H.M. Hyndman and the Intellectual Origins of the Remaking of Socialism in Britain, 1878–1881

In recent years, the historiography of late nineteenth-century British Socialism has reached a new level of sophistication. The determinism and essentialism that typified much of the work on the subject prior to the so-called linguistic turn in social history has been decisively dropped. This article, however, argues that the influence of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels still persists in two crucial respects. Firstly, it suggests that historians continue to take their lead from Marx in pinpointing the start of the Socialist movement; and second, it posits that historians also continue to follow Engels by describing the political beliefs of H.M. Hyndman as belonging to an intellectual tradition of Tory Radicalism. This article argues that, partly as a consequence of that first error, historians have overlooked the small but crucial burst of articles on the topic of Socialism published in the periodical press between 1878 and 1880. It also claims that, contrary to the historiographical consensus, Hyndman was not an ‘ex-Conservative’ or Radical of Tory inclination. It demonstrates, rather, that Hyndman’s ideological heritage was overwhelmingly Liberal. It situates Hyndman’s first article on Socialism against the anterior discussion in the periodical press. The article reveals how Hyndman’s intervention was indebted to the arguments previously advanced by J.S. Mill, Henry Fawcett, and William Cunningham. It posits, furthermore, that once it is recognised that the writings of Mill, Fawcett and other Liberals occupied a central place in Hyndman’s political imagination a number of other features of Hyndman’s political thought also fall into place

Communism · Historiography · Ideology · New Left · Political science · Politics · Populism · Socialism · Sociology · French Historical and Cultural Studies · Historical Economic and Social Studies · History · Law · Political Theory and Influence

• Between panacea and poison

  Hugo Bonin•Intellectual History Review•2020

  Add to list