Is it standard 20th century marxist drivel or something actually worthwhile?

>>24578874 (OP)
They're good if you want to interpret the world in the lens of ideology rather than individuals. It's more or less well documented (it includes tables and numbers iirc) but imo it doesn't give enough credit to the individual and assigns too much to abstract ideals

Hobsbawm is great. He has his lens and it's good and correct as far as it goes. Historians are like the blind faggots describing different parts of the elephant. Hobsbawm is a legs man.

>>24578874 (OP)
I was reading The Age of Extremes and I liked it. I wouldn't say it's standard Marxist drivel because he writes about how monstorusly absurd communism was and how most people in those countries didn't even believe in it. The fact that the ruined, rural, Eurasian hulk of the Tsarist Empire calling itself the USSR did look like an alternative to capitalism is like a historical accident that owed to various events like the Great Depression and the military role it played in World War II.

bump

>>24578874 (OP)
Why would you not read Braudel instead if you're a fuck tard and you think history operates on this scale?

Why would you not read Chris Hill if you're reading CPGB(h)?