretical Marxism is not reducible to that of ‘British Communism’ or the ‘Old Left’, but exceeded and was mostly in tension with the Marxism of his party and its Soviet models, despite his political affiliation. It explains that Lindsay's oeuvre sank gradually from mainstream cultural visibility through the Cold War and that his conflicted but ongoing CP and Soviet-facing alignment alienated him from an emerging New Left with which he actually shared much theoretical ground. Estranged from his own party and largely dismissed by the New Left, his project disappeared through the cracks that opened during the traumatic realignments of the British Left in the post-1956 decade and remains largely absent from accounts of Marxist thought in Britain today. But though in many ways flawed, Lindsay's central project – tracing the processes of alienation through social formations, sifting human history for moments of resistance to that alienation, and attempting to prefigure a society in which values of creative production and communication are generalized across society as a whole – speaks loudly to ever-sharpening problems and deserves revisiting now.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document