本篇paper代写- New left movement in Britain讨论了英国新左派运动。英国新左派运动始于1956年，随后在20世纪60年代中期发生分裂，退化为一个团结在《新左派评论》杂志周围的知识分子小团体，并在20世纪70年代以后走向终结。虽然作为政治运动的新左派历时短暂，但它仍为当代英国政治留下了一些重要的间接遗产。本篇paper代写由51due代写平台整理，供大家参考阅读。
The British new left movement started in 1956, then split up in the mid-1960s, degenerating into a small group of intellectuals united around the new left review magazine, and came to an end after the 1970s. Although the new left as a political movement lasted for a short time, it still left some important indirect legacies to contemporary British politics. Since the early 1990s, research on the history of the new left has been on the rise.
Professor Kenny, you may not know that the new left movement in Britain has been a topic of great concern in Chinese academic circles in recent years. There are many reasons why Chinese academic circles pay attention to this topic. First of all, since the 1990s, Williams, Thompson and other contemporary British leftist thinkers have gained more and more theoretical influence in China. Chinese scholars have found in them a common experience: the new left movement. Second, as you know, since the early 1990 s, the academic circles have published some study of British new left movement, such as Lin Chun "British new left" and your "first generation of British new left", these works gradually entered the view of the Chinese academic circles, promoting our understanding of this movement. Finally, in the late 1990s, a group of scholars who called themselves the "new left" appeared in mainland China, which in some ways stimulated the desire of Chinese academic circles to understand the new left in Britain. However, in general, the understanding of the British new left movement in the Chinese academic community is superficial, and there are many mistakes. Could you first introduce the general definition of the British new left or the British new left movement to Chinese readers?
The new left movement was an ideological and political trend that was introduced to Britain from France and opposed to the two main left parties, labor party and British communist party. It is also, to a large extent, an intellectual movement that attracts intellectuals, scholars, artists, teachers and other professionals. Political publications Reasoner and Universities and Left Review are the main public spokesmen of the campaign. In its earliest days, many of the movement's members were either activists in the anti-nuclear movement that erupted in the 1950s or active participants in the political struggles within the Labour party. The early days of the movement focused on building new left discussion circles around the country. Later, the two magazines merged to form the new left review, which was originally edited by Stuart hall. But after hall resigned as editor of the new left review in 1961, the new left ceased to be a political movement and became a much smaller group of intellectuals centered around the new left review.
So, in your opinion, what are the differences between the new left and the traditional left?
In fact, if you compare the theoretical and political attitudes of the new left with those of the traditional left, the main differences can be seen: the new left opposes the centralized economic domination, political centralization and institutionalized hierarchy associated with the traditional left parties and their leadership traditions. Therefore, the new left thinkers pay attention to the praise of bottom-up autonomy, diversity and diversity, trying to prove that there are some things in socialism that are neglected but should actually be placed at the forefront of the political struggle of the left. The most striking difference, of course, is that the traditional left exists as a political party, whereas the new left does not. The new left has not become a party to campaign main benefit is that it makes creativity and original thought greatly spewing out, a disadvantage is that sports can't continue to survive, because the movement did not develop a system to support its continued development or to let it continue to exist mass base.
The exodus of intellectuals from the British communist party in 1956 was a prerequisite for the formation of a new left. So, in your opinion, could this wave of defections have been avoided at the time? Or, to put it another way, why did the new left fail to dominate the British communist party?
The red army's occupation of Hungary at the end of 1956, followed by a bloody crackdown on the Hungarian revolution, led to the withdrawal of almost a third of British communists. This is of course a major challenge to the authority and power of British communism, but it is important to note that only a small proportion of those who left the party joined the emerging new left. In addition, some gave up politics altogether, while others turned to the right and became fanatical anti-communists. So communists and ex-communists are suspicious of the new left as little more than a clique of intellectuals with dubious motives.
Hobsbbaum was the only member of the panel of British communist historians who remained in the party during the 1956 exodus. Why didn't he quit the party? Is he the new left?
Hobsbawm was an interesting man because his ideas were very close to many intellectuals of the new left. The question of why he did not quit the party is highly controversial, as some who left in 1956 attacked his decision. But I think he gave a very sincere answer: even though he felt the flaws and failures of communism and did not approve of the invasion of Hungary, he found no reason, psychological, emotional or political, to abandon his communist beliefs.
The period from 1956 to 1964 was the theoretical heyday of the new left movement in Britain, because both Williams' culture and society and Thompson's the formation of the working class in Britain were born during this period. So what does this period mean for the development of the new left? And what is the legacy?
This is indeed an important and creative stage in the history of the new left. In my opinion, this is one of the most important stages of development. The two books you just mentioned were both written by writers and teachers, and in the process of writing them, both authors were searching for their own theoretical development routes and engaged in debates. For the new left, the importance of these books lies in their impact on many on the left. As for the theoretical heritage of this stage, I would like to emphasize the following three points: promoting the birth of ethical reflection and criticism of marxism, Leninism and social democracy in the form of socialism; It promoted the birth of social criticism and radical cultural politics, which originated from the desire to reconstruct more modern and diversified socialist theories, rather than the promotion of leftist parties. This led to the emergence of a powerful critique of economic domination and collectivism under the centralized socialist system, which opened up space for the rise of a more individualistic and liberal spirit on the political stage of the British left.
We know that in the early 1960s, there was a split between the first generation of the new left represented by Thompson and the second generation led by Anderson. So what are the causes of the split?
Kenny: this very public debate, with Thompson on one side and Anderson and a few of his collaborators on the other, is actually the result of a lot of overlapping personal, political, and especially theoretical differences. Mr Anderson is much younger than Mr Thompson and, unlike him, much more influenced by continental marxism than by the traditions of the British left. After 1960, young students close to the new left were mostly skeptical of the humanitarian sentiments and political reformism advocated by the first generation of new leftists. These younger generations prefer a more rigorous and orthodox marxism that emphasizes theoretical analysis over political practice. Thompson was by no means the only first-generation new left to resent this rationalist turn, but he was the only one to speak out in his attacks on Anderson and the new left review's analysis of domestic and international politics. What Mr Thompson found most distasteful was the new left review's growing contempt for Britain's radical traditions, and a related tendency to see British culture as a hostile environment in which strict marxism could have no influence. He also questions the historical analysis of British social development by Anderson and his co-author Tom nairn, who argued that Britain remained the only country with an ancient aristocratic dictatorship because the ruling class managed to prevent the outbreak of open rebellion in the middle class. This idea was quite influential at the time.
It seems to me that after the split, the influence of the first new left seems to have been greatly compressed, and the second new left dominated. Am I right? Does this have anything to do with the atmosphere around the 1968 revolution?
As I have just mentioned, the debates and political planning associated with the first new left gave way after 1961 to the more theoretical and orthodox marxism favoured by the intellectual clique that rallied around the new left review. As a political movement, the new left also retreated from the public view of this period. So when the radicalism of 1968 reached European universities and Britain, the new left was unable to guide the radical cliques and blocs that had sprung up. Those around the new left review were involved in the student rebellion at the London school of economics, and the magazine took a more trotskyist line during this period. However, some members of the first generation of new leftists tried to reunite the two generations by drawing up a more radical political platform, the May Day declaration, which failed to capture the radicalism of the young students of the time and quickly disappeared.
After entering the 1980s, the British new left movement in fact came to an end. Does this have anything to do with the resurgence of neoliberalism? How do we understand the relationship between the new left movement and the new social movement that followed?
The relationship between the new left movement and neoliberalism is a controversial issue. My own view is that while some on the new left have been scathing about the impact of neoliberal ideas on British politics and policy, there are indirect links. This link can be traced in two ways. First, some new leftists deeply criticized some basic ideas of British socialism, such as the assumption of the central position of state power in socialist politics, the emphasis on collectivism and the value of the working class community, etc. This stimulation led some new leftists to praise the status and role of civil society in the future socialist liberation and encouraged some new leftists to make more positive comments on the more individualistic social culture of British capitalism. Second, and equally important, the new left launched a powerful theoretical attack on the limits of social and economic measures applied in the years after the second world war. Some thinkers on the new left were critical of the excessive bureaucracy that encouraged the new welfare state, while others were sceptical about the effectiveness of the Keynesian macroeconomic policies pursued by conservative and Labour governments in the 1950s and 1960s to revive Britain's economy. Both were central to the neoliberal criticism of Britain's economy and society in the 1970s. As the British economy entered recession and industrial conflict spread across the country, neoliberal thinkers began to move into the conservative party. That said, there are some similarities between neoliberalism and the new left, although there are also differences of principle. What really matters is that, unlike in the us, there is no significant shift from the new left to the neoliberal, dominant new right that dominated British politics in the late 1970s.
I noticed that in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Williams, Thompson, millebender and other members of the first generation of the new left died out. Later, British research on the new left movement began to appear. What's driving this kind of research? Was it linked to the subsequent political revival of the British Labour party?
It is true that around the mid-1990s there was some writing on the new left. But I'm not sure if it's a coincidence or a trend. One thing is certain, however, that John savile and Stuart hall and the participants of the new left movement that you mentioned all wrote interesting and important recollections or descriptions of the early stages of the new left movement, which stimulated research interest. Biographers and commentators of some of the leading new left thinkers often go back to the 1950s as a crucial stage in the intellectual development of Thompson, Williams and others. I suspect, however, that some young writers, such as myself, were heavily influenced by the reformist ideas that dominated the 1980s, when socialism was once again open to critical exploration and rethinking. This leads many of us to wonder about the early days when more unorthodox, creative ideas of socialism were in vogue.
Can you explain in detail why you chose to study the first generation of the new left?
Marxism Today magazine in the 1980 s of the reform thought has had a huge impact on me. On the left is thatcherism played lack the strength to strike back at that time, Marxism Today on socialism has adopted a more open, more diversified. To me, the reason why I chose this project is closely related to the advice of my doctoral supervisor professor David howell at the university of Manchester. He was an authority on the history of the British left, and thought that there was not enough research on the early new left at that time.
要想成绩好，英国论文得写好，51due代写平台为你提供英国留学资讯，专业辅导，还为你提供专业英国essay代写，paper代写，report代写，需要找论文代写的话快来联系我们51due工作客服QQ：800020041或者Wechat：Abby0900吧。
The British new left movement started in 1956, then split up in the mid-1960s, degenerating into a small group of intellectuals united around the new left review magazine, and came to an end after the 1970s. Although the new left as a political movement lasted for a short time, it still left some important indirect legacies to contemporary British politics. Since the early 1990s, research on the history of the new left has been on the rise.
Professor Kenny, you may not know that the new left movement in Britain has been a topic of great concern in Chinese academic circles in recent years. There are many reasons why Chinese academic circles pay attention to this topic. First of all, since the 1990s, Williams, Thompson and other contemporary British leftist thinkers have gained more and more theoretical influence in China. Chinese scholars have found in them a common experience: the new left movement. Second, as you know, since the early 1990 s, the academic circles have published some study of British new left movement, such as Lin Chun "British new left" and your "first generation of British new left", these works gradually entered the view of the Chinese academic circles, promoting our understanding of this movement. Finally, in the late 1990s, a group of scholars who called themselves the "new left" appeared in mainland China, which in some ways stimulated the desire of Chinese academic circles to understand the new left in Britain. However, in general, the understanding of the British new left movement in the Chinese academic community is superficial, and there are many mistakes. Could you first introduce the general definition of the British new left or the British new left movement to Chinese readers?
The new left movement was an ideological and political trend that was introduced to Britain from France and opposed to the two main left parties, labor party and British communist party. It is also, to a large extent, an intellectual movement that attracts intellectuals, scholars, artists, teachers and other professionals. Political publications Reasoner and Universities and Left Review are the main public spokesmen of the campaign. In its earliest days, many of the movement's members were either activists in the anti-nuclear movement that erupted in the 1950s or active participants in the political struggles within the Labour party. The early days of the movement focused on building new left discussion circles around the country. Later, the two magazines merged to form the new left review, which was originally edited by Stuart hall. But after hall resigned as editor of the new left review in 1961, the new left ceased to be a political movement and became a much smaller group of intellectuals centered around the new left review.
So, in your opinion, what are the differences between the new left and the traditional left?
In fact, if you compare the theoretical and political attitudes of the new left with those of the traditional left, the main differences can be seen: the new left opposes the centralized economic domination, political centralization and institutionalized hierarchy associated with the traditional left parties and their leadership traditions. Therefore, the new left thinkers pay attention to the praise of bottom-up autonomy, diversity and diversity, trying to prove that there are some things in socialism that are neglected but should actually be placed at the forefront of the political struggle of the left. The most striking difference, of course, is that the traditional left exists as a political party, whereas the new left does not. The new left has not become a party to campaign main benefit is that it makes creativity and original thought greatly spewing out, a disadvantage is that sports can't continue to survive, because the movement did not develop a system to support its continued development or to let it continue to exist mass base.
The exodus of intellectuals from the British communist party in 1956 was a prerequisite for the formation of a new left. So, in your opinion, could this wave of defections have been avoided at the time? Or, to put it another way, why did the new left fail to dominate the British communist party?
The red army's occupation of Hungary at the end of 1956, followed by a bloody crackdown on the Hungarian revolution, led to the withdrawal of almost a third of British communists. This is of course a major challenge to the authority and power of British communism, but it is important to note that only a small proportion of those who left the party joined the emerging new left. In addition, some gave up politics altogether, while others turned to the right and became fanatical anti-communists. So communists and ex-communists are suspicious of the new left as little more than a clique of intellectuals with dubious motives.
Hobsbbaum was the only member of the panel of British communist historians who remained in the party during the 1956 exodus. Why didn't he quit the party? Is he the new left?
Hobsbawm was an interesting man because his ideas were very close to many intellectuals of the new left. The question of why he did not quit the party is highly controversial, as some who left in 1956 attacked his decision. But I think he gave a very sincere answer: even though he felt the flaws and failures of communism and did not approve of the invasion of Hungary, he found no reason, psychological, emotional or political, to abandon his communist beliefs.
The period from 1956 to 1964 was the theoretical heyday of the new left movement in Britain, because both Williams' culture and society and Thompson's the formation of the working class in Britain were born during this period. So what does this period mean for the development of the new left? And what is the legacy?
This is indeed an important and creative stage in the history of the new left. In my opinion, this is one of the most important stages of development. The two books you just mentioned were both written by writers and teachers, and in the process of writing them, both authors were searching for their own theoretical development routes and engaged in debates. For the new left, the importance of these books lies in their impact on many on the left. As for the theoretical heritage of this stage, I would like to emphasize the following three points: promoting the birth of ethical reflection and criticism of marxism, Leninism and social democracy in the form of socialism; It promoted the birth of social criticism and radical cultural politics, which originated from the desire to reconstruct more modern and diversified socialist theories, rather than the promotion of leftist parties. This led to the emergence of a powerful critique of economic domination and collectivism under the centralized socialist system, which opened up space for the rise of a more individualistic and liberal spirit on the political stage of the British left.
We know that in the early 1960s, there was a split between the first generation of the new left represented by Thompson and the second generation led by Anderson. So what are the causes of the split?
Kenny: this very public debate, with Thompson on one side and Anderson and a few of his collaborators on the other, is actually the result of a lot of overlapping personal, political, and especially theoretical differences. Mr Anderson is much younger than Mr Thompson and, unlike him, much more influenced by continental marxism than by the traditions of the British left. After 1960, young students close to the new left were mostly skeptical of the humanitarian sentiments and political reformism advocated by the first generation of new leftists. These younger generations prefer a more rigorous and orthodox marxism that emphasizes theoretical analysis over political practice. Thompson was by no means the only first-generation new left to resent this rationalist turn, but he was the only one to speak out in his attacks on Anderson and the new left review's analysis of domestic and international politics. What Mr Thompson found most distasteful was the new left review's growing contempt for Britain's radical traditions, and a related tendency to see British culture as a hostile environment in which strict marxism could have no influence. He also questions the historical analysis of British social development by Anderson and his co-author Tom nairn, who argued that Britain remained the only country with an ancient aristocratic dictatorship because the ruling class managed to prevent the outbreak of open rebellion in the middle class. This idea was quite influential at the time.
It seems to me that after the split, the influence of the first new left seems to have been greatly compressed, and the second new left dominated. Am I right? Does this have anything to do with the atmosphere around the 1968 revolution?
As I have just mentioned, the debates and political planning associated with the first new left gave way after 1961 to the more theoretical and orthodox marxism favoured by the intellectual clique that rallied around the new left review. As a political movement, the new left also retreated from the public view of this period. So when the radicalism of 1968 reached European universities and Britain, the new left was unable to guide the radical cliques and blocs that had sprung up. Those around the new left review were involved in the student rebellion at the London school of economics, and the magazine took a more trotskyist line during this period. However, some members of the first generation of new leftists tried to reunite the two generations by drawing up a more radical political platform, the May Day declaration, which failed to capture the radicalism of the young students of the time and quickly disappeared.
After entering the 1980s, the British new left movement in fact came to an end. Does this have anything to do with the resurgence of neoliberalism? How do we understand the relationship between the new left movement and the new social movement that followed?
The relationship between the new left movement and neoliberalism is a controversial issue. My own view is that while some on the new left have been scathing about the impact of neoliberal ideas on British politics and policy, there are indirect links. This link can be traced in two ways. First, some new leftists deeply criticized some basic ideas of British socialism, such as the assumption of the central position of state power in socialist politics, the emphasis on collectivism and the value of the working class community, etc. This stimulation led some new leftists to praise the status and role of civil society in the future socialist liberation and encouraged some new leftists to make more positive comments on the more individualistic social culture of British capitalism. Second, and equally important, the new left launched a powerful theoretical attack on the limits of social and economic measures applied in the years after the second world war. Some thinkers on the new left were critical of the excessive bureaucracy that encouraged the new welfare state, while others were sceptical about the effectiveness of the Keynesian macroeconomic policies pursued by conservative and Labour governments in the 1950s and 1960s to revive Britain's economy. Both were central to the neoliberal criticism of Britain's economy and society in the 1970s. As the British economy entered recession and industrial conflict spread across the country, neoliberal thinkers began to move into the conservative party. That said, there are some similarities between neoliberalism and the new left, although there are also differences of principle. What really matters is that, unlike in the us, there is no significant shift from the new left to the neoliberal, dominant new right that dominated British politics in the late 1970s.
I noticed that in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Williams, Thompson, millebender and other members of the first generation of the new left died out. Later, British research on the new left movement began to appear. What's driving this kind of research? Was it linked to the subsequent political revival of the British Labour party?
It is true that around the mid-1990s there was some writing on the new left. But I'm not sure if it's a coincidence or a trend. One thing is certain, however, that John savile and Stuart hall and the participants of the new left movement that you mentioned all wrote interesting and important recollections or descriptions of the early stages of the new left movement, which stimulated research interest. Biographers and commentators of some of the leading new left thinkers often go back to the 1950s as a crucial stage in the intellectual development of Thompson, Williams and others. I suspect, however, that some young writers, such as myself, were heavily influenced by the reformist ideas that dominated the 1980s, when socialism was once again open to critical exploration and rethinking. This leads many of us to wonder about the early days when more unorthodox, creative ideas of socialism were in vogue.
Can you explain in detail why you chose to study the first generation of the new left?
Marxism Today magazine in the 1980 s of the reform thought has had a huge impact on me. On the left is thatcherism played lack the strength to strike back at that time, Marxism Today on socialism has adopted a more open, more diversified. To me, the reason why I chose this project is closely related to the advice of my doctoral supervisor professor David howell at the university of Manchester. He was an authority on the history of the British left, and thought that there was not enough research on the early new left at that time.
要想成绩好，英国论文得写好，51due代写平台为你提供英国留学资讯，专业辅导，还为你提供专业英国essay代写，paper代写，report代写，需要找论文代写的话快来联系我们51due工作客服QQ：800020041或者Wechat：Abby0900吧。
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます