The Left in Europe Since 1789 by David Caute

The Left in Europe Since 1789 Reviews

• 
  Titus Hjelm

  An old, but surprisingly smart history of the left--especially considering that the author was under 30 at the time of writing. It is a survey, but an analytical one, and written from a sympathetic perspective (although it is quite difficult to place the author's sympathies within the broad left). The book hangs on the definition of 'the left' based on the analytical distinction between 'popular sovereignty' and 'economic equality' as goals of the movement. Hence, this is not a history of socialism, but rather differentiates between the left of 1789 and later socialism and communism. Most importantly, the author shows well how 'the left' is a dynamic concept, changing with the circumstances (especially economic fluctuation and war). Finally, the book is an interesting document from history itself, from a time when socialism, even communism, were still real alternatives to capitalist hegemony.
• 
  Geoffrey Fox

  Reflecting on the confusion of aims and strategies of all the parties and movements calling themselves "Left" in Europe today, today I turned again to this little book with its capsule histories and profuse illustrations (engravings, photos, posters) of revolutionary movements from the French Revolution of 1789 to the mid-1960s. Caute's intention was evidently to rescue the notion of the Left from many misunderstanding and confusions, but he does not manage to come up with a concise, convincing definition of his own. He critiques descriptions such as anti-racism, anti-clericalism, pacifism, and social reformism because conservatives and even reactionaries may adopt similar positions (Bismarck and Napoleon III were reformists, etc.). Nor are the movements he considers Left always anti-authoritarian (remember Lenin's vanguard party) or democratic, in the sense of always accepting what the greater number of voices demand; he suggests that "'popular sovereignty' is preferable to 'democracy' as a term descriptive of the central creed of the Left" [p. 32], but that hardly solves the problem.
  I don't think there's any point in trying to define the Left, with clear delineations of what it includes or excludes; no definition — whether by Lenin, or Caute, or Hugo Chávez or anybody — will be accepted by everybody. The term originated from a vote in the assemblée nationale in Paris on September 11, 1789, where those opposed to a monarchical veto took seats to the left of the chairman; but those députés did not necessarily agree on anything else. Protest movements, then and now, are volatile and contradictory. What we can do, and what Caute's little book does in part, is describe some of them to find common characteristics and aspirations.
  Over 50 years ago attended an informal seminar with the very young David Caute (I was 5 years younger), discussing some of these same ideas. The controversies live on.