At the time he was taken seriously ill Neil Davidson was, rather typically, working on multiple new projects. We are extremely pleased to publish this book in which he responds to critics of his How Revolutionary were the Bourgeois Revolutions? (2012). As Neil notes in the text published here, Historical Materialism – as journal and conference – was a significant vehicle for his work and the debates around his major book.
Neil was working fast, trying to complete as many projects as his remaining time allowed him, and his text published here is quotation heavy. It is evident from editing this work that this was his working procedure; he structured his argument around citations, but there is no doubt that he would have trimmed at least some in a final version. In some parts, the manuscript I received was little but quotations. In section 3.2 of Neil’s essay, several paragraphs were repeated from earlier points in the text. These have been deleted. While His argument retains its sense, it may be more fragmentary, and transitions more abrupt, than is ideal. I’ve kept my interventions to a minimum, merely adding linking sentences or phrases. The second half of the text possessed footnotes, but no bibliography. With HM footnote style this has proved a challenge finding his sources. Where possible citations have been checked, but under conditions of pandemic ‘lock down’ this has been difficult and, not doubt, many errors remain. We felt it important to publish Neil’s final contribution to this important debate, so we have accepted that this book is necessarily imperfect. Page references in footnotes refer to the original contributions. We could have standardised them for this volume, but have decided to leave the contributions as they appeared. This also applies to Riley’s review, which was published in New Left Review without footnotes, as is often the wont of that journal, and we have reproduced it in that form.
As indicated, the current book was edited during the period of ‘lockdown’ for the Covid-19 pandemic and that has meant I have incurred even greater debts than usual in producing this volume. Unable to access a library, I have depended on friends and comrades to find sources and check quotations that weren’t among my own books. I am extremely grateful to Neil’s long-term partner Cathy Watkins who, at a very difficult time, supplied drafts of his text and responded to questions. Special thanks go to the authors: Dylan Riley, Heide Gerstenberger and Charles Post who kindly allowed their work to be republished in this volume and allowed Neil the last word, at least for now. Neil’s colleague Bridget Fowler supplied the Preface, reworking an earlier review of the book. I’m grateful for Bridget’s commitment and readiness to put other work aside.
Alex Anievas, Duncan Thomas of Haymarket, Pete Green, and Mike Haynes all checked material. Sebastian Budgen helped find people who could find other sources needed. Charlie Post is more than a contributor to this book. In this debate, Neil and Charlie sit on different sides, but that didn’t stop them being firm friends and comrades. While editing another of Neil’s unfinished projects, Jamie Allinson has been incredibly supportive.
Steve Edwards